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

[Jim Hargrove]

I’m not interested in arguing with anyone who just wants to pick personal fights and make ad hominems. None of that crap matters a bit.

All that matters is EVIDENCE!  Do ANY of you guys ever present EVIDENCE?  Ever?

You know, like this:

and this....

and this.....

click here for 1997 interview with Fran Schubert

 

and this....

 

click here for 1997 interview with Frank Kudlaty

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You claimed in an earlier post that Jack White coached Frank Kudlaty into lying, and now you say the evidence for that is that the two were friends.

I never said Kudlaty knowingly lied. Only that the story he told was likely influenced by White's tales.

 

Regardless, my point was that you have no evidence that Kudlaty changed his story as a result of anything Jack White said.

 

 

[James Norwood]

To Whom It May Concern:

I have filed a complaint letter to administrator about the following users:

Jeremy Bojczuk

Mark Stevens

W. Tracy Parnell

Robert Charles-Dunne

• The rules clearly stipulate that threads should not devolve into chaos.  The writers above intentionally want this thread to be chaotic which is why they repeat ridiculous questions that do not even merit replies.

• I posted a commentary in response to a post by Mark Stevens, and, in reply, Stevens implied that I was lying.  This is in contravention of the forum ground rules.

• Forum members are not entitled to cast "aspersions" on other members.  Yet the participants above repeatedly engage in subtle ad hominem attacks.  It is small wonder that other members curious about the Harvey & Lee topic are reluctant to participate.

•  Two of the users above have been posting essentially the same snarky comments about the Harvey and Lee topic on this website's threads for years. 

• On this forum, I recently had a debate with Bill Simpich.  Prior to the debate, Bill and I agreed on what issues we wanted to debate and how the debate would proceed.  It turned out that we agreed on some issues and disagreed on others.  But the debate unfolded in a professional, civilized manner.  The four writers above are not interested in a debate.  They seem capable only of disrupting a conversation and engaging in harassment.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

You can't just present [evidence] Jim. You have to discuss it, what it means, and how it measures against other information which may contradict or give additional insight into context. 

 

Mark,

When Jim presents evidence, you have every right to say what issues you have with it. Then if Jim wants, he can rebut what you said.

If Jim doesn't rebut, why don't you just take that as a victory and celebrate? (There is no rule that says Jim has to rebut.)

Note, however, that IMO the victory will reside only in your mind (and the minds of other H&L critics who will readily agree with anything anti-H&L, regardless of how lame it is).

For example, when you complained and noted that only 6 LHO witnesses out of ~300 Stripling students can hardly be characterized as "common knowledge." You think you made a good point there. But nobody else does. That's the reason you didn't get a response from any of the H&L adherents. We let you have your little "victory" and moved on.

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Mark Stevens]

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mark,

When Jim presents evidence, you have every right to say what issues you have with it. Then if Jim wants, he can rebut what you said.

If Jim doesn't rebut, why don't you just take that as a victory and celebrate? (There is no rule that says Jim has to rebut.)

Note, however, that IMO the victory will reside only in your mind (and the minds of other H&L critics who will readily agree with anything anti-H&L, regardless of how lame it is).

For example, when you complained and noted that only 6 LHO witnesses out of ~300 Stripling students can hardly be characterized as "common knowledge." You think you made a good point there. But nobody else does. That's the reason you didn't get a response from any of the H&L adherents. They let you have your little "victory" and moved on.

Considering this is a discussion forum, and one inherently based on education, I believe you are wrong. It is not as though I have tracked Jim down in the street, grabbed and shaken him, and demanded he present his evidence. He came to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education, made claims and posted links and then refused to discuss and educate people regarding those claims and links. I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut. If not, then what is the actual point?

I did make a good point regarding common knowledge, and to be honest one of the three other people actually participating in this foolishness has pointed out the validity of my question. 

(I misspoke, he didn't actually concur with me, rather said the same thing)

Quote

If it was such “common knowledge”, I’m sure Galindo had no trouble providing John Armstrong with a list of those who shared this “common knowledge.”  If it was “common,” then many, many people must have know this.  And yet..... we have nothing but a half dozen people cynically used to prop up a fantasy.

Common knowledge equals many people. 6 out of 300 doesn't equal many. I don't need anyone to pat me on the back and say "boy you really zinged em there buddy." My opinion of common knowledge is pretty much based on the definition of common knowledge, not how many people agree with my opinion.

Again, you come in and point out how my(?) ideas are "lame" but you don't actually explain how. At the least, I'm providing what I believe to be reasonable explanations and observations of why the H&L ideas are incorrect. Can you not do the same to support your statements and position, or is that something you don't have to do, since there's no rule and all?

Edited July 3, 2020 by Mark Stevens
typos

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

To Whom It May Concern:

I have filed a complaint letter to administrator about the following users:

Jeremy Bojczuk

 

Mark Stevens

 

W. Tracy Parnell

Robert Charles-Dunne

 

Playing to the ref?  Oh my god.  Yeah, that’ll give you a good look.

• The rules clearly stipulate that threads should not devolve into chaos.  The writers above intentionally want this thread to be chaotic which is why they repeat ridiculous questions that do not even merit replies.
 

It is not the quality of the questions that is in doubt; it is the quality of the answers, or non-responsive responses.

• I posted a commentary in response to a post by Mark Stevens, and, in reply, Stevens implied that I was lying.  This is in contravention of the forum ground rules.
 

I must have missed that.  Sounds interesting.  Citation please.

• Forum members are not entitled to cast "aspersions" on other members.  Yet the participants above repeatedly engage in subtle ad hominem attacks.  It is small wonder that other members curious about the Harvey & Lee topic are reluctant to participate.
 

You cannot blame the members posing questions here for the fact that nobody is joining in to help you.  More people believe the Earth is flat than believe H&L.  But the Flat-Earthers have had longer to ply their trade, so there is that.  Why do you feel the need for help?  

And if the cavalry doesn’t show up, bitch to the mods?  Armstrong must be so proud.

•  Two of the users above have been posting essentially the same snarky comments about the Harvey and Lee topic on this website's threads for years. 

• On this forum, I recently had a debate with Bill Simpich.  Prior to the debate, Bill and I agreed on what issues we wanted to debate and how the debate would proceed.  It turned out that we agreed on some issues and disagreed on others.  But the debate unfolded in a professional, civilized manner.  The four writers above are not interested in a debate.  They seem capable only of disrupting a conversation and engaging in harassment.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

Common knowledge equals many people. 6 out of 300 doesn't equal many.

 

This whole "common knowledge" issue is just silly. You wanted to know what Galindo meant when he said it was common knowledge that LHO attended Stripling. You asked Jim to opine on that.

Well, see, all Jim did was present what Galindo said. That's a piece of evidence and Jim presented it. Jim obviously has no idea what Galindo meant by it other than what is generally meant when someone says that. He can't read Galindo's mind.

Second, it is irrelevant what Jim or anybody else thinks Galindo meant. Jim just presented the statement and readers must decide for themselves what can be deduced from Galindo saying it. Oh sure, people are free to discuss among themselves what Galindo meant. But there is no requirement for Jim or anybody else to do so if they don't care to. And discussing what Galindo meant isn't going to narrow down the number of LHO witnesses Galindo was talking about.

Moving on....

After that you try to compare the "common knowledge" statement to the "6 out of 300" figure as though they are related. Well, okay, the 300 (approximate number of students and teachers in the school) figure is related. But the 6? Six is just the number of people Armstrong found who recalled LHO being there. It's not the number of people who were aware that LHO attended Stripling. I mean, do you think Armstrong located and spoke with all 300 students and teachers who were at the school at the time?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

53 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mark,

If Jim doesn't rebut, why don't you just take that as a victory and celebrate? (There is no rule that says Jim has to rebut.)

I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut.

 

Wow, Mark. You and I live in different universes.

If an opponent doesn't rebut, it generally means one of the following:

1. Your argument is right and he can't defend his position against it.
2. Your argument is wrong, and so bad that he's counting on readers making the same assessment.
3. Your argument is so trivial that it's not worth debating.
4. Or some other, mundane reason. Like he missed your argument.

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Sandy:

I’d like to know if Galindo was at Stripling in the 1950's.  I’d like to know if Galindo knew Oswald personally?  If not, I’d like to know when Galindo arrived at Stripling, and from whence arose this “common knowledge?”  

Kudlaty?  Or others too?  Because this is precisely the blank space into which your side should be throwing lots of confirmations.

Knowing John Armstrong to be thorough, I would have expected him to ask Galindo for names of others who shared this “common knowledge.”  Surely, if it was “common,” there should have been no difficulty in finding others who shared the knowledge.

Again, knowing John Armstrong to be thorough, I would have expected him to at least locate one corroborating source, as is the practice of good journalists, and authors.

Sandy, you have yourself written in this thread that the critics here only want to pick on the “weakest” aspects, such as Stripling.  I thought that was very even-handed of you.

Unfortunately, by admitting that the Stripling episode is among the “weakest” of Armstrong’s arguments, are you not under-cutting your entire group argument?  Perhaps you could confer with Jim and James, swap some hints.

Also unfortunate is the use of the superlative “weakest,” as it requires that there elsewhere be found that which is simply “weak” or “weaker.”  You can’t have “weakest” without them.

Again, very even-handed of you.  My compliments.

[Mark Stevens]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

  1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mark,

If Jim doesn't rebut, why don't you just take that as a victory and celebrate? (There is no rule that says Jim has to rebut.)

I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut.

 

 

Wow, Mark. You and I live in different universes.

If an opponent doesn't rebut, it generally means one of the following:

1. Your argument is right and he can't defend his position against it.
2. Your argument is wrong, and so bad that he's counting on readers making the same assessment.
3. Your argument is so trivial that it's not worth debating.
4. Or some other, mundane reason. Like he missed your argument.

 

You just never cease to amaze me.

You intentionally left out the first half of my sentence to make it appear as though I said something ridiculous. To be honest, if I saw only that section you quoted I would also say me and the other person live in a different universe. Of course there is no unstated rule that person has to respond to another.

What I actually said was:

Quote

 He came to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education, made claims and posted links and then refused to discuss and educate people regarding those claims and links. I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut. If not, then what is the actual point?

The context of my comment is incredibly important and defines it as pertaining to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education. It wasn't a blanket statement of some universal unstated rule and you absolutely know this.

[Mark Stevens]

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

This whole "common knowledge" issue is just silly. You wanted to know what Galindo meant when he said it was common knowledge that LHO attended Stripling. You asked Jim to opine on that.

Well, see, all Jim did was present what Galindo said. That's a piece of evidence and Jim presented it. Jim obviously has no idea what Galindo meant by it other than what is generally meant when someone says that. He can't read Galindo's mind.

Second, it is irrelevant what Jim or anybody else thinks Galindo meant. Jim just presented the statement and readers must decide for themselves what can be deduced from Galindo saying it. Oh sure, people are free to discuss among themselves what Galindo meant. But there is no requirement for Jim or anybody else to do so if they don't care to. And discussing what Galindo meant isn't going to narrow down the number of LHO witnesses Galindo was talking about.

Moving on....

After that you try to compare the "common knowledge" statement to the "6 out of 300" figure as though they are related. Well, okay, the 300 (approximate number of students and teachers in the school) figure is related. But the 6? Six is just the number of people Armstrong found who recalled LHO being there. It's not the number of people who were aware that LHO attended Stripling. I mean, do you think Armstrong located and spoke with all 300 students and teachers who were at the school at the time?

 

I try to quote as much in one reply to keep any "flooding" at bay, my apologies for missing this one.

I agree Sandy, the common knowledge is silly. It is also silly that Galindo is even used. Galindo is irrelevant. Galindo was the Principal of Stripling in 1994. He has no direct knowledge of LHO and any rumors he may have heard are equally irrelevant. I believe this is the definition of hearsay.

My point in bringing up this information regarding Galindo, as well as quantifying witnesses is so that readers can "decide for themselves what can be deduced from Galindo saying it." By not giving the readers all of the information, you do not really give them a legitimate ability to decide for themselves. You're just present to them what you want them to know.

[Mark Stevens]

In a weirdly related vein...

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Sandy:

I’d like to know if Galindo was at Stripling in the 1950's.  I’d like to know if Galindo knew Oswald personally?  If not, I’d like to know when Galindo arrived at Stripling, and from whence arose this “common knowledge?”  

Kudlaty?  Or others too?  Because this is precisely the blank space into which your side should be throwing lots of confirmations.

 

Robert,

I'm not an H&L expert. Jim Hargrove may have answers to those questions.

 

11 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Sandy, you have yourself written in this thread that the critics here only want to pick on the “weakest” aspects, such as Stripling.  I thought that was very even-handed of you.

 

I didn't say that the Stripling evidence is the weakest among H&L evidence. What I said is that the statements of the "multiple witnesses" (outside of Kudlaty) are the weakest among the Stripling evidence.

It is Mark Stevens who insists on sticking with the multiple witnesses.

 

11 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Unfortunately, by admitting that the Stripling episode is among the “weakest” of Armstrong’s arguments, are you not under-cutting your entire group argument? Perhaps you could confer with Jim and James, swap some hints.

 

Nope, because I did not say that. And we don't have a "group argument."  LOL

What I did say is that there is H&L evidence stronger than Stripling's.

 

11 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Also unfortunate is the use of the superlative “weakest,” as it requires that there elsewhere be found that which is simply “weak” or “weaker.”  You can’t have “weakest” without them.

 

Um... okay.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

You intentionally left out the first half of my sentence to make it appear as though I said something ridiculous.

 

No... I left it off for the sake of brevity.

 

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

What I actually said was:

Quote

 He came to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education, made claims and posted links and then refused to discuss and educate people regarding those claims and links. I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut. If not, then what is the actual point?

 

 

Right, and I removed the part that you made bold above. That part is unnecessary for my point because everybody here knows that this is "a discussion forum inherently geared towards education." (And that Jim made  claims and posted links, and refused to discuss some of those.)

Even so, in my universe neither Jim nor anybody else is obligated to rebut anything.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I agree Sandy, the common knowledge is silly. It is also silly that Galindo is even used. Galindo is irrelevant. Galindo was the Principal of Stripling in 1994. He has no direct knowledge of LHO and any rumors he may have heard are equally irrelevant. I believe this is the definition of hearsay.

 

I agree with everything you say here Mark. What Galindo said should not be used as evidence.