A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Yes, but what did he do about it? Nothing. It might be time to try someone else. But their reaction will be the same as Patoski's:

The existence of two Oswalds would be simple enough to prove. All that would be necessary is valid physical evidence showing Oswald at place A and valid physical evidence showing a second Oswald at place B at the same time. (If the deception lasted almost eleven years, from the time Oswald was thirteen until November 1963, such evidence must be in abundance.) Armstrong can’t do that. Instead, Armstrong regaled me for hours with minutiae.

BTW, it is obvious from Listening to Kudlaty that he had read some conspiracy literature and saw his experiences in that light. He was therefore "ripe" for Armstrong's rhetoric. But the H&L people need to find an advocate with some power if they believe they have something. otherwise what is the point?

[Mathias Baumann]

12 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

BTW, it is obvious from Listening to Kudlaty that he had read some conspiracy literature

The HSCA Report, maybe?

[Jim Hargrove]

Tracy Parnell claims Stripling School assistant principal Frank Kudlaty was lying when he recalled giving LHO’s records to the FBI, as was Oswald’s Stripling classmate Francetta Schubert when she recalled Oswald’s presence at the school, and that Robert Oswald was mistaken when he testified to the Warren Commission that his “brother” attended Stripling, and when he was quoted in local newspapers twice before the assassination saying his brother attended the school, and that either John Armstrong or Ricardo Galindo, Stripling School principal in the late 1990s or both are lying because John reported that Mr. Galindo said it was “common knowledge” that Oswald attended Stripling.

Why?  Because all the school records published by the Warren Commission give no time for him to have attended the Fort Worth school.  According Warren Commission documents, Oswald was attending school in New York City and not Stripling School in Fort Worth in the fall semester of 1952.   

Frank Kudlaty was told by his principal to meet the FBI at Stripling School immediately after the assassination.  Mr. Kudlaty turned over the school records to the FBI, but they all disappeared.

Here’s Part 1 of a three part interview with Mr. Kudlaty:

 

 

In 1959, at the time LHO began his assignment as a secret agent in Russia, Robert Oswald told reporters that his brother had attended Stripling School.  

 

Robert also told the Warren Commission that his brother attended Stripling:

Mr. Jenner: And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arling­-
ton Heights High School? That would be 1952?
Mr. Oswald: Just a minute please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be
attending W.C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. Jenner: I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth
grades. And as soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School,
he started attending W.C. Stripling Junior High school.
Mr. Jenner: As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School,
he entered W.C. Stripling High School as a seventh grader?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir--junior high school.

Oswald’s Stripling classmate Fran Schubert recalled watching Oswald walk home from Stripling School to 2220 Thomas Place, where “Marguerite Oswald” lived at various times, including at the time of the assassination.

 

 

There are other witnesses to Oswald’s attendance at Stripling as well, but, of course, they’re all lying too, at least according to Mr. Parnell.  As is Stripling School principal Ricardo Galindo, who told John in the late 1990s that it was “common knowledge” that Oswald attended the school.  John spoke to several other students and teachers at Stripling who recalled Oswald there but, of course, according to Mr. Parnell, John is lying about that too.

The other possibility, to put it charitably, is that Mr. Parnell is wrong or even, uh....
 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy Parnell claims Stripling School assistant principal Frank Kudlaty was lying 

Wrong. Some of these witnesses who were approached by Armstrong 30 plus years after the fact probably believe what they were saying is true. But memories become faded and mingled with information learned later. Such as conspiracy theories that the witness read somewhere. Or that were planted in their mind my leading questions by Armstrong. If these witnesses were sure they had something important to say why not come forward at the time? The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes and in these cases there is no pudding to be found.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

... this has what led Josephs, Larsen and others to believe that "everything is a conspiracy."

Mike,

Instead of spouting nonsense like that about me, why don't you debate the evidence with me? How about the school records? They are easy to understand.

Of course, we both know you can't. Which is why you have to resort to your nonsense.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy Parnell claims Stripling School assistant principal Frank Kudlaty was lying 

Wrong. Some of these witnesses who were approached by Armstrong 30 plus years after the fact probably believe what they were saying is true. But memories become faded and mingled with information learned later.

By golly, I think you're right Tracy! I mean... after fifty years, I finally remember that Oswald attended the school I was attending. Oh wait, I recall now that I was principal at the time! Yeah, that's the ticket. And yes, I handed over Oswald's records to the FBI. It's all so clear now.

Get real, Tracy! That does not happen to people!

 

[Bernie Laverick]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

By golly, I think you're right Tracy! I mean... after fifty years, I finally remember that Oswald attended the school I was attending. Oh wait, I recall now that I was principal at the time! Yeah, that's the ticket. And yes, I handed over Oswald's records to the FBI. It's all so clear now.

Get real, Tracy! That does not happen to people!

 

Well said Sandy! Though, in the above scenario you've omitted being best friends with the researcher's collaborator. Did you miss that bit out on purpose?

Jack White, Armstrong's helper (and at times inspiration) was a personal friend of Kudlaty, he'd known him for "over 50 years" and could personally, and wholeheartedly, "vouch for his integrity". 

Do you really not see a blatant conflict of interest here?

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mike,

Instead of spouting nonsense like that about me, why don't you debate the evidence with me? How about the school records? They are easy to understand.

Of course, we both know you can't. Which is why you have to resort to your nonsense.

That's the problem, Sandy.  The evidence has been debated endlessly here with no end in sight. Parker has, Tracy has, Jeremy, you, I, and others have all stated your interpretation of the available evidence.

That's what I mean about my post further up. It's HOW people interpret the evidence with pre-existing beliefs that cause these kind of endless arguments. An example of this is another murder case I've been reading about it.  It happened 15 years ago and there's been a retrospective of it. I'll admit that the evidence is circumstantial but the accused was found guilty.  Meanwhile, his family members still deny he did it and is innocent.

The point here is because they love this guy and he's a member of their family, there's "no way" that he did this crime. Because of their pre-judgement (that good old so-and-so is our brother and son and we love him) he didn't do it and unless they found a photo of him standing over his dead wife with a bloody ax in his hand, they're going to continue to believe that to be the case.

But regarding JFK, if you read Meagher's story about the case, you'll see that she analyzes the evidence with no pre-judgement. That's why she and others can present it so well and therefore it has the ring of truth and plausibility in it. That's what I mentioned above. I've talked with several other researchers, those who I have respect for, and they too think there's this batxxxx crazy wing among the conspiracy crowd.

That's why I've said numerous times here that something is very odd when someone can write a clear concise narrative of how LHO was impersonated in MC and also write that he was never even down there.  When you look elsewhere - with how they paraded witnesses around saying LHO was a wife beater and how the fake BYP's were found, and others - then you start to see a pattern of deception of him being set up.

It's like a lawyer said recently - if you look out the window and it's sunny out and you go outside and see puddles on the ground and people walking around with wet clothes on and dripping umbrellas, the circumstantial evidence shows that it recently rained. You don't have to see the rain come down to conclude that it was raining.

So when someone writes about MC, but then shows he's all over the place, and then expresses his thought process that you cannot trust anyone because, well, Government Is Bad, then that explains why for some everything is sinister and was manipulated and there was a clone and the photos and films were faked and on and on.

So there's really no sense in debating the evidence.  It's been debated ad nauseum with no end in sight. Jim Hargrove is here for one reason - to continue to keep this story alive and to sell the product.  That's all. If that was not his intention, then he would have never posted that book and CD photo beautifully displaying the product. 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Well said Sandy! Though, in the above scenario you've omitted being best friends with the researcher's collaborator. Did you miss that bit out on purpose?

Jack White, Armstrong's helper (and at times inspiration) was a personal friend of Kudlaty, he'd known him for "over 50 years" and could personally, and wholeheartedly, "vouch for his integrity". 

Do you really not see a blatant conflict of interest here?

Do you have any friends, Bernie? Does that make l.i.a.r.s of them?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mike,

Instead of spouting nonsense like that about me, why don't you debate the evidence with me? How about the school records? They are easy to understand.

Of course, we both know you can't. Which is why you have to resort to your nonsense.

That's the problem, Sandy.  The evidence has been debated endlessly here with no end in sight. Parker has, Tracy has, Jeremy, you, I, and others have all stated your interpretation of the available evidence.

Michael,

I don't have an interpretation of the school records. I believe only that they are correct.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

That's what I mean about my post further up. It's HOW people interpret the evidence with pre-existing beliefs that cause these kind of endless arguments.

 

I didn't believe the Harvey and Lee Theory before I studied it. The strength of the evidence changed my mind.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

By golly, I think you're right Tracy! I mean... after fifty years, I finally remember that Oswald attended the school I was attending. Oh wait, I recall now that I was principal at the time! Yeah, that's the ticket. And yes, I handed over Oswald's records to the FBI. It's all so clear now.

Get real, Tracy! That does not happen to people!

 

What I was referring to is the FBI MAY have come to Stripling and MAY have taken some records. The records could have been Robert's as he actually went there. Or, Kudlaty could be mixing his memories of the alleged incident (which could be as innocent as the FBI asking some questions) with information he has acquired since then. This type of thing certainly does occur and has been documented by memory experts like Elizibeth Loftus.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you have any friends, Bernie? Does that make l.i.a.r.s of them?

The point is, Kudlaty and White were friends. This brings into play the distinct possibility that Kudlaty was familiar with White's theories and suddenly "remembered" that the FBI had taken records. If he was so concerned, why didn't he come forward independently years before? I'm afraid his story is nearly worthless.

Edited September 23, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't believe the Harvey and Lee Theory before I studied it. The strength of the evidence changed my mind.

There is no credible evidence supporting the theory. All you have are anomalies in the record and witnesses who think they saw something that supports your theory. You could chart all of the sightings of LHO and you would find many that do not support either "Harvey" or "Lee." Does that indicate multiple Oswalds? Or does it indicate a fact that law enforcement and professional investigators already know. And that is that in any well known case, there will be people who say they have seen an individual who actually have not. In a recent case in NY, over 2000 people said they saw 2 escapees from prison. You know how many actually did? Two.

[Michael Walton]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't believe the Harvey and Lee Theory before I studied it. The strength of the evidence changed my mind.

Good for you, Sandy. I'm happy for you that the "strength of the evidence" has changed your mind.  It has done the same for me - it shows that the shoehorning of this evidence to fit a clone narrative just isn't plausible and doesn't have the ring of truth to it.

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't believe the Harvey and Lee Theory before I studied it. The strength of the evidence changed my mind.

Good for you, Sandy. I'm happy for you that the "strength of the evidence" has changed your mind.  It has done the same for me - it shows that the shoehorning of this evidence to fit a clone narrative just isn't plausible and doesn't have the ring of truth to it.

The differences Michael are:

1) You did and still do have a preconceived notion that the theory is, as you say, "a fairy tale."

2) You have not studied and understood the evidence, other than perhaps the exhumation.

 

Why don't you just admit that you have never even entertained the possibility that the theory might be true? We all know that that's the case. And we all know that you don't understand much if any of the evidence. We all know that you will congratulate someone for supposedly debunking some piece of H&L evidence when in fact they haven't. (Which I think you do without even understanding the supposed debunking.)