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

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Robert,

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

That’s what many people in this thread have assumed.  Chance would be a fine thing.

But the answers to our questions are not forthcoming.  Apparently seeking answers to our questions is somehow out of bounds. 

Because if we don’t believe what we were told last time, we’ll hear it again on every page of this thread.  Because that’ll convince everyone.  And if we don’t ask in a just-so fashion, somebody will tell teacher on us. 

Farcical.      

Which is really a remarkable state of affairs.  This is a golden opportunity to show the depth of intellectual argument, the painstaking effort expended to ensure there are no paths untaken, no alternatives left but what the obvious H&L proof requires. Crickets.  

Yet even the feeblest, easiest questions are parried aside as if never posed.  “Did anyone from the FWST ever verify with staff at Stripling that LHO attended school there?”

There are really only 3 possible answers: a) yes; b) no; or c) I don’t know.  But try as I might, I cannot coax this information from Jim, James, Sandy....

If the answer is “yes,” let’s see the proof.

If the answer is “no,” let’s see an admission.  

Because without that, we’re really back to square one with Robert naturally assuming LHO had followed him into Stripling.  And his mistaken quote being recycled uncritically, first by the media, and now by the H&L squad.  Repetition doesn’t make a falsehood true.

And if the answer is “I don’t know,” it is wholly opposite to the certitude demonstrated elsewhere in this thread.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove claims that:

Quote

the H&L critics pretend that I have ignored their attempted rebuttals ... They want to pretend I am hiding from their questions, which is simply untrue.

It is Jim's claim which is simply untrue. He has been asked several times to state why Mark's analysis of the eyewitnesses' statements is mistaken. He has not done so. If that isn't "hiding from their questions", what is?

Mark's analysis is here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423033. Everyone who reads it will understand why Jim has repeatedly refused to confront the points Mark raised. Come on, Jim! Tell us what you think of Mark's analysis! It isn't good news for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, is it?

Sandy Larsen, a fellow 'Harvey and Lee' believer, has been brave enough (here and here) to admit that the six eyewitnesses' statements aren't up to much:

Quote

if all I had were their statements, I would reject them. They're not very convincing. Fran's is better than the others, but I'd reject hers too.

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

Well done, Sandy! Will Jim be brave and follow Sandy's fine example? Does he agree with Sandy that the statements are "not very convincing"? If he doesn't agree, would he please explain why? Sandy also writes, optimistically:

Quote

Jim Hargrove may have answers to those questions.

Here, once again for Jim's consideration, is Mark's perfectly reasonable demand:

Quote

We can gladly discuss the school records, and newspaper articles, and whatever you would like, literally in 1 post if you will just please address the witness statements. Please explain how my assessment of those statements is in error.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

The writers above intentionally want this thread to be chaotic which is why they repeat ridiculous questions that do not even merit replies.

On the contrary, the writers above (me, Mark, Tracy and Robert) do not want this thread to be chaotic. What we want is for 'Harvey and Lee' believers to justify the claims they make. We haven't had much luck with this, so far.

It isn't a matter of "ridiculous questions that do not even merit replies", but of reasonable questions that merit and demand replies. It's all about Jim Hargrove's consistent refusal to deal with criticism of claims he (and James Norwood) made concerning the eyewitnesses statements.

Since James has now poked his head above the parapet, let's look at the claim he himself made on page 18 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=42299) :

Quote

a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School. In a videotaped interview, student Fran Schubert told John Armstrong that she recalled Oswald attending Stripling in fall 1954, and she noted that he resided with his mother across the street from the school.

Mark analysed the statements made by those eyewitnesses, and found that they didn't provide much support for James's claim (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423033, on p.19). He concluded:

Quote

We started with a total of six eyewitnesses who "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." ... What we are left with though, is something a little different than that ... They though are not eyewitnesses. What they are is 1 eyewitness to LHO attending the school in 1954 (Kudlaty), 1 eyewitness to LHO attending in 1952 (Summers), 3 people who at best remember someone they think might be LHO going to the school (Schubert/Tubbs, Galindo, Gann), and 1 person who saw him at a house across the street (Gann). Take it for whatever it may be. This mishmash of ambiguity and unclear, unhashed characters is not though a total of six eyewitness to LHO attending Stripling. Exclaiming otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

It should be obvious to any reasonable person who has read Mark's analysis that James's "six eyewitnesses ... clearly recalled" not very much at all. 

James made a specific claim which appears to be unjustified by the evidence. Perhaps, instead of trying to get his critics banned, he would care to reply to Mark's analysis. What, exactly, about those eyewitnesses' statements led James to conclude that these six people "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School"? James could take each witness's statements in turn, and show us how they support the claim he made. If he isn't able to do that, perhaps he would be good enough to admit that he was wrong.

To get the ball rolling, let's see what James has to say about one of his six eyewitnesses, Bobby Pitts. This is Mark's analysis:

Quote

Pitts: eyewitness to "when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee Harvey Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch."

Again, this is the totality of Pitts' knowledge of LHO attending Stripling. This totality is actually him knowing absolutely nothing about LHO attending the school. His knowledge is strictly limited to remembering a boy who resembled LHO standing on the porch of 2260 Thomas Place watching them play. Never mind the fact that according to Armstrong, HLO lived in the rear apartment, and would be unlikely to be sitting on the porch of a house he didn't actually live in. If you live in the rear apartment of a front/rear duplex, there is clear separation of a porch. It would not be shared, the rear tenant would not hang out on the front porch and definitely would not just walk into the front apartment, without some preexisting relationship which allowed this type of behavior.

Not exactly "clearly recalled", is it? But perhaps James can tell us what led him to state that Bobby Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School". Once he has dealt with Pitts' evidence, we can move on to the next witness. Over to you, James!

Edited July 4, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk

[Mark Stevens]

I've decided to scale back my participation on this thread to a degree.

While I may have said:

Quote

The only way this debate ends without you actually answering the questions put forth is when one of us are banned, this thread is locked, or one of us die. I will come here every day and "demand" you answer the questions you continue to avoid. Everyone who follows will see your constant deflection and inability to answer the most basic questions regarding ideas you brought forth.

I'm not actually trying to get banned and I am really trying to discuss topics the H&L crowd continually presents. I don't believe I came here and posted a topic and demanded they talk about it. They presented the arguments and evidence, all I did was ask questions. I feel though that I have made my point, and while I'm not celebrating victory (because I'm not trying to win anything and I don't believe anything has been won), I do believe I have made my point clear and asked valid questions and made valid observations which have largely gone ignored.

I really just wanted replies such as those (eventual witness detail based replies) from Sandy, and not exactly ones that agreed with my opinion, just legitimate discussion of the topics. I appreciate Sandy for at least finally getting to that point, and I wish the others who present and use this "evidence" would at least do the same.

If anyone wants to discuss the details of the evidence and whether these details actual support or negate aspects of the H&L story then I'm all in. Circuitous debates where evidence is presented, made known it exists, then not discussed doesn't reach that goal and should be frowned upon on an education discussion forum.

If we deny the existence of information which may contradict, or may give reasonable suspicion to our ideas, or even may confirm it, then again what is even the point? How are we educating? How are we creating and conducting legitimate discussion?

In the words of a now basically defunct but once great source of interesting information....

Deny Ignorance.

[Jim Hargrove]

The H&L critics are faced with overwhelming evidence that LHO attended Stripling School, including sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, five articles from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, recorded interviews with the Stripling assistant principal in 1963 and a Stripling Student who knew Oswald, and more.

All the critics can do is complain.  One recent complaint is that John A. didn’t get enough information about Stripling and its students and teachers.  These people will never stop complaining. If we were able to answer all their questions about, for example, Ricardo Galindo, they would soon be demanding to know what he ate for breakfast the day after the assassination and scolding us for not knowing.

Since the H&L critics cannot counter the evidence we have already presented, they just demand more.   I’ll leave it for people who still have an open mind to decide for themselves how much evidence John gathered about Stripling Junior High School and LHO.

Here are the relevant pages from Harvey and Lee:

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The H&L critics are faced with overwhelming evidence that LHO attended Stripling School, including sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, five articles from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, recorded interviews with the Stripling assistant principal in 1963 and a Stripling Student who knew Oswald, and more.

All the critics can do is complain.  One recent complaint is that John A. didn’t get enough information about Stripling and its students and teachers.  These people will never stop complaining. If we were able to answer all their questions about, for example, Ricardo Galindo, they would soon be demanding to know what he ate for breakfast the day after the assassination and scolding us for not knowing.

I’m asking upon what basis Galindo - or any single person - gets to claim something is “common knowledge” without any apparent effort to determine how common it was.  Should have been a no-brainer.  How hard is it to ask Galindo “Do you know anyone else that shares your view?”  Or maybe the question was asked, but for whatever reason it was decided Galindo alone should suffice.  Or did Galindo say “Yes, I heard it from Kudlaty”?

I’m asking if in writing any of the five FWST articles, the author/s bothered to check with Stripling that LHO attended.  If not, you don’t have five articles; you have one article whose chief mistake is repeated an additional four times.  This is such basic stuff, it must be humiliating to be incapable of a response.

I’m asking if any attempt was made to contact Robert Oswald while he was still alive, to verify if this was his perfectly natural mistake, or determine his absolute certainty.  But apparently we’re supposed to take this as read because Robert made the same mistake more than once, at least twice.  Well, then it must be true!

The fall-back of posting the very thing that is at issue - without even acknowledging legitimate questions that any author should be able to answer - is also self-negating.  Open minded people read this all the time.  You, like Norwood, and suddenly-instant “non-expert” Sandy, would like some help from others, but it’s not forthcoming.  

Because they’re afraid of questions they may be asked?  

Or because they see you, James and Sandy - self-proclaimed publicists - scuttle for cover rather than respond to questions for which you clearly have no answer.  And no interest in providing one.

It’s easier to post seven pages of the very thing whose validity is in question than to answer one.

Noted.

[Jim Hargrove]

Once again, without offering a shred of EVIDENCE to back up his opinions, RCD scolds John A. for not doing enough research on this case.  The legitimate way to counteract EVIDENCE you don’t like is to present more EVIDENCE that contradicts it.  Opinions without evidence to back them up are worthless.

Here is an example of EVIDENCE:

In a November 15, 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram story entitled “My Values Different, Defector Told Mother,” Marguerite was quoted as saying: "He quit school at 14 …. he quit in the eighth grade ….. but was so set on getting an education, he quit and returned three times."  That, of course, hardly matches the WC record of Classic Oswald®  But it makes perfect sense if we understand that the Russian-speaking Oswald attended, and later quit, Stripling JHS, Warren Easton High School, and Arlington Heights High School.

This, of course, matches nicely with the Star-Telegram articles of 1959 and 1962, both indicating that Robert Oswald said LHO attended Stripling a year or so before entering the Marine Corps.  As someone who understands that the Warren Commission was an enormous cover-up, RCD should realize how valuable these relevant pre-assassination reports should be, and yet he just whines about them because he doesn't like what they say.
 

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I’m asking upon what basis Galindo - or any single person - gets to claim something is “common knowledge” without any apparent effort to determine how common it was.  Should have been a no-brainer.  How hard is it to ask Galindo “Do you know anyone else that shares your view?”  Or maybe the question was asked, but for whatever reason it was decided Galindo alone should suffice.  Or did Galindo say “Yes, I heard it from Kudlaty”?

As you should be able to tell from reading the excerpts from H&L I reproduced above, the conversation with Mr. Galindo was just the start of John’s research on Stripling School. His talk with Mr. Galindo led quickly to Ralph Waller and Billy Sills of the Fort Worth Independent School District, a list of 41 former Stripling teachers, Frank Kudlaty and others.  John was looking for eyewitnesses to LHO’s Stripling School attendance, not for a definition of “common knowledge” which you only pretend is an unknown term.

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I’m asking if in writing any of the five FWST articles, the author/s bothered to check with Stripling that LHO attended.  If not, you don’t have five articles; you have one article whose chief mistake is repeated an additional four times.  This is such basic stuff, it must be humiliating to be incapable of a response.

RCD is long on insults and short, as always, on EVIDENCE!  It is quite simple to show the FWST articles were not based on one original mistake due to the disparate dates given in the articles for LHO’s attendance at Stripling.  The 1959 and 1962 articles indicate LHO attended a year or so before joining the Marine Corps, clearly suggesting attendance in 1954 or 1955, but the 5/11/2002 article indicates LHO  attended in 1956.  The FBI destroyed the records, so there was minor disagreement about the dates, clearly indicating the 2002 article was not just repeating an “error” in the 1959 and 1961 stories.

How can you possibly not be interested in these stories that pre-date the assassination and all the FBI/WC nonsense?  You should treasure this glimpse into reality untouched by the cover-up artists at the FBI and WC.  Instead, you just whine that it’s all a big mistake.
 

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I’m asking if any attempt was made to contact Robert Oswald while he was still alive, to verify if this was his perfectly natural mistake, or determine his absolute certainty.  But apparently we’re supposed to take this as read because Robert made the same mistake more than once, at least twice.  Well, then it must be true!

If memory serves (and it doesn’t always), John tried to contact Robert but he wouldn’t talk to him.  By the same token, since you are clearly so alarmed by the Harvey and Lee Menace®, why didn’t you contact Robert and set us all straight?  Should I shame you for your obvious dereliction of duty?
 

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

The fall-back of posting the very thing that is at issue - without even acknowledging legitimate questions that any author should be able to answer - is also self-negating.  Open minded people read this all the time.  You, like Norwood, and suddenly-instant “non-expert” Sandy, would like some help from others, but it’s not forthcoming.  

Because they’re afraid of questions they may be asked?  

Or because they see you, James and Sandy - self-proclaimed publicists - scuttle for cover rather than respond to questions for which you clearly have no answer.  And no interest in providing one.

It’s easier to post seven pages of the very thing whose validity is in question than to answer one.

Noted.

More insults.... but still no EVIDENCE!

Sandy Larsen has been enormously helpful in a number of aspects of the H&L research.  Sandy discovered the “prostheses failed 5-5-58” notation on LHO’s marine dental records, and did important research into the Taiwan trip of one LHO while the other was being treated for VD in Japan.

Dr. James Norwood has written two extremely important articles on the Harvey and Lee website:

Lee Harvey Oswald: The Legend and the Truth

and 

Oswald’s Proficiency in the Russian Language

[James Norwood]

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

You, like Norwood, and suddenly-instant “non-expert” Sandy, would like some help from others, but it’s not forthcoming.  

Because they’re afraid of questions they may be asked?  

Or because they see you, James and Sandy - self-proclaimed publicists - scuttle for cover rather than respond to questions for which you clearly have no answer.  And no interest in providing one.

In my letter of complaint to the administration of this forum, I noted that respondents like Robert Charles-Dunne inevitably resort to ad hominem name-calling once they have failed to refute the evidence.  Here again, Charles-Dunne comes around to referring to me and Sandy Larson as "self-proclaimed publicists."  What on earth does that statement mean???

There is no mystique about the question under discussion:  did Oswald attend Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, or did he not?  The question is answered by careful scrutiny of the evidence, which as been provided over and over on this thread by Jim Hargrove.  The evidence overwhelmingly points to Oswald having attended the school and even resided across the street from the school. 

The administrator is now monitoring this thread, and I will continue to inform him of the ad hominem attacks in contravention of the site's ground rules.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/3/2020 at 7:52 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

On 7/3/2020 at 6:34 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Robert,

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

That’s what many people in this thread have assumed.  Chance would be a fine thing.

But the answers to our questions are not forthcoming.  Apparently seeking answers to our questions is somehow out of bounds.

 

Mark Stevens wasn't asking reasonable questions. He asked things like what does Jim think "common knowledge" means. And he was making statements about the witnesses and then asking Jim to comment.

I'm sure that Jim would answer reasonable questions.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/3/2020 at 7:52 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

There are really only 3 possible answers: a) yes; b) no; or c) I don’t know.  But try as I might, I cannot coax this information from Jim, James, Sandy....

If the answer is “yes,” let’s see the proof.

If the answer is “no,” let’s see an admission.  

Because without that, we’re really back to square one with Robert naturally assuming LHO had followed him into Stripling.

 

I understand that that is what you'd like to think, but no, we are not back to that. Vice Principal Kudlaty stated that he handed LHO's records for Stripling over to the FBI. And he stated that he saw the records of both LHO and his brother Robert. And so he didn't mistake Robert for LHO, as your theory goes.

Besides, your theory has already been discredited (by moi) without having to bring up that Kudlaty saw both records.

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If memory serves (and it doesn’t always), John tried to contact Robert but he wouldn’t talk to him.  By the same token, since you are clearly so alarmed by the Harvey and Lee Menace®, why didn’t you contact Robert and set us all straight?  Should I shame you for your obvious dereliction of duty?

Those who make a claim are responsible for proving it via corroborative evidence or witnesses.  Those who question the claims are not.  For a group of smart men, you seem to know little about how this process works.  You present evidence, we get to cross-examine.  If that strikes you as unfair, find a new hobby.

So, we get three posts of irrelevance and - shock, horror! - NO answers to the questions asked.  Again.  And again.

Noted.

And Norwood is again threatening to have me removed for asking questions he cannot begin to answer.

Noted.

Which, to repeat myself, is quite a weird state of affairs.  This is an exemplary chance to offer up all sorts replies that answer the questions, making the picture clearer for all to see.

Instead, we get this self-revealing fluff, which likewise makes the current picture clearer for all to see.  And it’s not helpful to H&L.

This circular reasoning is not unlike what some people contend about the Bible: It’s the infallible word of God.  How do we know?   Because it says so in the Bible.

I don’t know if you’ll succeed in getting me booted from here, though I doubt it.  

What I do think will ultimately happen is that John Armstrong will ask you all to cease publicizing his work, because you’re doing a really crap job of defending it.  All of you.  Were it my book being shredded, with only limp repetition such as this in my book’s defense, I’d rethink the wisdom of retaining your representation.

How is it that you can assert as fact what you cannot demonstrate to be true?  And why do you then complain of the horrible unfairness you suffer here for being asked to offer your proof.  

Oh, of course.  Because you have none.

Noted.  

For 3 quite intelligent men, your tag-team record in this thread is woeful.  But richly deserved. 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

 

I want to make a few clarification to what Jeremy wrote and quoted. I will do so by highlighting in this color and inserting text using [square brackets].

 

On 7/4/2020 at 1:45 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen, a fellow 'Harvey and Lee' believer, has been brave enough (here and here) to admit that the six eyewitnesses' statements aren't up to much:

Quote

Sandy said:

if all I had were their statements [without Kudlaty's], I would reject them. They're not very convincing [alone]. Fran's is better than the others, but I'd reject hers too.

[At least some of the witnesses' statements make fine corroborating evidence for Kudlaty's statements.]

 

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

[Having given it more thought, I should have said that what Galindo said should not be used as evidence of what people at the school thought shortly after the assassination. But his statements could be used as evidence of what people at the school thought during the period when he was principle.]

Well done, Sandy! Will Jim be brave and follow Sandy's fine example? Does he agree with Sandy that the statements are "not very convincing"? If he doesn't agree, would he please explain why? Sandy also writes, optimistically:

Quote

Sandy said:

Jim Hargrove may have answers to those questions.

Here, once again for Jim's consideration, is Mark's perfectly reasonable demand:

[When I said that Jim Hargrove may have answers, I was referring to question Robert CD had just asked.]

 

Quote

Mark said:

We can gladly discuss the school records, and newspaper articles, and whatever you would like, literally in 1 post if you will just please address the witness statements. Please explain how my assessment of those statements is in error.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

What I do think will ultimately happen is that John Armstrong will ask you all to cease publicizing his work, because you’re doing a really crap job of defending it.  All of you.  Were it my book being shredded, with only limp repetition such as this in my book’s defense, I’d rethink the wisdom of retaining your representation.

Laugh!  I've been friends with John Armstrong for more than 20 years.  Here, again, is the evidence John has compiled for Stripling School that you are quite obviously totally incapable of debunking.  

On 7/2/2020 at 6:55 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

How Did Robert Oswald
Know LHO Attended Stripling?

At least one of the four or five H&L critics working so hard here have pointed out, correctly, that Robert Oswald was in the Marine Corps when LHO enrolled in Stripling School in the fall semester of 1954.  So how did Robert know about LHO’s attendance there?

John A. wrote about this very issue some time ago on this page of HarveyandLee.net.

Robert Oswald knew HARVEY Oswald

In 1948 Robert Oswald enrolled in the 9th grade at Stripling Junior High School in Ft. Worth (1948-49 school year). Six years later, in 1954, HARVEY Oswald enrolled in the 9th grade at Stripling JHS. Two years later, during the summer and fall of 1956 Robert Oswald, HARVEY Oswald, and the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor were living in an apartment at 4936 Collinwood in Ft. Worth, not far from Stripling JHS. 

Google Maps

While living together in this small apartment, it is the author's opinion that Robert and HARVEY discussed their attendance, teachers, and experiences at nearby Stripling JHS. The would explain how Robert Oswald learned that HARVEY had attended Stripling JHS, and would also explain how Robert was able to tell the Warren Commission that his "brother" had attended Stripling.

NOTE: It is worth noting that during the summer of 1956 Robert's mother, the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Claverie Oswald, was still living in New Orleans and  working at Goldrings Dept. Store. LEE Oswald was also in New Orleans, working under the supervision of Frank DiBenedetto at the Gerard F. Tujague Company. Late that summer Marguerite Claverie Oswald relocated from New Orleans to Ft. Worth and moved into an apartment at 3830 W. 6th, not far from 4936 Collinwood. While in the Marines her son, LEE Oswald (not HARVEY), resided with her when on leave from the Marine Corps.

HARVEY Oswald joined the Marines in October, 1956, left Fort Worth, and arrived at Camp Pendleton in California. One month later, in November, Robert Oswald married Vada Mercer, and the Marguerite Oswald impostor was now alone in her apartment at 4936 Collinwood. During the time that Robert and Vada were dating, the summer and fall of 1956, Robert never introduced his future wife to HARVEY Oswald (supposedly his "brother") nor to the Marguerite Oswald impostor (supposedly his "mother"). This makes perfect sense, because HARVEY Oswald was not Robert's brother and the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor was not Robert's mother.

Despite all the work the H&L critics are trying to do to dismiss the evidence that LHO did indeed attend Stripling, it’s a funny thing about evidence.  It just doesn’t go away, despite efforts to explain it away.

Unless Mr. Gordon tells me to stop, and I’m going to keep posting this evidence on every page of this thread so that casual readers who happen to come across the critics’ attacks won’t be deceived into believing there isn’t substantial evidence that LHO did indeed attend Stripling School.

First, of course, is the proof that the two LHOs attended two different schools just one year before the Stripling School attendance.

Because both the FBI and the Warren Commission missed this detail and neglected to cover it up, school records published in the Warren volumes show that both LHOs attended a full fall 1953 school semester in New York City and New Orleans simultaneously.

In the fall semester of 1953, one LHO attended Public School 44 in the Bronx borough of New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.

Also in the fall semester of 1953, the other LHO was present at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 school days.

One year later, one LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans while the other was indeed enrolled in Stripling School in Fort Worth.

It was, and remains, common knowledge among local Stripling School district residents and current and former students and teachers that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School in the 1950s.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram confirmed this simple fact in an article published in 2017 and updated in 2019.

Once again, 

This 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

This 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

Published two days after the assassination of JFK, this Fort Worth Star-Telegram article reported: “He attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School before joining the Marines.”

In his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Robert Oswald said that LHO attended Stripling School.

This May 11, 2002 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicated that “a boy walked to Stripling from a home nearby.  His mother was living in a home behind the school on Thomas Place by 1963, when the world learned the name Lee Harvey Oswald.”

And then, of course, there is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 mentioned above.

Way back on December 27, 1993, John Armstrong wrote to Ricardo Galindo, the then current principal of Stripling School, asking if there were any records for Lee Harvey Oswald's attendance the school.  Mr. Galindo telephoned John back and said that, although there were no records, it was “common knowledge” that LHO had attended the school. [Harvey and Lee, p. 97]

In this 1997 interview, Stripling Student Fran Schubert watched LHO walk from the school to his house at 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from the school.

And, of course, in a 1997 interview, the assistant principal of Stripling School described how he met two FBI agents at Stripling less than 24 hours after the assassination and gave them the records for LHO.  Mr. Stevens can only say that Frank Kudlaty, who went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, was mistaken (about his entire story of meeting FBI agents hours after the assassination???) or lying.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I went back and checked Robert's book. Funny thing, there is no mention of Stripling. He has LHO going from Ridgelea to NYC. It looks to me like Robert went over the records and realized that he had made a mistake during his WC testimony and therefore did not write about Stripling. I can't think of any other explanation when he is writing a book that will be his final word.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Those who make a claim are responsible for proving it via corroborative evidence or witnesses.

 

Which is exactly what Jim has been doing.

 

2 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

For a group of smart men, you seem to know little about how this process works.  You present evidence, we get to cross-examine.

 

Cross-examine? No, you don't cross-examine in a debate, you do that in a courtroom.

Maybe your misunderstanding explains the kinds of questions you guys have been asking. For example, in a courtroom you could cross-examine Galindo and ask him what he meant by "common knowledge." And cross-examine John Armstrong and ask him why he didn't keep looking for other Stripling eyewitnesses. Etc., etc.

But no, in a debate each side simply presents an argument and backs it up with evidence.