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

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

I downloaded this image myself from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram online archives, which are run under the auspices of a newspapers.com plus account. It is reasonably expensive but, if you give them a credit card number, you can get a free week after which you can cancel without charge.

Why don’t you try that yourself to verify that this story is indeed directly from the FWST?

You can start HERE.
 

Sorry, it doesn't matter about download or source.  We have all down loaded corrupted material from time to time. 

What is important is the small script printing error in this 1963 Fort Worth Star-Telegram material.  It is an anachronism.  News papers didn't make that kind of mistake in the 60s.  The only entity that I know of that did was MS Word from the 1990s.  It was either MS Word for Windows 1995 V.7 or Ms Word 1997.  How can you tell?  Well, the small script printing error would stop at a return for the next line.  Check out the two examples in the Star-Telegram article.  They end when there is a return for the next line.  Inside a word that small script changes to larger print and is not apt to be a printing error of the Star-Telegram.

From the internet:

"The Star-Telegram is the nation's oldest continuously operating online newspaper.^{[6][citation needed]}StarText, an ASCII-based service, was started in 1982 and eventually integrated into the paper's current website, star-telegram.com."

They have had an digital or online service since the 1980s.  Instead of posting photographic images, that require more storage space and memory think of 80s and 90s technology, of their material they may have resorted to retyping them.  Text material stores way better, memory wise, than pictures.  There was plenty of time to retype articles and put them online.  That could be the same thing with the Vicky Adams document at Mary Ferrell.

The article's content maybe true.  I don't know.  The small script anachronism says one should take a second look at it. 

Just as one should take a second look at this doc:

The same type of error is present here.

  

Edited July 6, 2020 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

Jeremy,

Bobby Pitts' recollection is important because it corroborates Fran Schubert's recall of the academic year 1954-55 as the time when Lee Harvey Oswald was attending Stripling Junior High School.  The fact that we have six eyewitnesses recalling a nondescript kid living across from the school at the time is compelling evidence.  Pitts was not a student at Stripling at the time, but his testimony identifies Oswald as residing in a duplex across the street from the school, and the specific time frame was the 1954-55 school year.  If a young boy is residing in that close proximity to the school, it is a fair assumption that he is enrolled at that institution.

The flaw in the approach that you and your cohorts are taking to this topic is that you are attempting to discredit all of the eyewitnesses individually because he or she was not physically present with Oswald in a classroom at the school.  In the JFK case, the evidence is so tainted that we have to rely on eyewitness testimony, and we have to rely on circumstantial evidence, in order to draw reasonable conclusions.  This is true for any facet of the case, including ballistics, medical evidence at Parkland, medical evidence at Bethesda, and photographic and film evidence. 

We are all attempting to assemble a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.  What is most important is the totality of the evidence.  When the Stripling matter is examined as a whole, the two most important eyewitnesses are Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert.  The other eyewitnesses corroborate portions of the recall of a school administrator who surrendered the school records to the FBI and a student who recalls Oswald's physical presence at the school in 1954-55.

It is remarkable that we have as many as six eyewitnesses who have some recollection of Oswald attending the school and residing in the vicinity in 1954-55.  Because you and the others have failed to discredit the eyewitnesses or to demonstrate why their testimony is inaccurate, I stand by what I have written about Stripling.

Thanks, Dr. Norwood.

I'd add, though, that Robert Oswald's pre-assassination statements to the Fort Worth Star Telegram that LHO attended Stripling School a year or so before joining the Marines is also particularly compelling evidence.  His sworn testimony to the WC, altering the dates to make the attendance at the wrong time, was an obvious ploy to repair the damage done by the earlier reporting. Nevertheless, Robert swore under oath that LHO attended Stripling.  The evidence all fits together nicely, including the published records indicating that the two LHO's simultaneously attended a full semester of school just a year earlier in both New York City and New Orleans, a remarkable feat for one kid!

[James Norwood]

Jim,

Yes, Robert Oswald is important for (a) what he stated prior to the assassination, (b) his Warren Commission testimony, and (c) for what he intentionally omitted in his book.  I also believe that the newspaper accounts you have posted are important reminders that Oswald's attendance at Stripling was in the memories of eyewitnesses.  There are simply too many references to Stripling at so many different times that make it impossible to dismiss Oswald's enrollment at that school.  This work in pulling together the details was exactly what I had in mind in writing about the totality of evidence, as opposed to examining each piece in a vacuum. 

James

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

Bobby Pitts' recollection is important because it corroborates Fran Schubert's recall of the academic year 1954-55 as the time when Lee Harvey Oswald was attending Stripling Junior High School.  The fact that we have six eyewitnesses recalling a nondescript kid living across from the school at the time is compelling evidence.  Pitts was not a student at Stripling at the time, but his testimony identifies Oswald as residing in a duplex across the street from the school, and the specific time frame was the 1954-55 school year.  If a young boy is residing in that close proximity to the school, it is a fair assumption that he is enrolled at that institution.

Again, you do not have six eyewitnesses who recall a nondescript kid living across the street.. You have a mix of witnesses and a mix what they said and saw, but 6 witnesses do not state LHO lived in a house across the street. This did not happen, and when you state "The fact that we have six eyewitnesses recalling a nondescript kid living across from the school" you are again intentionally misleading readers by twisting evidence and statements.

As I have pointed out before, living near a school in no manner indicates attendance in that school.

I have also pointed out that the witnesses who place LHO in this house incorrectly identify which house he is claimed to actually live in. This was a front/rear duplex in which LHO or HLO or whomever lived in the rear with a separate tenant residing in the front. I've explained before the illogical nature of Oswald hanging out on this porch and entering the residence freely.

Quote

The flaw in the approach that you and your cohorts are taking to this topic is that you are attempting to discredit all of the eyewitnesses individually because he or she was not physically present with Oswald in a classroom at the school.  In the JFK case, the evidence is so tainted that we have to rely on eyewitness testimony, and we have to rely on circumstantial evidence, in order to draw reasonable conclusions.  This is true for any facet of the case, including ballistics, medical evidence at Parkland, medical evidence at Bethesda, and photographic and film evidence. 

No we aren't attempting to really discredit those things, at least I'm not, I guess I can't really speak for anyone else. All I'm trying to do is discuss the eyewitness statements so we can actual determine what the statements corroborate or support. If any discrediting happens, the I guess that's a side effect. 

You're not actually doing that, you're just going around in the same circle you always do.

Quote

We are all attempting to assemble a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.  What is most important is the totality of the evidence.  When the Stripling matter is examined as a whole, the two most important eyewitnesses are Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert.  The other eyewitnesses corroborate portions of the recall of a school administrator who surrendered the school records to the FBI and a student who recalls Oswald's physical presence at the school in 1954-55.

When the Stripling matter is examined as a whole, the totality of the evidence points to hundreds of people not recalling Oswald, 4 people with some kind of recollection of Oswald being in the school, 2 people who know he lived near the school, and a guy who heard a rumor.

Yet you state:

Quote

It is remarkable that we have as many as six eyewitnesses who have some recollection of Oswald attending the school and residing in the vicinity in 1954-55.  Because you and the others have failed to discredit the eyewitnesses or to demonstrate why their testimony is inaccurate, I stand by what I have written about Stripling.

At least here you are rephrasing the statement, that is a little respectable and does begin to paint the statement in an actually accurate manner.

I though have given detailed examinations of the eyewitnesses, and while not saying their actual testimony is incorrect, I have stated what these witnesses actually saw and stated and what this actually means in regards to their status as a witness.

Because you and the others have failed to discredit the examinations, or demonstrate how they are witnesses to events they didn't actually see, I stand by what I have written about Stripling, the eyewitnesses, and the disingenuous and misleading nature in which you all continue to use them. 

If my assessment(s) were in error, could you please cite my erroneous sections, and explain how those assessments are in fact wrong?

Thanks.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bobby Pitts

In my often presented list of evidence for LHO's attendance at Stripling, I don't even mention Bobby Pitts, not because I don't believe John A's notes and statements about hun, but because John didn't record an interview with him and we don't, therefore, have physical evidence.

So, Bobby Pitts is a non-starter, because JA didn’t bother recording an interview with him.

That’s a pretty high standard for evaluation of evidence.  You are to be applauded for it.  Particularly if such a high standard is uniformly applied.

May I ask how many other persons were interviewed, but not recorded?  Just for the sake of knowing how universally that high standard was maintained.  And establishing who else among the H&L witnesses ought likewise be jettisoned for not being on tape.

 

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It is quite reasonable for Dr. Norwood to bring him up, but why do the H&L critics tend to pick on subjects for which physical evidence is so limited?  I have shown, again and again, substantial physical evidence, including five Fort Worth Star Telegram newspaper stories, that the H&L critics have little to say about.

Why is that?

So, while you admit it is unwise to use witness evidence you haven’t recorded, Norwood nevertheless does that very thing.

And you’re fine with that.  It’s “not unreasonable.”  If it’s “not unreasonable” why do you not do the same thing?  Your high standard seems endlessly malleable, depending on which side one is on.

Why is it that you all get to decide which bits of evidence you’ll use, and which you’ll eschew?  Jim doesn’t think Bobby Pitts should be used, because the evidence isn’t on tape.  But Norwood does use it anyway.  But that’s “not unreasonable.”  

Sandy thinks it unwise to use any of the 6 witnesses, but allows that some ring more true than others.  If your own squad cannot agree as to what should and shouldn’t be admissible, what is or is not persuasive or probative, what is or isn’t “unreasonable,” can you not see that in each such instance, people are left wondering why you are so scattered in your defense of H&L.  Hell, it seems all of you are prepared to demur over one H&L aspect or another.  How can Sandy admit the evidence is not probative, while you insist it is.

Hell of a way to run a railroad.  Do you guys ever consult with each other?

As for the repetition ad nauseam of “five FWST articles,” as already pointed out to you several times, if the FWST author/s didn’t contact Stripling to verify LHO’s attendance, then you don’t have five articles.  All you have is Robert making an inadvertent mistake in the first article, that was then repeated in four additional pieces.  And you repeating it endlessly as though it were established fact.  Which it’s not, because that piece of necessary homework was not done.  By Armstrong, or by you, or by the crack squad of H&L defenders.  

Jim may insist that his version is correct - five articles written at five different times - but the content in those five articles, written at different times, includes a mistake that was repeated throughout.  Was Robert asked afresh by the FWST five times?  You don’t know, because you haven’t sought to confirm if that is correct.  You are content to rely upon that lack of knowledge, as though it were probative.

And I suggest to all members that Jim Hargrove is not ignorant of media processes and protocols, and surely knows that this is the way newspapers work, because he is a man of letters himself.  He knows that the first thing a reporter does is look for back history details in the newspaper archives... and by including pertinent portions repeat what seems to be of topical interest for the most current story.  Any national story in a local newspaper, about a local resident, is bound to add local colour regarding siblings, spouses, church membership, ties to the local community, past criminal background (where it exists), etc.

I take it that after asking about this a half dozen times now - to the response of complete silence - there was no attempt made to contact the FWST reporters to determine what was culled from their archives for each new story and what was a fresh Robert Oswald quote.  A rather important loose end, left loose.

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

3 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Bobby Pitts' recollection is important because it corroborates Fran Schubert's recall of the academic year 1954-55 as the time when Lee Harvey Oswald was attending Stripling Junior High School.  The fact that we have six eyewitnesses recalling a nondescript kid living across from the school at the time is compelling evidence.  Pitts was not a student at Stripling at the time, but his testimony identifies Oswald as residing in a duplex across the street from the school, and the specific time frame was the 1954-55 school year.  If a young boy is residing in that close proximity to the school, it is a fair assumption that he is enrolled at that institution

So a kid named Pitts who doesn’t attend Stripling remembers a “nondescript” kid living across the street from Stripling?  Does this kid know Oswald by name?  Because they sure weren’t school-mates, according to you.  How, exactly, does one determine the name of a “nondescript” kid if one doesn’t attend the same school?  Did Pitts identify with certainty Oswald by name?  If not, why not?  Seems what he witnessed was a kid, whose identity is unknown.

So this legless piece of “evidence” is then used to prop up an equally shaky id.

3 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The flaw in the approach that you and your cohorts are taking to this topic is that you are attempting to discredit all of the eyewitnesses individually because he or she was not physically present with Oswald in a classroom at the school.  In the JFK case, the evidence is so tainted that we have to rely on eyewitness testimony, and we have to rely on circumstantial evidence, in order to draw reasonable conclusions.  This is true for any facet of the case, including ballistics, medical evidence at Parkland, medical evidence at Bethesda, and photographic and film evidence. 

Oh for god’s sake, when will you people cease with this false equivalency between pieces of evidence that should be there, but aren’t, and documents that never existed.  If an FBI doc mentions in its body of text a reference to another document, that is evidence the second document exists, even if unavailable , for whatever reasons.  You've provided NO documentation that indicates LHO attended Stripling.  No photos, no yearbooks, no report cards, no reliable witnesses, nothing.  Just a 30+year memory from Kudlaty for which JA then sought confirmation, some of it incredibly weak, at least to the point that Sandy warns against its use. 

 

3 hours ago, James Norwood said:

We are all attempting to assemble a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.  What is most important is the totality of the evidence.  When the Stripling matter is examined as a whole, the two most important eyewitnesses are Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert.  The other eyewitnesses corroborate portions of the recall of a school administrator who surrendered the school records to the FBI and a student who recalls Oswald's physical presence at the school in 1954-55.

It is remarkable that we have as many as six eyewitnesses who have some recollection of Oswald attending the school and residing in the vicinity in 1954-55.  Because you and the others have failed to discredit the eyewitnesses or to demonstrate why their testimony is inaccurate, I stand by what I have written about Stripling.

 

You insist that school documents were seized and destroyed (or well hidden) to protect The Oswald project.  But if LHO never attended there, what are the school records that went or are missing?  But the big bad Bureau had them all deep-sixed to preserve the Oswald Project, while nevertheless letting Robert Oswald run his mouth - at least twice - about something the Oswald Project sponsors  should have been desperate to keep hidden.  Why would they let him do that, if  the Stripling episode must have needed hiding?

The problem is you don’t have six eyewitnesses to LHO attending Stripling.  You have people like Bobby Pitts who couldn’t have known where Oswald went to school, because he didn’t know who Oswald was.  He was just some “nondescript” kid allegedly living in the area whom you’ve chosen to identify as Oswald as it suits your purpose.

Norwood assures us that “If a young boy is residing in that close proximity to the school, it is a fair assumption that he is enrolled at that institution..”  If Norwood is compelled to rely upon this “assumption,” it is specifically because witness Pitts could not demonstrate where LHO went to school, only where he lived, assuming it was Oswald, which is by no means certain..  

So, we’ve left the province of evidence to head for the land of “assumption.”

If that’s a fair assumption, let me ask where Bobby Pitts lived relative to Stripling, and if he was a local resident, why did he not attend Stripling?  If he didn’t, what makes us think that LHO did, or even should have done?  Mere proximity to the school?  Wasn’t the case for Pitts, so why is it “assumed” to be true of Oswald?

One notices that you’re not actually prepared to debate or defend your witnesses, you simply regurgitate the number of them as though they all testify uniformly (which they don't) so they are to be taken at face value.

Deserves an “incomplete.”

Edited July 6, 2020 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Jim may insist that his version is correct - five articles written at five different times - but the content in those five articles, written at different times, includes a mistake that was repeated throughout.  Was Robert asked afresh by the FWST five times?  You don’t know, because you haven’t sought to confirm if that is correct.  You are content to rely upon that lack of knowledge, as though it were probative.

Nonsense.  

The earliest Fort Worth Star-Telegram (FWST) articles indicate Robert said that LHO attended Stripling a year or so before joining the Marines (marking the 1954-55 school year most likely), which is what actually happened.  

Two days after the assassination, a third FWST article merely stated LHO attended Stripling but didn’t say when.  During Robert Oswald’s 1964 WC testimony, he swore that LHO DID attend Stripling, but gave incorrect dates.  

The 2002 FWST article said, “Yet a 1956 student would become the school’s best-known.  For a few weeks—his mother moved several times across Fort Worth—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.”

The 2017 FWST article merely says, without giving a date, “Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.”  

These articles clearly have different sources because they provide different details and, in at least one case, disagree on the year LHO attended Stripling, though all clearly agree that he did attend that school.

Despite the five newspaper articles, and Robert Oswald’s sworn testimony confirming LHO’s Stripling attendance, and Marguerite’s newspaper interview indirectly confirming it, and filmed interviews with a 1954 Stripling classmate and the Stripling assistant principal in 1963 who gave LHO’s records to the FBI, the H&L critics simply cannot accept any of this.and

Why?  Because they know if LHO attended Stripling even briefly in 1954, there were two LHOs, and, above all else, they cannot accept this.  That leads directly to the U.S. Intel project the Russian-speaking LHO was trained for.

Instead, the H&L critics scold the H&L proponents for not contacting the FWST newspaper to get more information on articles that are more than half a century old.  (Let me add, though, that in the case of the 2017 article, I DID correspond with Bud Kennedy, author of the piece.  Perhaps one of the H&L critics might make the supreme effort of contacting him as I did—or do they simply prefer to whine and scold us and do nothing else themselves?  Silly question!)

In the meantime, will ANY H&L critic respond to the really burning question here?  I’ve asked this many times before and never received an answer.  If the Stripling School attendance is so hard to believe, isn’t it remarkable that, just one year earlier, 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.

and

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

These documents are published in the Warren Volumes and I’ve put them up here many times.  Besides an occasional link and a false claim that it has been debunked elsewhere, no H&L critic seems to have the courage to discuss these documents right here, on the JFK Assassination Debate Forum.

The 1953/54 school records published by the WC are just a distraction, they want readers to believe.  It’s just a change of subject!  It’s just... ju... icky!

That is irrelevant?  That is a distraction?
 

[James Norwood]

Jim,

This was a superb recap of the newspaper evidence.

You've really taken Charles-Dunne to school on this one and everything else for that matter.  Charles-Dunne is the one making unfounded assumptions.  When we make assumptions, they are based on a body of evidence.

James

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The earliest Fort Worth Star-Telegram (FWST) articles indicate Robert said that LHO attended Stripling a year or so before joining the Marines (marking the 1954-55 school year most likely), which is what actually happened.  

Yes he did.  It wasn’t true.  But he said it.

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Two days after the assassination, a third FWST article merely stated LHO attended Stripling but didn’t say when.  During Robert Oswald’s 1964 WC testimony, he swore that LHO DID attend Stripling, but gave incorrect dates. 

Yes it did.  And yes he did.  But you must now explain why Robert wouldn’t know the correct date of LHO attendance.  You have no record to check against, so....., you say this because it must be the case to suit the H&L hypothesis.  

Oddly, Robert seemed to have no problem ascertaining the pertinent dates in his WC testimony.

Additionally, one notes that you jumped from the first to the third newspaper articles.  Something wrong with the second one?  Maybe I’ll get back to that.

 

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The 2002 FWST article said, “Yet a 1956 student would become the school’s best-known.  For a few weeks—his mother moved several times across Fort Worth—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.”

The 2017 FWST article merely says, without giving a date, “Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.”  

“Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.” 

Now this article contains a significant nugget of evidence.  You see, for some reason, Jim Hargrove only cited one of the times the article mentions Stripling.  But the author, Bud Kennedy related the following in the same article:

In 1966, when I was 11, my wallet was stolen at what is now Stripling Middle School in the Arlington Heights neighborhood.

A woman who lived nearby called our home saying it had been tossed in her yard. I bicycled to her home on Byers Avenue and thanked her.

“Your name is Kennedy?” she asked, peering sternly through the screen door, and I nodded.

She did not smile as she said, “Well — I’m Mrs. Oswald.”

We would not have known, due to Jim H.’s decision for excision, the author either attended school at Stripling or was at least robbed there, when he’d be the right age to attend.  At no time does he report that it was “common knowledge” Oswald attended there.  At no time does he report the names of anyone who knew Oswald at Stripling, which would have been relatively easy for him to determine.  He makes the un-sourced claim “teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, but there is no official record.”  Either way, his claim is half true: “there is no official record.”

 

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

These articles clearly have different sources because they provide different details and, in at least one case, disagree on the year LHO attended Stripling, though all clearly agree that he did attend that school.

Despite the five newspaper articles, and Robert Oswald’s sworn testimony confirming LHO’s Stripling attendance, and Marguerite’s newspaper interview indirectly confirming it, and filmed interviews with a 1954 Stripling classmate and the Stripling assistant principal in 1963 who gave LHO’s records to the FBI, the H&L critics simply cannot accept any of this

Since Marguerite never mentioned Lee attending Stripling, this oft-repeated canard has no relevance to the issue at hand.  

 

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Why?  Because they know if LHO attended Stripling even briefly in 1954, there were two LHOs, and, above all else, they cannot accept this.  That leads directly to the U.S. Intel project the Russian-speaking LHO was trained for.

Which makes it supremely odd that nobody corrected him, or told him to keep his yap shut because the knowledge of Stripling could tip off somebody that something fantastical was afoot.  But despite this being a top-secret, hush-hush need-to-know compartmentalized operation, Robert kept mentioning Stripling, and nobody drew his attention to how this jeopardized an off-the-shelf “eyes only” operation.  Pick a lane.  You can’t have them both.

 

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Instead, the H&L critics scold the H&L proponents for not contacting the FWST newspaper to get more information on articles that are more than half a century old.

Well, they were only a quarter century old when the H&L squad should have been looking for them.  But better late than never.  And then there is your penchant for only quoting from 2017 what suits your purpose.  Tsk tsk.

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

(Let me add, though, that in the case of the 2017 article, I DID correspond with Bud Kennedy, author of the piece.  Perhaps one of the H&L critics might make the supreme effort of contacting him as I did—or do they simply prefer to whine and scold us and do nothing else themselves?  Silly question!)

Or I could simply quote - as I did above - something you wished to keep out of this thread.  And since you volunteered this information, you presumably pumped Kennedy for any additional information he may have to help buttress the H&L hypothesis.  I mean, why not?  You already contact with him.  Did he give you any additional names or leads?  Or did you not ask?

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

In the meantime, will ANY H&L critic respond to the really burning question here?  I’ve asked this many times before and never received an answer.  If the Stripling School attendance is so hard to believe, isn’t it remarkable that, just one year earlier, 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.

and

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

These documents are published in the Warren Volumes and I’ve put them up here many times.  Besides an occasional link and a false claim that it has been debunked elsewhere, no H&L critic seems to have the courage to discuss these documents right here, on the JFK Assassination Debate Forum.

The 1953/54 school records published by the WC are just a distraction, they want readers to believe.  It’s just a change of subject!  It’s just... ju... icky!

That is irrelevant?  That is a distraction?

Again with the bait and switch.  You planted a flag here, and have continued to defend it.  What you haven’t done is answer a single question put to you by at least four people - the future ex-members of Norwood’s dreams - nor even made an attempt.

You demand we demonstrate good faith, when you yourself have offered none.

Try answering a damn question.

[Jim Hargrove]

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

“Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.” 

Now this article contains a significant nugget of evidence.  You see, for some reason, Jim Hargrove only cited one of the times the article mentions Stripling.  But the author, Bud Kennedy related the following in the same article:

In 1966, when I was 11, my wallet was stolen at what is now Stripling Middle School in the Arlington Heights neighborhood.

A woman who lived nearby called our home saying it had been tossed in her yard. I bicycled to her home on Byers Avenue and thanked her.

“Your name is Kennedy?” she asked, peering sternly through the screen door, and I nodded.

She did not smile as she said, “Well — I’m Mrs. Oswald.”

We would not have known, due to Jim H.’s decision for excision, the author either attended school at Stripling or was at least robbed there, when he’d be the right age to attend.  At no time does he report that it was “common knowledge” Oswald attended there.  At no time does he report the names of anyone who knew Oswald at Stripling, which would have been relatively easy for him to determine.  He makes the un-sourced claim “teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, but there is no official record.”  Either way, his claim is half true: “there is no official record.

Of course, RCD fails to point out that I have provided links to the Mr. Kennedy's article probably a dozen times in this thread, which is probably why RCD bothered to read the article in the first place.  His breathless RED QUOTATION above is an interesting anecdote, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the story also indicated that “teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, but there is no official record.”

It is, in fact the fifth article in which the Fort Worth Star-Telegram indicated LHO attended Stripling School.  Perhaps RCD can point us to a retraction.... but no, of course he can't, because a retraction hasn't been made.

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

”Since Marguerite never mentioned Lee attending Stripling, this oft-repeated canard has no relevance to the issue at hand.

 

Which makes it supremely odd that nobody corrected him, or told him to keep his yap shut because the knowledge of Stripling could tip off somebody that something fantastical was afoot.  But despite this being a top-secret, hush-hush need-to-know compartmentalized operation, Robert kept mentioning Stripling, and nobody drew his attention to how this jeopardized an off-the-shelf “eyes only” operation.  Pick a lane.  You can’t have them both.Well, they were only a quarter century old when the H&L squad should have been looking for them.  But better late than never.  And then there is your penchant for only quoting from 2017 what suits your purpose.  Tsk tsk.

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.

The newspaper articles quoting Robert saying that LHO attended Stripling a year or so before joining the Marine Corps obviously predate the assassination of JFK.  During this period, the cover story for U.S. Intel's Oswald project did not need to stand up under a microscope; it only had to be good enough to fool a Soviet investigation into LHO's background, should one be undertaken after the false defection.  

After the assassination, of course, everything was under a microscope, and Robert, during his WC testimony, had to muddy the Stripling waters by giving false dates.  Otherwise, the WC would have run into the same disaster the H&L critics are encountering here and now--overwhelming evidence that one LHO attended Stripling School in Fort Worth while the other was at Beauregard School New Orleans.

12 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Or I could simply quote - as I did above - something you wished to keep out of this thread.  And since you volunteered this information, you presumably pumped Kennedy for any additional information he may have to help buttress the H&L hypothesis.  I mean, why not?  You already contact with him.  Did he give you any additional names or leads?  Or did you not ask?

Again with the bait and switch.  You planted a flag here, and have continued to defend it.  What you haven’t done is answer a single question put to you by at least four people - the future ex-members of Norwood’s dreams - nor even made an attempt.

You demand we demonstrate good faith, when you yourself have offered none.

Try answering a damn question.

RCD apparently FORGETS that in just the last couple of days, I answered his questions in THIS POST, and in THIS POST, and in THIS POST, among others.  But scolding me for not answering questions appears to be a talking point among the anti-H&L people, who wish to talk about ANYTHING other than the EVIDENCE.

Above all else, RCD clearly wants to avoid the evidence that  two LHOs attended two different schools just one year before the Stripling School attendance.  He wants to pretend this is irrelevant!  He tries to claim it is a "bait and switch."

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.

 

[Pete Mellor]

 

Oswald's school photographs.  Over to you guys to conclude 'what' school & 'what' year.

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

 

Oswald's school photographs.  Over to you guys to conclude 'what' school & 'what' year.

 

 

Thanks, Pete.  These all appear to be early photos of American-born LEE Harvey Oswald in elementary school.

Top photo: Lee Oswald in 6th Grade at Ridglea West Elementary.

On September 5, 11-year-old Lee Oswald entered Mrs. Bratton's 6th grade class
at Ridglea West Elementary. In September, Marguerite borrowed $56.45 against the
$1000 life insurance policy on Lee Oswald, which she had purchased in 1945, but never
repaid the loan. 127 [Harvey and Lee, p. 40)

Middle photo: Lee Oswald in 4th Grade at Ridglea West.

On September 7, 1949 Lee Oswald entered Emma Livingston's 4th grade class
at Ridglea West Elementary (Fort Worth school #48). 52-21122 She remembered, "Lee
Oswald entered this school with a group of all new students as this was the first year this
elementary school was in operation. He was a quiet and rather shy type of student, did
not know any of the other students, and it took him a long time to get acquainted with
the other students."109 Nancy Kuklies, who sat next to Oswald class, said that she liked
him, "Because he was a husky boy and because it seemed like he had more ideas about
things than I did." She remembered later, when Oswald was 12, that he spent a lot of
time at the home of a 16-year-old boy, whose sister Nancy often visited. [H&L, p. 36]

Bottom photo: This is probably Lee Oswald at Lily B. Clayton Elementary School in Fort Worth. 

In early 1947 Marguerite and Ekdahl ended their 8-month separation and re­
united. Lee was withdrawn from the Covington Grammar School on January 23, 1947
and returned with his mother to Fort Worth. Marguerite enrolled Lee at Lily B. Clayton
Elementary School (Fort Worth-school #19), located at 2000 Park Place Avenue, and Lee
began attending Lois Lowimore's first grade class on January 27.64 52-1011  [H&L, p. 23]

[Jim Hargrove]

John Armstrong has been working on a reorganization of the Marines page on our website.  There is some new information there and some new graphics, but it is mostly a reorganization hoping to make it easier to understand how the two LHOs were so often in two different places simultaneously, according to Marine Corps records.

I haven’t made the new page public yet because it isn’t quite finished, but anyone interested in a look at this almost completed update can do so by clicking on this link:

https://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines-NEW.html

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

22 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Try answering a damn question.

So, still no answers.   Just more of the same irrelevant rubbish.

You don't want to stay on the topic of Stripling, because you cannot answer the questions asked.  Which is why you rush along to other anomalies, without explaining the ones that surround Stripling.

No amount of pretending that you have already answered outstanding questions will fool the people who read this.

For a crack squad anxious to take on all comers, you sure  all avoid the questions posed.

Why?

[Mark Stevens]

Would anyone care to explain other Kudlaty's statements?

You know, taking the totality of what he said and all? Or are we just going to examine an individual statement in a vacuum? You know, the thing Norwood is against. We shouldn't actually examine the details of what people said according to Norwood, we should just add up how many said Oswald went to Stripling. That's where the evidence is, in how many said literally anything about Oswald and Stripling, not what they actually said.

For instance, Kudlaty also stated:

Quote

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your file.

This comment was either directed to Armstrong, or the other person present asking questions, I don't know who that person is. This is a result of basic poor journalism and a lack of journalism standards. At the very least, a statement at the beginning of the interview should have declared the following, the interviewer,(s), interviewee, and the topic being discussed.

We aren't going to examine this statement? There's no real need right? We don't need to know what people actually said regarding Oswald and Stripling, just that they said stuff about Oswald and Stripling and that stuff is evidence, evidence we can't deny.

Are we going to ignore the fact that Kudlaty himself has cast reasonable suspicion on the entire Stripling story? He himself states the records he gave over to the FBI may in fact have been his elementary school records and that Armstrong may already have them.

Now, before you start with the expected "Nonsense...Mr. Stevens expects us to believe..." These are Kudlaty's actual words. If they are absurd, or nonsense, or any other adjective you'd like to add to the claims, remember they are in fact Kudlaty's words. Keep that characterization of Kudlaty in mind when you promote his other statements though, we wouldn't want any cognitive dissonance to peek out.

Doesn't his comment though kinda, maybe even just a wittle bit, water down everything? I'm sure it doesn't, because _______ and that of course coupled with the doctored records by the FBI proves _______. That expected equivocation aside, how can you rationalize Kudlaty's comments?

I await your articulated conclusion(s).