Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
On 7/19/2020 at 3:52 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim, your sentence above prompted me to do some checking for myself.

This is regarding the H&L critics' claim that Robert didn't know what junior high school LHO attended because at the time he was away from home in the Marines. Robert assumed LHO went to Stripling only because he had gone there himself, the critics say

Well I just read that the family was living in Fort Worth in July 1952 when Robert left for the Marines. So it was summer break and LHO wasn't in school yet. But in August Marguerite and LHO moved to New York City and LHO entered 7th grade there. A couple months later Robert took leave and visited them there. So he would have seen very early on that his brother wasn't attending Stripling, but rather a school in NYC. Robert visited NYC again in the summer of 1953. The next time he visited was in the summer of 1955, at which time they were living in New Orleans, not Fort Worth where Stripling Junior High is located

You mean to tell me this has been in the public domain since 1964, you have done the supposed research on the JFKA that you state you have, you have pushed the H&L tale for what, 10 years? All of this is true and you just now read the statements Robert Oswald gave to the Warren Commission?!?!?!?!

 

I specifically have said in this thread that I am not an expert on H&L evidence.

However, I do know a lot about some of the evidence (and have found some myself supporting H&L), so much so that I am convinced that there were two youth LHOs.

 

18 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
Quote

Did I get that right? If so, I don't know how anybody can argue with a straight face that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling. (Maybe that explains why that excuse hasn't been brought up lately by the H&L critics.)

Exactly....how, with a straight face, can you argue that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling?

 

Hey, you are the one who claims that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling. My position is that Robert knew that his brother didn't attend Striping. And that he told the newspapers and WC where his brother's impersonator, HARVEY, attended... which was Stripling.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 599
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
On 7/19/2020 at 3:52 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim, your sentence above prompted me to do some checking for myself.

This is regarding the H&L critics' claim that Robert didn't know what junior high school LHO attended because at the time he was away from home in the Marines. Robert assumed LHO went to Stripling only because he had gone there himself, the critics say

Well I just read that the family was living in Fort Worth in July 1952 when Robert left for the Marines. So it was summer break and LHO wasn't in school yet. But in August Marguerite and LHO moved to New York City and LHO entered 7th grade there. A couple months later Robert took leave and visited them there. So he would have seen very early on that his brother wasn't attending Stripling, but rather a school in NYC. Robert visited NYC again in the summer of 1953. The next time he visited was in the summer of 1955, at which time they were living in New Orleans, not Fort Worth where Stripling Junior High is located.

Did I get that right? If so, I don't know how anybody can argue with a straight face that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling. (Maybe that explains why that excuse hasn't been brought up lately by the H&L critics.)

 

Exactly....how, with a straight face, can you argue that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling?

First, it's clear as to the timeline that he knows this isn't true (since, as you mentioned, he had contact with him and he wasn't in Stripling), then factoring in the lack of communication between Robert Oswald and his family, it's even more evident what the facts are.

I'm glad you agree though, it's ridiculously hard to make the argument, much less believe it, that Robert Oswald thought his brother attended Stripling.

 

So you now believe that Robert knew his brother didn't attend Stripling.

Well, I'm glad you finally agree with us.  And that Robert falsely and knowingly told the newspapers and WC that his brother attended Stripling.

Now let me ask you... why would Robert tell all those entities that his brother attended Stripling when he knew that it wasn't true?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Now let me ask you... why would Robert tell all those entities that his brother attended Stripling when he knew that it wasn't true?

In Robert's testimony, there is nothing said about BEAUREGARD JHS.  Yet he says he was there literally within a month of his finishing BJHS...  in fact, the 1955 telephone directory has "Margt Oswald" listed at 120 N Telemachus despite them living on Exchange Place since summer of 1954.

Mr. JENNER. Did you visit your mother and your brother in New Orleans when you returned from the service in July of 1955?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I did. I did not--yes, sir, it was in July 1955 when I made my first trip from Fort Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La

He says he visits mom and brother in July 1955....  with nothing said about 1954... in fact his testimony is specifically steered away from 1954....
t's as if the boy Robert is talking about never attended Beauregard JHS... and of course, that's the case... the boy Robert says went to Stripling was not his brother...  and he and Pic knew...  Pic gets especially elusive as we get to 1954.

We have no letters FROM Pic to his mother, his REAL mother for that would not work... her address would be different than the return address on all the letters from Marge...  We have one dated July 1952 talking of coming to NYC... the next letter is May 1954... with Marge just now telling PIC they've moved back from NY...  (5 months ago supposedly.. and this from a woman who appears to have written scores of letters to PIC virtually every single month up to 1952, then again after May 1954....

This exchange should give you some idea how PIC felt about his brother Lee Harvey:  we've all seen the 1962 Thanksgiving photo...
We KNOW an Oswald and Marina and Marge were there...  just not Pic's brother.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see your brother at any time thereafter? (August 1953)
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. JENNER - Was there an occasion in Thanksgiving 1962 when you saw him?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; I can get to that. There are things happened prior to that.
Mr. JENNER - You did see him--
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I did not see him. I seen my mother.
Mr. JENNER - I see. All right; go ahead.

Sandy,  Robert is lying and PIC knows it...  PIC also seems to know something is off with his other "brother"....

But of course these puzzle pieces have nothing to do with the Stripling piece of the puzzle, right?

Lee Oswald never went to BENBROOK Elementary in 1945 as claimed... there is a single FBI report which claims:

Address on enrollment card is "Worth Hotel" AND 7408 Ewing which is not bought until 1948.  MO lists LEE's Bday as July 9, 1939 to get into school*

*This info is from an FBI report as footnote to p674 of the WCR.  CE1874 mentions O.H. STOWE superintendent TARRANT county schools claiming they had an enrollment card for October 31, 1945 with July 9 1939 as Lee's Bday.  The address was listed as ROUTE 5 BOX 567  (but of course that card is not in evidence)

yet the WCR has him entering 1st grade in January 1947...  over 2 years later....   7408 Ewing was not built until 1948

notice the DOB for HARVEY... now if he's 8 with the 7/9/39 Bday the record has to be between Sept '47 and Oct 19, 1947... otherwise NANCY LEE would also be 8 years old.

Finally, Marge divorces in June 1948 and specifically asks for her name back... yet HARVEY's mom is known as EKDAHL for a number of years in these records...

Bottom line Sandy....  the existence of HARVEY LEE has been as carefully hidden as the frontal head shot....  we all know it's real, proving it given what the FBI did to the evidence is another story entirely...

Take care

1667833118_NancyLeeandHARVEYOSWALDlivingat15058thFtWorthgotoschoolin1947-NotBenbrookSchool.jpg.0ed6673b2e580e542b2756e587cd066c.jpg

899273641_AllenExhibit5-Oct291945onWORTHHOTELstationaryshewritesChamberlain-HunttotellthemofGrandbury-sic-addressRt5Box567-Web.thumb.jpg.023148b92f7748d58e64e527c9b5020e.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I specifically have said in this thread that I am not an expert on H&L evidence.

However, I do know a lot about some of the evidence (and have found some myself supporting H&L), so much so that I am convinced that there were two youth LHOs.

This isn't "H&L" evidence, but how are you convinced of two Oswald's if you aren't familiar with the evidence?

I'm pretty sure you are the one who made this statement (and today no less!):

Quote

Ideologues choose what to believe first and then cherry pick evidence to support their beliefs, while ignoring evidence that opposes their beliefs. When forced to face up to opposing evidence, they simply rationalize it away.

Uhhhh, knowing about "some of the evidence, so much so that you are convinced of two youth LHO's" seems pretty much like cherry picking evidence to support your beliefs. Until you become aware of all of the evidence, at least that which is known, how are you making conclusions? How does cherry picking evidence not apply to you?

Oh, I get it, because you aren't excluding information you don't agree with, you just don't actually have all the information.

So, versus a cherry picked opinion, yours is just rooted in pure ignorance. I guess it wouldn't really apply to you then. 

Also, as mentioned, this isn't H&L" evidence, this is JFKA evidence, something a JFKA researcher should be aware of. Hell I'm going to go out on a limb and state Robert Oswald's statements are on a list of information which I'd considered "must read/know." Maybe that's just me.

Quote

Hey, you are the one who claims that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling. My position is that Robert knew that his brother didn't attend Striping. And that he told the newspapers and WC where his brother's impersonator, HARVEY, attended... which was Stripling.

I said that? Citation please?

What have said, is that Robert spoke of a hypothetical "would"

LHO would have been in Stripling that year when he would have turned 13 had they not moved to NYC beforehand.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So you now believe that Robert knew his brother didn't attend Stripling.

Well, I'm glad you finally agree with us.  And that Robert falsely and knowingly told the newspapers and WC that his brother attended Stripling.

Now let me ask you... why would Robert tell all those entities that his brother attended Stripling when he knew that it wasn't true?

Again, citation for my comments?

Also, you could easily say "both," saying "all those" makes it seem like he just went around telling anyone who would listen that LHO went to Stripling.

He didn't even do what you're claiming though, and once again H&L supporters have to have an articulated argument, vs just straight facts.

The facts are, Robert Oswald stated that in 1952 LHO would be 13 and would be attending Stripling. Not once did he tell the WC that LHO did attend Stripling. Minor fact, but a fact nonetheless. He obviously did state, in some manner that LHO did attend Stripling. We don't know what the actual words, just the summarized version of his words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

 

Russian Funds Transfer  ??

img_213423_92_300.png

David,

Thank you for this. I looked up RIF# 124-10029-10270. Russian Funds Transfer indeed!

Here's part of Peter Dale Scott's letter to John Newman. Item# 14 on my list:

Letter from Petr Dale Scott to John Newman

http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2017/10/additional-missing-jfk-assassination.html

Dear John,

In fact, the cover sheet mentioning this file is available from the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. It is NARA RIF 124-10029-10270, FBI serial MX 105-3702-254. It is from “Wesley” [SA Howard D. Wesley], has the title “Information re Allegations re Oswald case,” and (apart from still classified cross-file references) contains only this reference: “105-2137, [corrected manually in ink to “3702”] (Harvy Lee Oswald).” (It makes no reference to “Lee Harvey Oswald.”)3.

3. At the time I did not know who Wesley was. But other FBI “Harvey Lee Oswald” records identify him as SA Howard D. Wesley, then at the FBI Mexican branch office in Monterrey.”

 

Cover sheet by Wesley p. 2

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61314&search=124-10029-10270#relPageId=2&tab=page

image.png.6ab1584b15d81909560077d4aabd7a0f.png

Steve Thomas


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I specifically have said in this thread that I am not an expert on H&L evidence.

However, I do know a lot about some of the evidence (and have found some myself supporting H&L), so much so that I am convinced that there were two youth LHOs.

This isn't "H&L" evidence, but how are you convinced of two Oswald's if you aren't familiar with the evidence?

 

I just told you how, right there in what you quoted me saying:

  1. "I am not an expert on H&L evidence...."
  2. "However, I do know a lot about some of the evidence .... so much so that I am convinced that there were two youth LHOs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

3. At the time I did not know who Wesley was. But other FBI “Harvey Lee Oswald” records identify him as SA Howard D. Wesley, then at the FBI Mexican branch office in Monterrey.”

Thanks Steve... great stuff...

FWIW Monterrey was where the Aussie girls were supposed to have gotten back on the Flecha Rojas bus to Mexico City

648241968_WCRstatesmannexttoOswaldonbustoMexicowasOSBORNE-noBowen.jpg.1243545a3b5da58b5db249bf800318be.jpg

 

The typed and original passenger list for those getting on in Monterrey is posted below..

So, we bought the ticket on the bus at Laredo and that enabled us to stop off in Monterrey. But the ticket was from Laredo to Mexico City.
Mr. BALL. And from what company did you buy the ticket?
Miss MUMFORD. As far as I can remember, it was a bus company called Transporter del Norte.
===

Mr. BALL. Well. you were shown pictures of a man later on by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, were you not?
Miss MUMFORD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And they showed you pictures of Oswald, didn't they; Lee Harvey Oswald?
Miss MUMFORD. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn't ever see a picture of Oswald?
Miss MUMFORD. No.

 

321699760_WCD1245p275-276FlechaRojasbustoMexicofromMonterreypassngerlistofthosewhoboardedinMonterrey.thumb.jpg.1d96f376da9af5edcb8309a5c577f034.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

Uhhhh, knowing about "some of the evidence, so much so that you are convinced of two youth LHO's" seems pretty much like cherry picking evidence to support your beliefs. Until you become aware of all of the evidence, at least that which is known, how are you making conclusions?

 

Wow! Your line of reasoning is very foreign to me. Like out of the Twilight Zone.

ALL of the H&L evidence supports the H&L theory. Naturally, given that it is called "H&L evidence." I don't know all the evidence, but I'm aware of enough of it that I am convinced there were two LHO youths.

You say I'm cherry picking because I only know some of the H&L evidence. But that makes no sense. Any other H&L evidence I learn of will only support what I already believe. The only question is, to what degree will it support it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So you now believe that Robert knew his brother didn't attend Stripling.

Again, citation for my comments?

 

In this post you wrote:

"Exactly....how, with a straight face, can you argue that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling?"

and

"....it's ridiculously hard to make the argument, much less believe it, that Robert Oswald thought his brother attended Stripling."


You are saying that Robert did NOT think his brother attended Stripling.

My question is, then why did Robert tell the newspapers and WC that his brother DID attend Stripling?*

 

 

*And don't try skirt the question just because Robert used the word "would" in his WC testimony. Here is what he said:

"In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then."

The word "would" doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence... it just makes the grammar proper. ("Would be" is the conditional form of the verb "be" and is there because the condition "13 years old" is given.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In this post you wrote:

"Exactly....how, with a straight face, can you argue that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling?"

and

"....it's ridiculously hard to make the argument, much less believe it, that Robert Oswald thought his brother attended Stripling."


You are saying that Robert did NOT think his brother attended Stripling.

My question is, then why did Robert tell the newspapers and WC that his brother DID attend Stripling?

I answered that literally two lines later.

Twilight Zone, indeed.

My rationale for why he told the newspaper what he did I state in my review, he was ambushed by a reporter off guard and gave comments he wasn't qualified to make. The next day, at home, he didn't make the comment.

Can you explain why he didn't the next day?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You say I'm cherry picking because I only know some of the H&L evidence. But that makes no sense. Any other H&L evidence I learn of will only support what I already believe. The only question is, to what degree will it support it.

No, you are the dictionary definition of cherry picking because you know there is information which contradicts your beliefs yet you refuse to consider it out of either willing ignorance, being too busy, or being too sick. This is 2020, for you to be a "Harvey & Lee" supporter as long as you have and be ignorant of these facts, it is obviously willful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

My rationale for why he told the newspaper what he did I state in my review, he was ambushed by a reporter off guard and gave comments he wasn't qualified to make. The next day, at home, he didn't make the comment.

Can you explain why he didn't the next day?

Mark....  (we sure do like long posts, don't we?  :cheers

First... what qualifies you to determine beyond all other explanations that was what the man was thinking as he was speaking?
Then... follow up with a "prove a negative" question.  Nobody does that anymore... so last century... :surfing

:drive

 

Sadly it seems you will not consider my arguments related to Pic and Robert and the huge break in communication between late '52 and '54.
Pic knowing his brother was not the boy at the Bronx zoo in Aug 53
Robert contradicting Pic about October 1952... if Robert was there, he knows his brother is not at Stripling since he was in NYC
  if he was not there in 1952 but 1953... spending time with his brother, taking him around the Bronx... still Stripling?

Yet with all this behind him by a number of years, and knowing now what he does, he says that after 6th grade he would attend Stripling....
Yes, Robert says "started attending" Stripling as if he knew first hand

Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Yet Jenner knows better than that.... he has Oswald's whole life and not once does it say he went to Stripling....
He knows with the fortitude of RCD... yet does not call Robert on it...  it's not important to him...  or is it too important?

The WC determined that many witness' statements required alteration and revision... they were entitled to make wholesale changes to testimony and have the revised, self written account put in the final record...  learning this fact made me shudder... sadly, it's true.

In all of the WCR and H&E's there are only 2 reference to Stripling,  someone who talks about knowing Robert in 1959 - which has to be 1949 - and how violent a temper he had...
WCD887 p25...  and Robert's testimony.

Like so much testimony... it is simply ignored by the WC....  in 1963 Robert knows his brother was either in NYC or New Orleans, but says Stripling

Pic tells us that he too was off in Aug/Sept 1953 and saw his mother but never saw Lee...  Marge complains to John about Lee no having anyone to confide in.... this is within a few weeks one way or the other of Robert's 1953 visit....  it seems though that Robert moved his 1952 visit to 1953 for some reason...  IDK at this point.

We both agree he knows the boy in NYC and again in New Orleans did not attend Stripling....  yet you see Mark, Robert was talking about Harvey Lee Oswald.
So his comments and all of Stripling disappears from the record...

We are left to John Armstrong, 30 years later finding out yet another example of the FBI of the time acquiring and disappearing evidence contrary to the official company line.

(Can you say Minox camera??) :ice

I gave your essay starting this thread a fair shake yet the reasoning behind you're not accepting the story revolves quite a bit around your incredulity at the events... not the events themselves...  being amazing that something is or isn't in a file is fine... stating conclusively certain items could NOT be in those files is pure guesswork... 

Guesswork presented as Fact... as Authentic Evidence....  when it's not... it's your POV on the subject and your alternative explanation which may or may not fit all the known facts...

Please don't believe you are impeaching the word of the man who has nothing to lie about... and did not get calls from 2 principals (RCD???) but simply tells the story as he remembered.

The really interesting part is that there are always 2-4 people who feel it their duty to shoot arrows which fall woefully short each and every time...
Dangerous people with a little knowledge... a glimpse at a puzzle piece they don't like and have just enough to be able to try and knock it down....

It's no big deal really...  it takes so much time and effort to really want to understand the evidence...  even if you read the book...

So to one and all..... sorry it requires so much of your time and effort to GET it... and to think... 57 years later and we still don't know how many 'who's pulled the triggers...

Keep working at it...  the years 1947 to 1975 are filled with some of the most amazing "Conspiracies" related to JFK in one way or another...

Discounting the duplicity of H&L as a Cold War tactic already used by others is a bit premature I feel...

But that's me...  take care

DJ

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In this post you wrote:

"Exactly....how, with a straight face, can you argue that Robert thought his brother attended Stripling?"

and

"....it's ridiculously hard to make the argument, much less believe it, that Robert Oswald thought his brother attended Stripling."


You are saying that Robert did NOT think his brother attended Stripling.

My question is, then why did Robert tell the newspapers and WC that his brother DID attend Stripling?

 

My rationale for why he told the newspaper what he did I state in my review, he was ambushed by a reporter off guard and gave comments he wasn't qualified to make.

 

Are you trying to say that Robert didn't know which junior high school his brother attended? And that he said "Stripling" because that's what popped into his head?

 

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

The next day, at home, he didn't make the comment.

Can you explain why he didn't the next day?

 

What do you mean? You actually know what Robert did and did not say the following day?

 

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You say I'm cherry picking because I only know some of the H&L evidence. But that makes no sense. Any other H&L evidence I learn of will only support what I already believe. The only question is, to what degree will it support it.

No, you are the dictionary definition of cherry picking because you know there is information which contradicts your beliefs yet you refuse to consider it out of either willing ignorance, being too busy, or being too sick. This is 2020, for you to be a "Harvey & Lee" supporter as long as you have and be ignorant of these facts, it is obviously willful.

 

Oh, you mean the anti-H&L evidence. I was talking about the H&L evidence, which is what I call the evidence supporting the H&L theory that Jim posts all the time. I should have called it the pro-H&L evidence to avoid confusion. Sorry.

I always study and consider the anti-H&L evidence. I hope to see whatever such evidence anybody can find. Because if there something wrong with the pro-H&L evidence or with the theory itself, I want to know about it. I don't like to believe something that is flawed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...