Mark Stevens

Joe makes a very valid observation here. I don't know if there is any empirical evidence to support this, but I 100% believe a person's speech patterns and idiosyncrasies are a direct result of cultural and class structure influences. Words such as aight/alright, axed/asked, pacific/specific/, and even words such as ain't are spoken by specific types of people. As Joe mentioned, much of this is part of what people refer to as "Ebonics" but it is also common with lower class people versus middle and upper class people. In my hometown we have a fairly large specific Eastern European community. This is largely a Romanian population, but there are some other people who are part of this community who are not Romanian but probably in some form identify with the European members of the community. I've known many of these people for years and have went to school and knew many of these people in later life. I have never seen any of them adopt our idiosyncrasies such as pacific and axe or even ain't. I'm not saying it is unheard of, just in my personal experience it has never happened. I don't for a single moment believe the person in the video saying "axed me the question" is anything other than an American born in the South.

Good grief indeed Jim. According to Lee Harvey Oswald, he could speak Russian at the level equal to 1 year of schooling. Before ever setting foot in the Soviet Union, Oswald in some way learned how to speak Russian and stated so himself (and wrote it and spoke it as well). Are we to believe that*, as Jim Hargove tells us, merely because he refuses to believe it?

No ability at all...

I guess maybe there's some confusion regarding line of sight. Line of sight is not someones field of view. It's not the range with with they can rotate their head left and right or behind them, it's not the view of the Grassy Knoll or any other thing except the unobstructed view directly in front of him. I was trying to determine from his resting sitting position, what was directly in front of him. This is his line of sight. This line of sight was the Dal-Tex building. In his peripheral view he had the TSBD and by moving his head he could see all the positions you mention, it was not though his line of sight. So when he said he looked up, from his line of sight, he was looking up at the Dal-Tex. My point in doing that was to have verifiable proof that he was not looking up at the TSBD.

It's in context of the first page being seemingly everyone trying to "figure out" where he was sitting. Multiple people seem to express confusion over where he is sitting. I was giving what I believe to be his position to help those with any confusion, for the people who think he might have been somewhere else. I have sat in that spot, but I've only had an opportunity to go to Dealey Plaza twice (I did get film from inside the 6th floor though) and at the time I had not yet developed my Dal-Tex theory or really put a lot into Brennan's position. Honestly it may not have been the exact spot, since my beliefs weren't then what they are now. Regarding the 3rd row photo, the other view is also the same location. It is about 3-4 directly in front of and about 6-12 inches to the left of where Brennan was sitting. I believe it is a fairly accurate representation but I do plan on getting better photos when I return to Dealey. Basically just curious (since I do respect much of your work) if you agreed with my opinion or if it was something I should reconsider.

Again, this context you refer to isn't actually context, it's the belief in "Harvey & Leee." At least be honest when you say context, at the least tell us all what you really mean...which is "if you read Harvey & Lee you would know this is bs." That's an opinion, that's not actual context. Again, I believe you all's fervor to one up me has caused you to make another mistake, it was your "Harvey & Lee" compatriots who brought this up. Please, lecture them about which one it was and please try to all get on the same page. Then come back and preach to me about things I actually said. I was simply replying to their attempt to burn me with "common knowledge" and then use it in exactly the manner I was using. That's not a burn. In all honesty, since you all are the ones making repeated mistakes, maybe you should do some research. You all say different things about the multiple Oswald's, then tell me to do research. Curious, the last time you were at my house. Did I show you my research and what I've done/read/researched over the years? Not what I asked, I asked what any of that had to do with explaining what common knowledge meant (hint: nothing). I did make a mistake in referring to Ely as the interviewee though, my mistake and apologies there. I do, of course. I believe we all would, I believe you would like examples of how your work was "wrong" versus some guy saying get over it David, it's just wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe if some guy said you're wrong you'd just hang it up and retire. Maybe you'd want to know what he was talking about so you could determine if in fact you were wrong, and modify your argument as necesarry, or check to see if maybe he was the one wrong. In any event, you'd want me to not just explain that you are wrong, but to show and provide a rationale other than "we have evidence." My apologies, I read a lot and I went through a lot of school where I had to write a lot as well. I can speak more from the streets, if that would help you understand, dawg. The thing is, is that if any of that is actually true then you have no real standard of belief and you will literally believe anything because again I have to ask what evidence? Again, it's not I don't really care what you believe about me, nor am I trying to convince you about anything regarding myself because as much as you all might disagree, and enjoy attacking me, this isn't about me this is about John Kennedy being murdered. If I can somehow not attack you but instead your position why is it so hard for you to do the same for me? Is it because of my hostility? I'll continue to leash that, I worry it's getting out of control though. I'm pretty sure all I've asked you to do is support your position. Back up your claims. Stop saying "we gots evidents" (is correct spelling something I really like too?) Again, it's not to me it's dying. It's dying when you say a guy who did not attend Stripling is an eyewitness to Oswald attending Stripling. It dies when you say a guy who mistakenly says he taught Oswald in 1952 is used as an eyewitness to Oswald attending Stripling in 1954. It dies when you continue to ignore witness statements and reframe their actual words so they fit your theory. Schubert gives a different timeline, but because she's so "important" you say she was wrong about the time. She wasn't unclear though, she wasn't wrong, she wasn't mistaken. The boy she identifies as Oswald she saw in a time that puts him somewhere else. Nope, this doesn't matter to you though, because we can use her story if we can some details. Warren Commission much? You'd do well as one of their attorneys. "Well Mr. Belin, Mr. Brennan states he saw a guy in the Dal-Tex. I agree Mr. Josephs and that is damaging. Lets ignore that and focus on this other part that fits our theory." More information which in no way proves anything regarding Kudlaty, proves nothing in any way regarding Summers. Keep calling it context, maybe one day if you click your heels when you do it'll actually be true. Until then...it's just a pre-conceived notion. Prove me wrong. Tell me your not telling me that if I just believe in this story of two boys then Stripling will make sense. It won't though, it'll never change what Summers said, it'll never make Pitts a member of the school, it will never change the timeline Schubert provides. I gotta say, and I probably am biased on this one, but I did think that was at least slightly humorous and funnier than any of your attempts. I'm not a "cancel culture" person. Just because I disagree with one aspect of something about a person doesn't mean I burn all my CD's. Nugent for example is a freakin blow hard at best, but I still love his music. The same is true here, if I thought you said something funny I wouldn't write if off just because I think you are wrong about Stripling, or about "Harvey & Lee" in general. Truth be told, there are a variety of things you've done which I respect, I'm also sure you can tell funny jokes or otherwise be witty. With that respect in mind, I cannot fathom how practices of scrutiny which you apply to other stories and other evidence is not applied in this instance. It truly is mind boggling and I just cannot wrap my (apparently and maybe why I can't understand) feeble mind around it. I would correct your spelling of Brennan, maybe I'm just not "knowledgeable" or have the "proper context" to understand why it was spelled that way, so I figured I wouldn't embarrass myself, again. I gotta say though David, if anyone with eyes can see it then there are some blind people on that thread. Since, you know, more than 1 seems to not be sure about where Brennan is sitting. The main reason I provided the images all in one picture, was to just show it all in a concise manner without hogging bandwidth to show something anyone with eyes could see. I also wasn't looking for any "atta-boys" which at this point seems to be the only reason you have an interest in JFK research, so other people can say "way to go David, you sure are the neatest!" Even if I solved the JFKA all by my lonesome (which would never be done, nor am I even trying to do) I wouldn't want some kind of glory, I would gladly say I couldn't have done it without David Josephs so you could get all the "atta-boys" you'd ever need. I was just giving my personal opinion I wasn't really trying to solicit any feedback outside of my specific question to you on that thread. Which at this point I realize was pointless, since I don't believe in "Harvey & Lee" then any conclusion I make will be wrong since it doesn't include that "context." Curious, is James File context as well? Do I have to understand how those puzzle pieces fit to understand Stripling? What about the fact that both Jackie and Greer shot JFK? What aspects of that context do I need to apply to Stripling?

David, On one of the pages of this thread I have a couple images of Dealey Plaza with a line drawn from where Brennan's position was and what his line of sight would have been (facing forward) in this position. Based on that position, and what I think his overall "posture" is in the Zapruder film, I do believe he had to twist his body to see the vehicle. I did a sort of experiment where I sat on my coffee table (didn't have a wall which would work) and tried to look at something over my left shoulder. What I found was that I need to place my hand down (like he has in the Zapruder image but not in the Bell image) to give myself a little more leverage to twist fully and get the required view. If you could, look at that and let me know your thoughts on where I place Brennan on the wall and what I believe his line of sight to be, as well as my little "experiment" above. You should also try sitting and looking over your shoulder. See how far you can pivot before you have to place your hand down for some extra leverage.

You guys.... Seriously, it seems like you have this fervor to one up me at any cost and in doing so mistakes like Sandy's and Jim's are made, as well as the mistake you just made. I wasn't "claiming victory in our debate about the Stripling evidence." I've proven on multiple occasions now, that you have not debated my points or arguments I made. Even if I were right, how could I claim victory on something which never occurred? I wouldn't stoop so low. I might say you all avoid to actually discuss the points, but I would never state I won a debate I didn't win just because the other guy didn't show up. That's not a victory. My "claim of victory" regarded a specific post where you were wrong multiple times. I used multiple examples to not just explain that you were wrong, but to demonstrate and prove it as well. I mean anyone can say they caught a fish that big, but how many times do they actually show the fish? Since you "closely scrutinized" my position, and you also created an entire topic dedicated to "a rebuttal to me" (as if this is somehow about me) you obviously read my points on Kudlaty (geez I even used the actual words from that post to correct you misrepresenting my position in the "victory" post I mention above). It's clear to you what my position is regarding Kudlaty, and if it isn't then you are simply admitting that you didn't actually read what I said, but you knew the "bullet points" (which is ironic since the points about Kudlaty are actual bullet points) and you figured you could take me to task based on the summary of my points which you thought you knew. The issue is...is that all "critics" aren't the same. My points about Stripling may not be someone else's (I honestly don't follow this enough to know what someone else's specific points are other than general disbelief of the theory) and when you sweep us together under the same heading you do yourself, and us all, a true disservice. Since you've admitted you don't actually know what my position on Kudlaty is (even after that close scrutinizing). Maybe you should also tighten your belt, and head over to my topic and actually discuss the points I made. I know...I know you made that rebuttal and all, but since I've proven that you didn't actually address my position(s) and you've now admitted you don't know what my position is...I think it would behoove you to do so. Also, you keep making this about me (while complaining to moderators when someone does anything remotely near the same to you) and continue to overtly and passive-aggressively attack me. Could you please stop doing so, and make your posts about the evidence or my position? Please stop attacking my mental state, writing ability, thinking ability, etc.. As you've mentioned before, this is a clear violation of the rules. While I haven't reported you, it is bothersome and unnecessary and I would appreciate it if you would discontinue said behavior in the hopes of clearer lines of dialogue and discourse and the ability to focus on the points being made and not the person making them. Thanks

First off, I'm not your buddy, pal. Also, I've been meaning to ask this...but are you familiar with the "Allegory of The Cave?" What exactly was the blank? What I'm thinking here is that your reply was not in context to my reply. Or, your truth negates my point because Oswald didn't....wasn't....couldn't have.... That's probably how I'm firing blanks, because your truth is the truth and anyone not on board just doesn't get it. In any event you guys are always, literally always saying this type of thing, but again and again you fail to provide any context, any explanation, any facts which might help support your position. No...instead you stick out your tongue and say "neener neener Mark's wronnnggggg...allllll the critics are just wronggggggg." Repetition doesn't make it true. It is made true by providing context, examples, and showing how my analysis, points, and firing is off the mark. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe in an event such as the assassination of a President we should use school yard tactics and antics to get our points across. It does at least appear to me as though we should have a better standard. While we surely do not have to enforce an absolute legal courtroom standard for evidence and for "cross examination" of said evidence. We at the least should in a reasonably professional and adult manner make attempts to scrutinize and uphold information to high standards. I mean, this is the murder of a President after all. If we want to be taken serious, maybe we should act serious. So let's examine our critic's arguments, let's show their flaws. Let's not just say, you're wrong buddy. Kinda like when Norwood was wrong, and was firing blanks. I copied his words and I copied my words. I placed them side by side. By doing so, I proved that what he said was wrong. Simple. Give that a whirl. Or you could just neener neener me again. Or, you could answer one of the many questions I never asked, instead of actually answering the 6 or so I did. So instead of dumping on whatever that is about Ely, and how it somehow explains the definition of common knowledge or even pertains to what I was talking about...why not instead lace your boots, tighten your belt, and make some attempt to answer my actual questions without trying to be clever and snarky, without putting words in my mouth, without dumping other puzzles on the one that already is on the table and without answering questions I never asked. I guess the ball is truly in your court. ***I figured I should add this in the event anyone is not a South Park fan. "I'm not your buddy, pal" was a humorous reference and not a dig of some kind at Josephs.***

The absolute irony of this is that in your overzealous urge to zing it to ole Mark, you have actually zung (zung?) it to yourselves. You have clearly provided examples of actual common knowledge. While you try to misrepresent my point and make it: This is in no way what I was saying, and you absolutely know this. You just wanted to try to be witty and snarky, instead you have proven my point. Multiple people within Oswald's squadron, namely most of them, were aware of Oswald's Russian "abilities." This fact makes that particular situation common knowledge. So, when many or most of the members of Oswald's squad seen and heard him speaking Russian, this made it common knowledge. When 3 people out of possibly thousands stated that Oswald attended Stripling, this wasn't common knowledge. Since most or many students and faculty have no inkling of this event, it is not common knowledge. Maybe next time you'll actually show me a thing or two. Until then...

I might believe you, if you took the time to actually closely scrutinize my work. Like I do, I will demonstrate how you are wrong by referring to and using specific examples of you being wrong. I'm actually participating in that thread. I've actually demonstrated by using examples where exactly Brennan was sitting and what exactly his line of sight was from that position. While you lecture me about "close scrutiny" maybe you just pay average attention. You don't even need to closely scrutinize the thread to know the participants, just pay average attention. I actually have learned a great deal, nothing in the way of whatever you are trying to apply it to, but I did learn things as they applied to Brennan. Wait...do you mean I have to put Brennan's comments in the "bigger picture" and take that into context to determine if Oswald attended Stripling? First, since the definition of bona-fide is genuine or real, how exactly is Pitts a real eyewitness who identified Oswald as a student of Stripling (getting real loose with the definitions now in a final attempt to hold on to these "witnesses") when he didn't attend at the same time? While you try to be vague about "identifying Oswald as a student at Stripling," the reality as actually promoted by you all is Oswald attended at a very specific time, September-October 1954. You're disregarding bona-fide statements made by these people and are instead warping them to fit into your pet theory. The fact is that Schubert doesn't match your time frame. So you say she is mistaken so she can continue to be used in your pet theory. The bona-fide...err genuine, real, actual thing she said doesn't match the bona-fide story you are telling. Instead of addressing this. literally at all, you just ignore it and say she's a witness. If she saw another boy in another month, she didn't witness Oswald. Note...my analysis... Ah yes, the real crux of the matter. Here...put these glasses on...now what does it look like? That's just not how it works, you don't make a conclusion and then interpret all the evidence based on that determination. I never lead anyone astray. You all continually lead astray when you misrepresent what the witnesses actually said so the fit your story. Their actual words do not fit your story. I didn't set a legal standard of evidence. If this is absurd then I'm sorry, I simply don't care. I'm not going to water down legitimate techniques for gathering evidence and questioning the validity thereof because it's too tough for you. If the evidence doesn't fit you must acquit. It's not my criteria you have a problem with it's just....criteria. I'm sorry you feel like the evidence doesn't meet legitimate standards, but we can't lower them for you. Huh? Don't get me wrong, I grew up a huge fan of Matlock, but even as a child I saw in what silly manner the drama unfolded. So you can keep making false assumptions about me and attacking me (I wish I wasn't so biased, maybe I could stop doing that to you) but you clearly are misrepresenting my position and what I've said so you can "debunk" that position which doesn't even exist, instead of debunking what I actually wrote. Basically, the exact thing you did in your "rebuttal." For instance (go search my post yourself and see, I was going to screenshot and post each search result 0 but I just didn't feel it was necessary, it's obvious he isn't being truthful) The word judge is mentioned 0 times. The word attorney is mentioned 0 times. The word lawyer is mentioned 0 times. The word court is mentioned 4 times, each in reference to basketball courts. Here again, I used specific examples to prove you are wrong. Not once do I make even a passing reference to a courtroom situation. I don't know why you would say that when it isn't true. Here are examples of your flawed methodology in discussing the two most important Stripling eyewitnesses, Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert: Again, specific examples to prove you are wrong... Holy acknowledgement of statements Batman! Based on his confusion, no he is not persuasive in his recall. Don't get me wrong, like I've stated before I do believe Kudlaty gave records pertaining to Oswald to the FBI. I don't believe those records reflected him attending Stripling. I'm sorry, but Kudlaty's speculation (he just "had to" attend) doesn't persuade me. Never mind his confusing and possibly contradicting statements regarding the records. Another opportunity to use specific examples to demonstrate that you are wrong? Oh....joy (in a Stimpy voice).\ At no point does Kudlaty comment on his grades, and makes it clear that he cannot: This is from my transcript, but this is somewhere around 7:51 of Part 2. Of course that point isn't covered in my "critique," it never happened. I guess this is more of that context I need to apply. Again, all those questions you assign to me are actually discussed by Kudlaty and Armstrong, all I do is discuss the details of the speculation: There's a lot more of that kind of speculation, but again it's not from me. Again, this isn't some "pop culture terminology" this is how investigations unfold, this is how credibility is determined. Whatever it means to you is inherently meaningless. While she recalls a cocky boy, she also recalls a quiet timid boy. So which is he, cocky boys aren't quiet and timid. Contradictions, which I guess I am ignoring. Schubert recalled a boy in months that don't match the story you are telling. Contradictions, which I am ignoring. Schubert's recollection of a boy walking home at lunch is all she has. She believes the boy she saw was Oswald. Those are facts. You can reframe them so they fit your theory, but those are the simple facts. It's actually not. It's light years away from anything you will accept. I have written no "set of question that an eyewitness would be incapable of answering." I can't really demonstrate this without copying and pasting my whole post, and that would just be rude. Suffice it to say what I actually did was ask you to explain how Summers was a witness with a conflicting and contradicting timeline, you agreed he shouldn't be used based on those inconsistencies. I pointed out what the witnesses actually said, and asked you to explain how that fit into how you were twisting them to fit your theory. Again, I have proven that you are wrong regarding my assessment of Kudlaty. I very much did examine all of the details of Kudlaty's testimony. I also...(oh joy) just realized I have yet another opportunity to use a specific example to prove you are wrong. I "sidestepped" nothing sir: Based on his overall confusion and possible contradictions, I do not find him persuasive. Don't get me wrong, I believe he gave something to the FBI, it just wasn't records saying Oswald attended Stripling. While I really only proved you wrong again because you said this earlier, I'm going to use it in an unashamed attempt to "inflate my numbers." Again, this is just the threshold for evidence. It's not mine, or some other critics, or the Education Forums...it's just what you normally apply to evidence which for some reason you don't now. I may have asked hypothetical questions, since you are unable to provide examples (might have to address something I actually said if you did) I'm not entirely sure. What I do know I asked is how witness that directly contradict your theory somehow are witnesses. That's not hypothetical (well, I guess since Stripling is make believe it kinda is), that's just an answer you are unable to answer honestly. You've definitely done a pretty excellent job explaining stuff and things and repeating the words bias and failed to convince and yadda yadda yadda...but you've failed to provide literally a single example of anything you claim. So you make claims, but you don't make points which can't be refuted or even arguments which pertain to what I've actually said. Here's what can't be refuted though.... I continue to refute you, Stripling...whatever this is. I continue to use specific examples to not only "point out" and "explain" my points and how you are wrong but to demonstrate and prove it as well. In this thread alone, I used specific examples four times to demonstrate the fact that you are wrong. Feel free to tighten your belt and head on over and closely scrutinize my analysis. Maybe you can make another new topic where you actually reply to me this time.

While I haven't taken any kind of tally, you are likely at least in the ball park. As I mentioned to you and Sandy before, this is kinda why we all are here. Things don't add up and because those things don't add up we ask questions. We can't ourselves then answer questions with things which don't add up. When people do this, it should be examined and questioned. It's not within me where it is dying. It is just dying. It died within me the first hour I spent researching the claims. The problem is that what you call context is actually you referring to pre-conceived notions and looking at the Stripling evidence with the belief that the events of "Harvey & Lee" are true. As much as you continue to claim this, and claim I don't understand puzzles pieces (which literally line the walls of my house) you are just pushing me to look at this with the belief that "Harvey & Lee" is true. Even if I believed "Harvey & Lee" I would dismiss everything related to Stripling because it doesn't add up. The fact of all of this is I do not need Stripling to exist, you do. You have to look at the evidence with "Harvey & Lee" colored glasses, I mean in the proper context, for it to make sense and to fit into this bigger puzzle. I don't have to because Stripling didn't happen, there is and never was a government program which used the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald and merged it with the identify of Harvey Lee Oswald. There is no context to take into account, there is no bigger picture. That picture, that context, that pre-conceived notion with which you all have to consider before weighing the validity of Bobbie Pitts' statements for instance, is entirely your own, and entirely in your all's own heads. Cool story bro. None of that though has any relation, any bearing, or any impact on Stripling and whether Oswald attending Stripling. Those are pieces to an entirely different puzzle, which you then dumped on my table and now I have to separate them before I can finish my previous puzzle. That wasn't your intention though, somehow dumping that puzzle on top of the first one helps me figure out the first one. Right. Translation: You really showed Mark the business there David (although I won't respond directly to him), here's some other unrelated stuff. That'll really zing him! How about it. Oh, dumped another puzzle on the one I was already doing. I guess this other puzzle somehow also helps me complete the first one. But, since I'm here, this does sound awfully similar to another boy... I know, right. Curious how the government (can't do nuffin' right!) planned to convince everyone these two boys with a foot difference in height were the same person, or when he got his growth spurt which put him at the same basic height. I'd hate to get smacked in the face with any...contradictions. Oh, yet another puzzle dumped on, I don't know how I will ever finish the first puzzle now. There's like (I'm guessing these are at least 1,000 piece puzzles) 4,000 pieces from multiple puzzles. David's right, I can't make sense any of this now. What you're doing here (and below), is another one of those things that exist only in you all's own heads. What you are doing is not science. It is not legitimate photo analysis. That is not the legitimate height represented in the photo. It is also not legitimate anatomy, each of those pictures represent different poses and some are standing erect, sitting erect, and slouching. Each impacts the shape of a person's shoulders. Last, but definitely not least, those fancy lines in absolutely no manner depict, are representative of, or are caused by his skeletal shape or structure. This junk pseudoscience you are trying to apply here is down right laughable. You don't have the training, much less the actual information required to even make the photographic analysis and your "skeletal analysis" is flat out wrong. Dude, did you just dump another puzzle on top of the one I was working on? Very rude, that's like 5 puzzles at this point all dumped on another. Can I finish one first? Preferably the box I originally opened, and not the ones you keep trying to force me to do. At this point though if I could just complete one.... Ah, a semi-reply to me from good Jim. About as direct as it's going to get I would guess. In any event, as I have not only explained but also demonstrated by providing examples of what Norwood stated and by providing examples of what I stated, Norwood didn't debunk anything at all. How do you debunk Summers saying 1952 and you all saying 1954? You can't debunk that. That is just the fact of what Summers said. How do you debunk Schubert saying he attending in December-January and you all saying he attended in September-October? You can't debunk that. That is just the fact of what Schubert said. How do you debunk me without even replying to the topics I discussed? Maybe he attempted to debunk some other "critic." It sure wasn't me though. I've proved this through demonstration and by providing specific examples, to literally each of his "debunking" points. Again Jim Hargrove, you could easily take a swing. I'm sure you're done running that errand you had to run for Armstrong which kept you from replying previously. Tighten that belt up and head on over, rip that nonsense to shreds. I'll wait.

I ride, but I've never been to Sturgis. We have a fairly large annual rally in my hometown. It was canceled this year. I'd like to go to some of the the larger rallies, looks like it will still likely be a couple of years before I have a chance though.

Since multiple aspects of the "Harvey & Lee" story is being questioned on multiple threads, Jim felt it necessary to remind forum users of what exactly is being refuted. Tony Krome has done a great job of highlighting interesting details regarding Beauregard: Tony has done an equally great job highlighting interesting anomalies regarding Stripling and Thomas Place: I have also (in my humble opinion) done a great job of highlighting interesting anomalies regarding Stripling eyewitnesses and the associated reporting: So while we can continue to create new threads in a bid to push other relevant information out of sight (sliding anyone?) while avoiding all legitimate discussion of the topic(s) which have already been presented, we can't change the fact that a little bit more of "Harvey & Lee" dies every day. Regardless of anyone's obstination, and refusal to release grasp on the necrotic limbs which are the Stripling and Beauregard tales, evidence continues to come to light which seriously questions and negates the "facts" as presented by Armstrong and team.

I've spent some considerable time trying to determine where Brennan was and what his line of sight was. I've come to the personal conclusion that Brennan was not directly facing the TSBD but was instead directly facing the Dal-Tex. The TSBD was clearly in his line of sight, but was not immediately in front of him and the building as well as the "snipers nest" was to his left. While I'm not able to speculate on his WC testimony, I believe it's evident the information he gave during the testimony is not completely accurate. Not often mentioned is the fact that Brennan had considerable health problems after the assassination: This may have been related to his sandblasting accident. I'm searching, but I doubt there's much information out there about that event. He also spent considerable time in therapy: I bet he was obsessed with that fear, I wonder what the co-conspirators of Kennedy's Assassination were afraid he saw? https://ibb.co/q7dM38T https://ibb.co/pRfGXxb This is all fairly rudimentary, but it is a collection of some of the things I have which not only show where Brennan was sitting, but what his relative view was from this position as well. Next time I'm in Dealey I plan on gathering more in this area, but that will be some time. The various assassination video stills show where Brennan was sitting. The WC recreation is included to show that the WC placed him in the entirely wrong position and that by doing so they changed his entire perspective. The views with the yellow lines denote where he was sitting and what direction he was immediately facing. The Plaza diagram with the fountain corner also overlays this perspective and his general FOV. The other shots are to and from this basic location as well as a shot of the spot Brennan was sitting in. I think it's clear where exactly Brennan was sitting and which building he was immediately facing. Now I guess the question is, did he see everything he claims in the building directly in front of him or did he witness those actions in the building to his left? https://ibb.co/BNgRRv3 Does that look and sound like someone looking at the TBSD from Brennan's position? Personally, I don't think so.

Jeremy, Super-duper thanks for tha... Nevermind, I can't even pull myself to do something that silly. In any event, at this point we're both just wasting our breath. The echo chamber has been sealed, no sounds from outside can be allowed in. It's clear to me the team has launched a concerted effort to ignore me and literally anything I say to avoid bringing attention to the points I am making. To support this theory, simply look at the threads and associated pattern. On the same day they each stopped replying, at basically the same time. They've all talked around me or flat out ignored me. I guess it's because I'm so threatened by the truth. 🤷‍♂️

My take on that is it was a ploy to try to get him to speak. I feel at the moment it was likely assurance to Brennan that they only wanted to hear his story and not go after him regarding anything he might say "now" or then. Basically if it comes out that he "lied" under oath to the WC they wouldn't penalize him. Why else would he need any immunity?

I think it is incredibly interesting that Hargrove will quote a post talking about me, and he himself will talk about me but will not actually discuss the topics I've posted, even after explicitly stating he would. Also interesting is the fact that Hargrove makes the statement "even though they cannot produce a single direct refutation of it. Not one!" he knows this is untrue and hence he won't put my name in. Since Mark has clearly shown that Pitts for instance did not attend Stripling, made no mention of Stripling and is therefore not a witness to Oswald attending Stripling, what he has shown would be a direct refutation. Now Hargrove and other "Harvey & Lee" supporters can only state that even though he's not an actual Stripling witness, he still kinda is because he mentions the same house other people with other erroneous stories state. Since two people with anomalous stories state the same house, we should ignore the anomalies and focus on the same house. With this in mind, Hargrove will not even address me by name. Instead, in a reply to statements about me I am "critics." He does this, because I'm very threatened by the truth. No, your best bet would be to tighten your belt and actually defend your position. Don't post yet another summary of the evidence. Show us how it is in fact evidence. Don't just post the articles again. Explain the provenance of their reporting. Explain how they prove Oswald attended Stripling. Don't school us again on the fact that they exist. If my above suggestion is too challenging, or something you are otherwise unable or unwilling to do, maybe quicker to the point refutations would be more your style. Something like this: (my comments in red) I guess those weren't as quick and to the point as I'd thought they would be. In any event, it shouldn't be hard to do that thing you keep saying...and that's prove your argument. At least provide reasonable suspicion. No matter how many times you remind us that the articles exist, no matter how many times you say that the Stripling statements mean something, none of it will ever be proof that Oswald attended Stripling. In light of the facts of your evidence, nothing you've presented has even created reasonable suspicion. I won't be surprised when you say nothing because there is nothing you can say. The best you will ever do is repeat yourself "once again" because you can't prove anything, you can just say you have "proof."

Richard, 90 yards was from shooter to Kennedy: 93 feet was from shooter to Brennan: As I mentioned, I don't get the same impression from his statements. He clearly references standing on the steps of the building he saw the shooter in and they don't have to lead him to the TSBD. He makes plenty of clear references to the TSBD and seeing a person in the window. In other statements though he does seem to suggest seeing almost the same thing in a window of the Dal-Tex. Not only in reference to a potential shooter but to the boys in the windows below. His statements regarding the description of the building are also of great interest. I would recommend re-reading all of his testimony again. It's been at least 15 years since I read it all and it was refreshing to read it again this week. At the moment, I believe he saw something similar in both buildings. I'm going to try to flesh it out in relation to actual facts, as well as beliefs and theories I have and see where it leads.

My apologies, I did not intend to imply that I believe aliens are living on Earth, or have even actually made contact. I was just saying if aliens do exist, I don't know if I trust their motives for exploration. It might just be to see what's out there, or it could be reasons that aren't inherently nefarious but if say it was for survival, and we stood in the way of that... Think of when "explorers" in human history made contact with "primitive" civilizations. How'd those situations turn out? As far as your second question, yes I do believe any real aliens would be more of a danger to the planet than those men. Don't get me wrong, I believe in their own ways they've each brought great harm, but an alien species possessing technology we can't understand could very well end us all in some fairly devastating and imaginative ways and quite possibly in the "blink of an eye." Again, while I do believe in alien existence in this vast universe and I do believe some possible sightings and contact situations are of great interest, I do not believe aliens are living on Earth in any capacity, much less to colonize the planet.

I also have a long interest in astronomy and I take my telescope out as often as possible. I've never really had "good skies" though. I can't wait to set up away from civilization and light pollution. I do believe in the existence of aliens. Not so much due to "Earthly" events, but more due to my general beliefs as they relate to the cosmos. I'm distrusting of alien contact though. Like many others, I believe if aliens are moving though the universe then they are likely doing so for specific reasons. I don't think they are looking for another buddy to cruise around Jupiter, or go mudding on Pluto. I believe instead they would have some type of agenda. People could very well be in the way of plans as they relate to those agendas. Colonizers is how I believe they are most frequently described. Think not only of human history and colonization and the associated horrors, but colonization in nature as well.

As stated in my original reply that I made without reading your post (more passive aggressive barbs from Norwood). While you posted a lengthy post, almost none of it pertained to what I wrote. I made this clear when I quoted your sections and responded, something you still refuse to do. If I responded to your quote above with cookbook recipes and said it was a rebuttal, would it make it so? What if it was 4,300 words? Does it being so big (that's what she said) mean something? So again, since you continue to miss it... Your points... (1) Newspaper Coverage of Stripling: - While I did discuss "newspaper coverage of Stripling," nothing you mention in your "rebuttal" actually pertains to what I stated. "At no point do I fault the paper for not interviewing other teachers or students." You did not respond to my "criticism" of the newspaper coverage of Stripling. You did not respond to literally anything I stated regarding newspaper coverage of Stripling/Oswald. (2) Robert Oswald: - While I did discuss Robert Oswald, I made no references to his book which is what almost every word in this "rebuttal" pertains to. You did not respond to my "criticism" of Robert Oswald and how his statements are portrayed in "Harvey & Lee." You did not respond to literally anything I stated regarding Robert Oswald. (3) Videotaped Interview with Frank Kudlaty: - Much of this is you asking questions like "why would the FBI go around collecting records" as well as pointing out how the FBI was desperate to cover up Stripling. The only remotely relevant comments to things I actually said was how my "criticism" is just biased speculation when in fact it was Armstrong and Kudlaty who did the speculation. When even that missed the mark. I didn't speculate about was was in the records. Armstrong and Kudlaty did, I discussed what came out of their speculation. I also made these key points regarding Frank Kudlaty: I pointed out how many of his comments contradict one another and how in the end he paints a confusing picture of what exactly he gave to the FBI. You did not respond to literally anything I stated regarding Frank Kudlaty. (4) Videotaped Interview with Fran Schubert: - This one was at least nearly on topic to what I stated.Your summation of "The critic fails to offer a persuasive rationale for why Schubert’s recall would be inaccurate on these three points." is inherently flawed. I did offer persuasive rationale and any lawyer or judge would agree. It is you with your inherent bias and belief in "Harvey & Lee" who believes it was not persuasive. That's ok though, we all are entitled to our opinion. The fact is that in any legitimate situation where Schubert gave "testimony" to these "facts." I, or anyone would be allowed to ask "how did you know the boy was Oswald." If the reply was "I passed him in the halls," we would then be allowed to follow with "how did you know the boy in the halls was Oswald?" If you don't believe this is a basic component of establishing evidentiary fact then I urge you to call a local attorney and ask. Schubert would have to prove she knew the boy was Oswald and not a guy she saw on TV who looked like this kid who went home for lunch when she was in the 7th grade. Asking these questions is basic investigation and not some unreasonable, unheard of thing. While as you state, she does establish the timeline as "clearly 1954-55" and I do agree. It's still entirely different months. To obfuscate this fact, you mention that she might have been mistaken while lambasting me for saying she is mistaken. To further prove my point, this is one of your misleading comments which caused me to reply, and is a legitimate talking point repeated by all H&L supporters on this forum: The above is you stating that my contention is that Stripling witness are wrong. This below is you stating Stripling witnesses are wrong: I didn't say she was wrong. I said she was quite certain in her recollection regarding months because she states the boys wore jackets because it was cold. This isn't a mistake on her part. She clearly does not back up Oswald attending Stripling for the months stated in "Harvey & Lee" and there's nothing you can do to change that. You can try to say she was wrong, but remember, that is you saying she's wrong, not me. (5) Doug Gann: - The same basic truth for Schubert applies to him....The fact is that in any legitimate situation where Gann gave "testimony" to these "facts." I, or anyone would be allowed to ask "how did you know the boy was Oswald." If the reply was "I saw him shooting baskets" we would then be allowed to follow with "how did you know the boy in the shooting baskets was Oswald?" If you don't believe this is a basic component of establishing evidentiary fact then I urge you to call a local attorney and ask. Gann would have to prove he knew the boy was Oswald and not a guy he saw on TV who looked like this kid who used to shoot baskets at Stripling. Asking these questions is basic investigation and not some unreasonable, unheard of thing. So while your rebuttal attacks my ability to question his recall, that's not what I'm doing. I'm asking how he established this identity, a basic investigative question asked by any reasonably investigator or lawyer, etc... (6) Bobby Pitts: - Pitts did not attend the school and makes no reference to Oswald attending Stripling, period. There's literally nothing to rebut here. He is not a witness to Oswald attending Stripling and there's nothing you can do to change that. You can state his statements still mean something because it fits your preconceived notion that Oswald lived in that house, but nonetheless Pitts is not a witness to Oswald attending Stripling. (7) Mark Summers: You, like I, agree that Summers is not a witness. Are you taking that back now? (8) Ricardo Galindo: - Ah...the "capstone." When we take the above facts into consideration, and measure with the fact that Armstrong not only made public pleas for information regarding Oswald in Fort Worth (including schools attended, etc..) on the radio, in the newspaper, and then extensively searched yearbooks and school annuals for teachers and students with any knowledge of Oswald at Stripling and only returned the names above. Add in the story of Beulah Bratton (I think I got the name right) Galindo's statement of "common knowledge" can hardly be true when Armstrong himself has proven there is no knowledge. No one came forth. He found literally nothing in the yearbooks and annuals. I really don't know why I had to make almost the exact same reply on this disrespectful topic of a post. I don't know why Norwood and other H&L supporters constantly state "Mark said" instead of just quoting me and letting you, the reader, see what I said. This is all rhetorical and facetious, I know exactly why and I think many readers know why as well. So of your 8 "points of rebuttal": 2 points do not discuss anything I stated at all 3 points only marginally (I mean like 3-5 words out of 2-3 paragraphs) touch on anything I actually stated 1 point we agree on 2 points are literally unarguable by H&L I'll give you Gann and Kudlaty as witnesses. This leaves you with 2 people with the flimsiest stories connecting Oswald to Stripling. This still means that 5 points of your rebuttal had nothing to do with my topic. That sir, is how it is not a genuine rebuttal. The only thing it shared with my "screed" is the names of the people involved. Again I plead, if I'm wrong, show how...prove how. Give examples, use crayons if you have to, sometimes I can't see the forest because of the trees. Saying "you're wrong" doesn't prove anything. ETA: Sections of this might actually be confusing because I didn't do enough to differentiate his points and my replies to them. My apologies for the possibility of more "incomprehensible critique."

My impression of Brennan's statements differs, at least slightly, from other impressions. I think it's possible he saw something in both windows and his mind is conflating the scenes and memories. This might explain why he had issues with the window description and issues with identifying the boys. This may not all flesh out, but at the moment I think it's possible.

Any explanation for why the missing "tooth" is a different shade than the black around it? Any explanation for why the "gap" of his "missing tooth" extends out over his bottom lip? Any explanation for the photos, and how both boys wore the same shirt that day? Any explanation for who sat in for who when taking pictures? Personally, I think he has something in his mouth. This is evidenced by the fact the "missing tooth gap" is a different shade of black than the other black shadows in his mouth. Additionally, the "gap" is slightly overhanging his bottom lip, you can clearly see it in the last blown up photo.

This is a gross misrepresentation of my argument and Norwood knows this. He intentionally does this so people don't see what I actually said. This is why he created this thread, so he can mislead people on this thread and they have less access to the real debate. This is why he refuses to answer my questions and instead misleads and misrepresents. Here is my summary, or "capsule about Stripling." Do these actual words from my topic match the gross misrepresentation of my position given by Norwood? You be the judge. Ask yourself why he behaves in the manner he does. Again.... Robert Oswald refers to a different time period - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why. My main point is Robert was in no position to have first hand knowledge. Notice how even though I said that multiple times in my "incoherent screed which makes one question my mental state" Norwood doesn't mention it once. Kudlaty - gives confusing and contradicting information regarding the records - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why. Schubert - gives a different time period, as well as contradicting information - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why. Summers - gives a different time period, as well as other contradicting information - Norwoord agrees Summers statements are "anomalous" and does not believe he is a good witness. No other explanations from H&L Gann - does not make clear identification - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why. Pitts - does not even reference Oswald attending Stripling Galindo - when weighed against the other available information is clearly wrong. Again, if I'm wrong then explain how my points I've listed above are wrong, not some other points like you did in the OP. My actual points. It's pretty clear who is misrepresenting facts, it's pretty clear who is "angry and threatened by the truth." It's clear who will not make clear "point by point rebuttals." I've proved twice now that Norwood isn't even addressing my points. He refuses to address things I say then repeats, ad nauseatingum (intentional, for you English professors out there. Again I ask you to point out the specific weaknesses in my argument versus saying "nuh uh Mark, you're wrong buddy." How does Schubert for instance corroborate that Oswald attended Stripling for the first 6-8 weeks of the school year when she references a different time period? I again ask everyone. Is Norwood genuinely summarizing my points? Is he giving me honest criticism and feedback? Is he giving genuine rebuttal to questions and topics I actually presented?