The H&L "two schools at the same time" mystery

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I'm suspicious that twenty years after the creation of a 1,000 page book with such excruciating detail that not one single jot of it has subsequently been seen to be wrong by those who promote it. How likely is it that such an intricate work doesn't contain even one single error (other than typos etc...)? I've asked many times where they think JA my have erred but get no answer. I ask if it's likely that EVERY witness sighting of a an 'inconvenient' Oswald is without a shadow of a doubt correct and thus confirms H&L? And that NONE are mistaken...?

Any takers?

 

Bernie,

There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's. I've also had some minor differences of opinion.

But if I were asked right now to list all or most those differences , I couldn't do so. Because most of them are so minor that I don't keep them on my radar screen. It's the big picture that interests me right now.

But there is one thing I do recall. John believes that the adult LEE was the same person as the boy LEE. I have a reason to believe that they were more likely not the same person. And/or there were multiple Oswalds after the defection.

However, John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this. Because of that, you won't see me trying to convince others of my belief. Rather, I just keep my mind open to my belief as I study the surrounding story. That way if I should come across evidence that supports what I believe, I can run it by John to see what he thinks.

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Bernie Laverick]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Bernie,

There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's. I've also had some minor differences of opinion.

But if I were asked right now to list all or most those differences , I couldn't do so. Because most of them are so minor that I don't keep them on my radar screen. It's the big picture that interests me right now.

But there is one thing I do recall. John believes that the adult LEE was the same person as the boy LEE. I have a reason to believe that they were more likely not the same person. And/or there were multiple Oswalds after the defection.

However, John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this. Because of that, you won't see me trying to convince others of my belief. Rather, I just keep my mind open to my belief as I study the surrounding story. That way if I should come across evidence that supports what I believe, I can run it by John to see what he thinks.

 

Sandy,

"There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's"

That's fine, but why are those doubts never raised in public? 

It's almost like there has to be an agreed and unified position on any of the issues H&L raises before presenting a united front on any public platform. If the promoters of H&L do have any doubts or queries then they are to be raised 'internally' behind closed doors because "John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this"...

And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled!

So would anyone like to share what those differences may be? It could be the school records for all we know. Is it?

Of course you have no obligation to answer that. It is entirely up to you as individuals how you choose to approach these discussions, and if you prefer to stick to the above format, then that is your right.

But here we are facing all kinds of aggressive abuse and finger pointing and having our intentions being questioned etc..., for simply raising OUR doubts and differences in public. Yet those that promote it keep their differences to themselves behind closed doors. If you can all disagree with JA from time to time on aspects of H&L (but privately), then we can all publically disagree for as long as we see fit. 

Why can you have differences with Jim or JA privately about H&L but we are castigated as a "disrupters" "cointelpro" and "vermin" for posting OUR differences on here, a public platform? 

Why are you allowed to question H&L...but we aren't?

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The Commission could
only ignore Robert Oswald's references to Stripling.

The commission did not "ignore" Robert's reference to Stripling. They simply chose not to make an issue of it because there was no need to in the grand scheme of things. If necessary, they could have produced evidence that proved Robert was wrong. They could have done the same thing with Palmer McBride. But the commission could not foresee that someone would write a book 40 years later that would use inconsistencies like these to push a conspiracy theory involving two Oswalds.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Sandy,

"There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's"

That's fine, but why are those doubts never raised in public? 

 

They WERE raised in public. I've asked David and Jim questions in these H&L threads and sometimes in their response they've said that John thought differently.

I've brought my opinion up a couple times in the past. (The one I mentioned above:  "John believes that the adult LEE was the same person as the boy LEE. I have a reason to believe that they were more likely not the same person. And/or there were multiple Oswalds after the defection.") But in greater detail.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

It's almost like there has to be an agreed and unified position on any of the issues H&L raises before presenting a united front on any public platform. If the promoters of H&L do have any doubts or queries then they are to be raised 'internally' behind closed doors because "John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this"...

 

See what you've done there, Bernie? You've used what I wrote (in bold) to support your belief that we keep our differences hushed. And you did that in spite of the fact that what I wrote (in bold) was regarding an opinion I gave in the very prior paragraph! That wasn't hushed!

As far as running something by John Armstrong... well of course I'm going to do that. I'd be a fool not to. Just like I would run some idea I have about Jim Garrison by Jim DiEugenio before declaring I'd taken a position on it. You always get feedback from experts when you can. (Unless you feel quite sure of yourself.) The expert might point something out you haven't considered.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled!

So would anyone like to share what those differences may be? It could be the school records for all we know. Is it?

 

Check out the last two paragraphs of the following post to see a potential difference of opinion regarding the Beauregard school record:

 

 

I recall that David J. commented that the school records are "bastardized' (I believe that's his description) because the FBI merged and manipulated them. That's his opinion. My opinion is that certainly somebody merged two LHO school records, and it may have been someone working at the school. So we might have a difference of opinion there. I'm not sure because maybe the merging was indeed performed by the FBI.

Anyway, the point is that we can and do have differences of opinion, and we do not try to conceal our differences or secretly  coordinate our beliefs.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Of course you have no obligation to answer that. It is entirely up to you as individuals how you choose to approach these discussions, and if you prefer to stick to the above format, then that is your right.

But here we are facing all kinds of aggressive abuse and finger pointing and having our intentions being questioned etc..., for simply raising OUR doubts and differences in public.

 

 

Bernie, please don't insult our collective intelligence. We ll know that you are here because you have a goal of discrediting John Armstrong, his theory, and those of us who believe his theory.

Or at least you did before now. I suppose it's possible you've changed.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Yet those that promote it keep their differences to themselves behind closed doors. If you can all disagree with JA from time to time on aspects of H&L (but privately), then we can all publically disagree for as long as we see fit. 

Why can you have differences with Jim or JA privately about H&L but we are castigated as a "disrupters" "cointelpro" and "vermin" for posting OUR differences on here, a public platform? 

Why are you allowed to question H&L...but we aren't?

 

It's a waste of everybody's time for anyone to come here (or anywhere) and in every post say that you don't believe the theory.

If you really want to know something -- like one of those items in your list of questions -- why not start a thread dedicated to it? for example, a topic titled "What happened to Lee after the assassination?"

 

[Michael Clark]

23 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Really Gene? This all goes both ways. The folks who post rebuttals to this theory have posted solid rebuttals  and we too are attacked for being "ignorant" and worst by the same people  you list above. As a matter of fact it got so bad that one unnamed  member here was  throwing all kinds of venom on MY PROFILE PAGE. When I  reported it this member was "banned" from the forum.

Guess what? Shockingly this member is now back. And if you  don't  believe me - which seems to be the modus operandi  here on EF - send me a PM and I'll  be glad to share the venom.

 

I addressed your off-topic schoolyard invite for off-line gossip and private slur party here:

 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recall that David J. commented that the school records are "bastardized' (I believe that's his description) because the FBI merged and manipulated them. That's his opinion. My opinion is that certainly somebody merged two LHO school records, and it may have been someone working at the school. So we might have a difference of opinion there. I'm not sure because maybe the merging was indeed performed by the FBI.

Which immediately leads to the question, Why did ALL of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" original education and pre-Marines employment records disappear?  The FBI made the effort to confiscate them within hours of the assassination, and so why weren't they kept?

And since we're talking about Harvey and Lee's educational records in this thread, this would be a good place to point to the evidence that the FBI made ALL the original school records for the two boys disappear, some never to be seen again, some replaced by b&w photos, which can easily be manipulated.

Assistant principal Frank Kudlaty said he gave "Lee Harvey Oswald's" Stripling School records to the FBI immediately after the assassination, but those records disappeared entirely.  John says there are no original Beauregard records in the National Archives, only b&w photos of them supplied by the FBI. The ARRB concurred.  An ARRB memo from 1995, reproduced below, says, "Let me state at the start that all the school and employment records I looked at in the Warren Commission Exhibit files at Archives II were copies, not originals."

John also found a documentary trail indicating that all the original NYC records of "Lee Harvey Oswald" disappeared after Judge Florence Kelley, Administrative Judge of the Family Court of the State of New York in 1963, supplied them to the Special Agent in Charge of the New York FBI Office, John Malone.  The Office of NYC Mayor Wagner even contacted the FBI asking what happened to those original records.

It is clear that J. Edgar Hoover felt it was necessary to confiscate all of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" original school and pre-Marine employment records before he had even determined if other members of the U.S. Government were targeted along with JFK.  The reason was clearly to avoid exposure of the Oswald Project.  Perhaps someone here can suggest another reason why all the original evidence disappeared.

 

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

On January 6, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Bernie Laverick said:

 

And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled!

 

 

How is this any different than any political party anywhere operates? Did you hear any Republicans questioning the merits of the tax bill. Damned few anyway.