Was it really just a MOLE HUNT about "Oswald?"

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There's that word "debunked" again. In "Tracy-speak" it means that Greg Parker disagrees with Kudlaty.

Debunked is just a term-you shouldn't get caught up in semantics. The point is, Parker has showed problems with the Kudlaty story.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

School records indicate that Oswald took classes full time at Public School 44 in NYC. For the very same period of time, other school records indicate that Oswald took classes part time at Beauregard Junior High in NO.

The totality of the evidence indicates that the one and only LHO and Marguerite left NYC around the 9th or 10th of January. They showed up in NO and he enrolled at Beauregard on the 13th as the records indicate. The records also state his previous school was in NYC.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald cannot attend two schools at the same time. Therefore the school records for one of those schools must have a semester's worth of clerical errors in it.

That is a misrepresentation of Parker's thesis. He says that it depends HOW you read the records. If you read them one way only, something could seem off. If you read them as Parker explains, the "mystery" is solved.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But there is a lot of other evidence pointing to two Oswalds, too much to call it all clerical errors.

All of the other "evidence" has been accounted for. And you don't seem to understand that among thousands and thousands of records there will be errors, discrepancies and so on. The records are created by human beings and that is the nature of the beast.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But no matter what the case, and even if I were to agree with Greg Parker, what he has done cannot be called a debunking. It is merely an opinion.

That is fine, you may call it an opinion if you prefer.

Edited June 18, 2020 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Of course, Mr. Parnell simply has no choice but to say this obviously well educated and generous man was lying to us.

I have already explained that he in not "lying" in the traditional sense of the word. But his "remembrances" occurred after he was coached by White/Armstrong. If Mr. Kudlaty had approached authorities, or anyone for that matter, in 1963 after the alleged confiscation of records took place his story might carry more weight. But whatever happened (if it was anything at all) he wasn't concerned enough about it at the time to say anything to anyone. Journalist Nick Patoski looked into the tale and while he knew Kudlaty and respected him, he realized it went nowhere without verification. That's what happens when experienced investigators and journalists look into something like H&L.

If Mr. Kudlaty had done what would be normal for anyone (much less the school principal) to do in such a situation-get a receipt for the alleged confiscated items-his story would carry more weight. But his story only emerged AFTER being coached by the creators of the H&L nonsense. What likely happened is that the FBI approached Kudlaty or someone at the school and asked if there were any records relating to LHO and was told that there weren't. But after hearing White's tales, Kudlaty "remembered" the "confiscation" of records. The suggestion was placed in his mind.

In the end, Kudlaty has absolutely no confirmation for his story. He is not lying, but rather is the victim of a propogandist.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I am going to issue a challenge to Jim Hargrove and Sandy. Either you guys believe you have found the key to the JFK assassination or you are two hobbyists playing around and hoping that the publicity you generate at this forum will result in a movie deal ala Jim D. Which is it?

If you really believe the H&L theory, why don't you take all of your evidence to someone like Nick Patoski? Mr. Patoski has previously showed at least an interest in the H&L theory and knows Mr. Kudlaty. Why not carefully explain all the evidence to him? Sandy, you can explain to him that even though some of the top experts in the world confirmed LHO's identity through dental records, you have a new theory which is "obvious" to anyone and no forensic dental training is required?

If Mr. Patoski is not interested, perhaps he can refer you to someone who is. After all, there are all sorts of theories gaining traction in the world-faked moon landing, Elvis is alive, the earth is flat and so on. There has to one credible journalist somewhere who will listen and take on your cause.

Perhaps you are afraid (or know) that anyone you approach will tell you the same things that myself, Jeremy B. and Parker have been for years. The H&L theory is provable nonsense.

So, what's it going to be? Are you going to continue hiding here at your safe playground or get out there and really do something?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have already explained that he in not "lying" in the traditional sense of the word. But his "remembrances" occurred after he was coached by White/Armstrong.

Oh, brother. Listen to Tracy Parnell try to dance away from the obvious fact that he is claiming Frank Kudlaty was lying and is now claiming that Jack White and John Armstrong helped him to lie. Let’s add some details here to shed light on Mr. Parnell’s desperate claim that the Stripling School attendance “is nonsense.”

First, just a quick proof that Mr Kudlaty was indeed the vice principal of Stripling JHS in 1963. Below is a short article from the April 2, 1963, the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

Here’s how John Armstrong described what happened seven or eight months after the article above.  

On November 23, 1963 (one day after the assassination) Mr. Kudlaty received an early morning phone call from his boss, Mr. Wylie, the principal of Stripling Junior High. Mr. Wylie told Kudlaty to immediately go to Stripling and meet two FBI agents who would arrive shortly and to give them Oswald's school records. In 1963 school records from prior years were kept at each school. In the mid-1960s school records from all Ft. Worth schools were transferred to the new Ft. Worth Independent School District where they were organized and stored. Frank told the author in a video taped interview, "I lived close to the school at that time and arrived at the school before they (the FBI agents) got there. I went into the school and located Oswald's records. In fact I found both Lee Harvey and Robert Oswald's records for Stripling. I opened Lee Harvey Oswald's folder and briefly looked over his records and noted that he had attended less than a full semester at Stripling. He had been there long enough to receive grades for a 6-week period, but not long enough to receive semester grades. I think he was in the 9th grade. I put the records back into the folder and waited for the FBI agents. When they arrived, they showed me their badges for identification and asked for the records. I told them that I had located both Lee Harvey and Robert Oswald's records and asked if they wanted both. They told me they only wanted Lee Harvey Oswald's records. After I handed the records to them, they thanked me and left. I locked up the school and went home." HARVEY Oswald's junior high school records from Stripling, confiscated within 20 hours of the assassination, clearly show that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover knew those Stripling records could expose the two Oswalds. The confiscation and disappearance of the Stripling records is another "smoking gun" and shows that Hoover probably had prior knowledge of HARVEY and LEE.

On the day after the assassination of JFK, the very same day Frank Kudlaty was meeting the FBI agents, a writer for the Fort Worth Star Telegram named Jon McConal was working on an article stating that LHO attended Stripling, which was published the following morning.

There have been a half dozen or more other Fort Worth newspaper stories also indicating Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School in Fort Worth. Anyone need to see more? Robert Oswald testified under oath that his brother attended Stripling.  The evidence is just OVERWHELMING.

Trouble is, the school records published by the Warren Commission show there is no time for one Oswald to have attended Stripling:

• Oswald  graduated from Ridglea West Elementary School in Ft. Worth in June, 1952
• Oswald attended PS 117 and PS 44 in New York City from the fall of 1952 thru January, 1954
• Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans from January, 1954 until June, 1955
• Oswald briefly attended Warren Easton High School in New Orleans in the fall of 1955
• Oswald briefly attended Arlington Heights High School in the fall of 1956.

So, the Stripling story had to disappear, and Mr. Parnell now has to say that Frank Kudlaty was lying.  Again, let’s remind readers just who Mr. Kudlaty was:

Meet the man Mr. Parnell wants you to believe was lying:

Frank Kudlaty, assistant principal in 1963 of Stripling JHS in Fort Worth, went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, where he retired in 1986. According to this write-up at legacy.com, Mr. Kudlaty “earned his BA degree from TCU on a basketball scholarship. He earned a Masters of Education from TCU, a Doctorate in Education from NTSU and was a Doctoral Fellow at Yale.”

The write-up goes on to say that, among other responsibilities, Mr Kudlaty was a 15-year volunteer with Meals on Wheels and served on the board of directors of the Salvation Army for 27 years.

Of course, Mr. Parnell simply has no choice but to say this obviously well educated and generous man was lying to us.  According to school documents published by the Warren Commission, there was simply no time for one Lee Harvey Oswald to have attended Stripling School, and so it all had to go away, including the school records Mr. Kudlaty gave the FBI agents, even though it was and remains common knowledge among local residents, including Fran Schubert,  that LHO did attend school there. Nearly a dozen newspaper articles and Robert Oswald’s own sworn testimony support that simple fact.

click here for 1997 interview with Frank Kudlaty

 

•  

Edited June 18, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Meet the man Mr. Parnell wants you to believe was lying:

I think even Jim will admit that everything in every document or report regarding the JFK assassination cannot be true. The fact is people say the darnedest things for sometimes no discernable reason. We know what Kudlaty told White and Armstrong nearly 40 years after the fact. But what did he say in 1963 about the startling event that he allegedly witnessed. Nothing at all.

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But what did he say in 1963 about the startling event that he allegedly witnessed. Nothing at all.

There was nothing "startling" in what Mr. Kudlaty witnessed.  Why should he have called anyone on 11/23/1963?  Two FBI agents came to Stripling School to collect evidence.  There were no photocopy machines back then and there was no easy way to make a copy of a page.  Why on earth should Mr. Kudlaty have called anyone back then just because he met two FBI SA's at his his school?  Mr. Parnell is simply making every excuse he can imagine to explain the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT "LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ATTENDED STRIPLING SCHOOL IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

31 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT "LEE HARVEY OSWALD" ATTENDED STRIPLING SCHOOL IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS.

Take your "overwhelming evidence" evidence to a professional investigator or an investigative reporter Jim, as I previously suggested. Let me know how far you get.

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks for the advice, Tracy, but no thanks! You cannot deny the overwhelming evidence that LHO attended Stripling School, can you?  

[W. Tracy Parnell]

We seem to be going in circles Jim. Maybe a second opinion will help:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Wow! The school records turn out to be yet another of those 'Harvey and Lee' talking points that has a perfectly ordinary, everyday explanation. Quelle surprise!

If there are two ways to explain the evidence, which one should you choose? The everyday explanation or the one in which two unrelated boys from different parts of the world were chosen at a young age for a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme, and they magically ended up looking virtually identical more than a decade later, and each of them had a doppelganger mother, and one of them had a 13-inch head?

If you choose the far-fetched explanation, you will become a laughing stock, like Jack "the moon landings were faked" White, co-creator of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.*

It's not surprising that Jim doesn't want to be told this by a reputable journalist (although that phrase may sound like an oxymoron, there are some around). The journalist would ask Jim some uncomfortable questions, and wouldn't be impressed by Jim's habit of changing the subject every time he finds himself backed into a corner, as we saw a few pages ago when Jim was unable to provide evidence to support his claim that certain unidentified documents, like every other piece of evidence that contradicts the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, had been faked by the FBI.

We know roughly how the journalist would proceed, because a recording exists of an absolutely guaranteed 100% genuine interview with a 'Harvey and Lee' believer (WARNING - MAY HAVE BEEN FAKED BY THE FBI):

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1582-harvey-and-lee-cult-the-interview

* To clear up any confusion:

Jack "the moon landings were faked" White and Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White were not a pair of imaginary doppelgangers, as you might think, but were in fact the same real-life person: Jack "I helped to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' theory" White.

Jack "I helped to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' theory" White was also the same person as Jack "my paranoid speculations allow the media to portray even rational critics of the lone-nut theory as a bunch of crackpots" White.

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

We seem to be going in circles Jim. Maybe a second opinion will help:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim

Why do I bother reading your endless links to Greg Parker’s site?  It is amusing that he seems to follow my every post and puts up some sort of daily commentary about everything I say… even though he fails to debunk anything at all.  That strikes me as very odd behavior.

In his “Dear Jim” posts, Mr. Parker, who is banned from this forum and banned from the Deep Politics forum, fails to mention ANY of the many newspaper articles that indicate LHO attended Stripling, fails to mention the interview with classmate Fran Schubert, fails to mention Frank Kudlaty’s impressive background, and fails to mention that Robert Oswald testified under oath that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

On 6/17/2020 at 11:39 AM, John Butler said:

Thanks Jim,

I still don't see New York vs. Dallas.  Everything Mysterious Marge did in New York could have been done in Dallas to provide cover for a possible Soviet investigation.  She and Oswald remain in New York for over a year after leaving John Pic and the Fuhrman household.  If she was looking to give the Oswalds similar cultural experiences, in other words have Lee experience the diversity that Harvey had prior to 1947 might be reasonable. 

This line of reasoning would have the Oswald Project beginning as a defection program.  This is in tune with the research on Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner's, who very well could be the OSS (later CIA) founders of the project, offensive philosophy towards the Soviet Union as we have discussed earlier in another thread.

I have no evidence for this, but just speculation at this point.  So, don't go off on this speculation as a threat to the Harvey and Lee story.  The boys, Harvey and Lee, may have been rebelling at their fate in life.  Boys usually begin rebelling about something at that age.  My speculation is that Harvey was trying to get out of his circumstances and had to be taken back to New York and have the people who raised him there do a re-conditioning of his mind set.  It's a dumb idea, but one that keeps surfacing.  That's because I still can't see why the sojourn in New York. 

John,

You raise a very interesting issue in your last paragraph (more in a minute) but I still think the NYC move was managed to blend the educational experiences of the two boys.  With its vast size and odd school numbering system (repeated in each of the boroughs), the city was perfect for the job.

But Harvey completely blew up the plan with his truancy, which soon required fleeing to North Dakota and then New Orleans while the other Oswald remained in NYC.  Look at all the trouble the NYC/Beauregard school records and the Stripling School memories of students and teachers causes the anti-H&L tag team here. 

The guys who planned the Oswald project hardly expected the kind of scrutiny that came after the assassination; they only had to protect against some nosy Russian intel worker looking into the “defector’s” background.   Still, NYC would have been the perfect place to blend the two youth’s history without attracting attention—until Harvey screwed up and got caught up in the legal system. We may just have to agree to disagree on this.

Regarding your last paragraph above, you say you have no evidence, but are you aware of the the following, in John As words?

Yet in the summer of 1953 the poor, despondent, "Marguerite" hired a housekeeper, Louise Robertson, to clean her apartment two or three days per week. Mrs. Robertson was employed by Mrs. Oswald for six weeks, during which time Mrs. Oswald told her that she was from Texas and had come to New York City so her son could have mental tests at Jacobi Hospital. Mrs. Robertson recalled that shortly before the Oswalds moved, Mrs. Oswald told her that Lee Harvey Oswald had run away from home and was located and returned by the New York City Police Department.  (H&L p. 69]

If you haven’t seen the documentation for this this, I think it’s in an FBI report that I can probably locate if you’d like to see it to pursue this line of thought more.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/18/2020 at 7:45 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 6/17/2020 at 11:05 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

There's that word "debunked" again. In "Tracy-speak" it means that Greg Parker disagrees with Kudlaty.

Debunked is just a term-you shouldn't get caught up in semantics.

 

Words matter Tracy. You keep telling readers that what Jim is saying has been debunked when in fact it has not.
 

Quote

The point is, Parker has showed problems with the Kudlaty story.

 

Greg Parker uses circular logic in his H&L arguments and this is a perfect example of that. I'll explain.

Here is Greg Parker's line of reasoning:

There cannot have been two Oswalds and I'll tell you why:

1. If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling.
2. But it is known that Oswald attended a different school at that time.
3. Since there was only one Oswald, he could not have attended Stripling.
4. Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records. Oswald did not attend Stripling.
5. And therefore there was only one Oswald.

Parker has to assume (in #3) that there was only one Oswald in order to conclude that there was only one Oswald. This is a well-known logical fallacy.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/18/2020 at 7:54 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 6/17/2020 at 10:37 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald cannot attend two schools at the same time. Therefore the school records for one of those schools must have a semester's worth of clerical errors in it.

That is a misrepresentation of Parker's thesis. He says that it depends HOW you read the records. If you read them one way only, something could seem off. If you read them as Parker explains, the "mystery" is solved.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy

 

I read Greg's Parker's post and I stand corrected on this one point. I thought it was Greg who claimed that the Beauregard school record problem was due to a clerical error. But that was someone else. (Which is a shame for Greg because the clerical error explanation at least is a possibility that would be relevant if true.) His explanation has to do with the way he interprets the Re-Ad field.

I don't recall now how Greg's interpretation of that number helps his side of the argument. I just recall that it didn't make much difference, and that the clerical error idea was better and would have been my choice if I were arguing Greg's side.

What I do recall from years ago is that I studied both Greg's and Jim's interpretation of the Re-Ad number and it was clear to me that Jim got it right. Not that it makes much difference.

Anyway, I admit that I remember that one thing incorrectly. But Greg makes up for that by pointing out -- incorrectly -- my position on Oswald "13 inch head." Greg finished his post with the following line:

"An opinion is when you look at a photo and declare the person has an impossible 13 inch head."

Greg was trying to get a little dig in on my position on the so-called 13 inch head. Problem is, my position isn't and hasn't been for years that that photo must have been altered. In fact, I was the person here who first (AFAIK) explained how the 13 inches was a perspective illusion. (I and some other member came up with this solution at the same time.) And I posted this old mug shot of Paul Newman to show that 13 inches wasn't unusual:

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Sandy Larsen