Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Sandy

Thanks for validating my initial post (I didn't think that I had confused the two Jim's).

Oh but you did.  Was Sandy not clear enough?

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Gene,

When I said, "I think you got it right in you previous post and are being too kind to Robert in this one," I wasn't referring to the alleged DiEugenio/Hargrove mix-up.

 

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As for the alleged DiEugenio/Hargrove mix-up, I believe you got it right in one post, but wrong in a later one. But you see, it doesn't matter... everybody knew who you were talking about... we all make little slips like that on occasion. But Robert likes to point out innocent mistakes of his opponent (which you were at the time). It gives him ammunition.

And thus it is that even when they're wrong, they're right. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, John Butler said:
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In the interests of psychiatric research, I've checked out the website of this 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' (and had a good antiseptic rinse-down afterwards). They do indeed think that Altgens 6 was faked. And not just given a small tweak here and there, but practically rebuilt from the ground up. It was quite an achievement by whoever did it, considering that the photograph was sent out to newspapers all over the world only half an hour after the assassination.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

IMO, that's not quite true.  It was sent in an hour to the AP, but not to newspapers all over the world.  It's first showing was with Walter Cronkite.  They had several hours afterwards to realize there were problems and remake the photo.  It didn't go on the air until about 5:35 CST with Uncle Walter.  That's time to make a fraud and re-wire it to the AP or whoever several times over.

This is what I recall.  My memory is not as good as once past.  If I am wrong on this, please correct.

John,

On this point about the Altgens 6, I must agree with Jeremy.  I was indeed a member of the organization called the Oswald Innocence Campaign because I admired the idea of a group of people dedicated to the study of Oswald.  But I was surprised at the emphasis being placed on a single photograph used as an attempt to demonstrate Oswald's innocence.

As a result, I decided to research one of the afternoon papers that published the Altgens' photo on November 22, 1963.  The paper was the Racine Journal-Times.  Many details suggested to me that this was one of the earliest newspapers to run the Altgens6 photo on the day of the JFK assassination.  It was an afternoon paper in which customers regularly received their papers in the late afternoon.  The edition of November 22 provides very early coverage of the assassination with the main news content reporting the death of the president, but with no details about a suspect.  In this early edition, it was reported that a police officer (and a secret service agent!) had been shot at a location away from the scene of the assassination.  But there was no mention of a suspect by this time, and even the name of the deceased police officer was not mentioned.  I read through the entire paper and could not find a single reference to the name of Oswald.  The paper listed the alleged murder weapon as a 30-30 rifle! 

I was able to contact and interview three of the newspaper's staff members who were involved in producing the afternoon edition of the Racine Journal-Times on the day of the assassination.  The newspaper's editor informed me that he was working "in the slot" on November 22.  (The expression "in the slot" describes the role of the copy editor in charge of the design and layout for that day's newspaper.)  He made the decision to run the Altgens6 photo; he chose AP story; and he prepared the front-page layout of the paper.  

The editor confirmed to me that by 12:30pm, his afternoon newspaper was ready for printing when the first reports of the JFK shooting came off the wires.  For the next hour, the editor and his staff prepared a new front page as the news bulletins were arriving.  There were three employees revising the front page, or "working on the rim," in a kind of round table.  The decision for the selection of the Altgens6 photo was made by the editor, who indicated to me that there was only a small number of photos received during the first hour after the assassination.  When I asked him if he wrote the caption for the Altgens6 photo that appeared in his paper, he recalled that he pretty much ran with the information provided by the AP photo machine.  Indeed, the caption of the Racine paper has the same gist as the AP caption with only minor modifications.

In the all-important timeline, it is clear that the Altgens6 photo was received in the Racine office no later than 1:30pm along with the other news bulletins, and the photo became the centerpiece of the first page of the paper.  The final layout of the front page was completed by 1:45pm.  The editor personally handled the Altgens6 photo and assigned it to his assistant working in the photo room.  Once received in Racine over the news wire, the Altgens6 photo never left the small news building prior to the time of publication of the edition of November 22. 

The editor believes that the new front page with (a) the Altgens6 photo, (b) the AP wire story, and (c) Tex Reynolds's short column was prepared by 1:45pm.  At that time, the press run began, and the printed papers were distributed around the normal time.  The editor believes that on November 22, 1963, the newspapers were being sold on the streets of Racine shortly after 2:00pm, and home delivery subscribers would have received their papers by 4:00pm.

From the chronology above, it is obvious that there was no time for the intricate alterations on the photo to be made, as some of the members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign were claiming.  Because the hypothesis of Oswald's innocence based on the photo alteration was clearly untenable, I suggested that the focus of the group shift to other issues related to Oswald.  Because that proposal was unacceptable, I resigned my membership in the group.  Despite the amateurish nature of the organization, I nonetheless applaud the idea of a group of people dedicated to studying the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, a neglected area of JFK studies.  I also shared engaging correspondence with such members as Vincent Salandria and Jim Marrs.

James
 

Edited by James Norwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

I must say that a number of very respectable researchers have weighed-in on this thread, so I was drawn to it.  But when it becomes polarized, and the argumentum ad hominem  begins, I suspect another agenda is at play.  The work of Armstrong - and Jim Hargrove's representation - must somehow threaten someone (or something) for it to become so personal.  Such staunch opposition ironically has the opposite effect on me ... it sends a message that there's substance to the H&L anomalies. 

Gene,

Thank you very much your insightful and important commentary above. 

I too am puzzled by the long, rambling screeds.  In the case of the discussion of the Stripling evidence, I posted a 2,500-word commentary at the top of this thread.  But the only way the critics are refuting the evidence is to say that all of the eyewitnesses were wrong in their recall:  the newspapers were wrong; Robert Oswald was wrong; the students were wrong; the Vice-Principal was wrong.  That level of argumentation will not hold up under the weight of testimony that is corroborated by multiple witnesses.  

You wonder above why this extremely mundane instance of a boy's enrollment at a school would be so threatening to members of this forum?  Good question.

James

Edited by James Norwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

John,

On this point about the Altgens 6, I must agree with Jeremy.  I was indeed a member of the organization called the Oswald Innocence Campaign because I admired the idea of a group of people dedicated to the study of Oswald.  But I was surprised at the emphasis being placed on a single photograph used as an attempt to demonstrate Oswald's innocence.

As a result, I decided to research one of the afternoon papers that published the Altgens' photo on November 22, 1963.  The paper was the Racine Journal-Times.  Many details suggested to me that this was one of the earliest newspapers to run the Altgens6 photo on the day of the JFK assassination.  It was an afternoon paper in which customers regularly received their papers in the late afternoon.  The edition of November 22 provides very early coverage of the assassination with the main news content reporting the death of the president, but with no details about a suspect.  In this early edition, it was reported that a police officer (and a secret service agent!) had been shot at a location away from the scene of the assassination.  But there was no mention of a suspect by this time, and even the name of the deceased police officer was not mentioned.  I read through the entire paper and could not find a single reference to the name of Oswald.  The paper listed the alleged murder weapon as a 30-30 rifle! 

I was able to contact and interview three of the newspaper's staff members who were involved in producing the afternoon edition of the Racine Journal-Times on the day of the assassination.  The newspaper's editor informed me that he was working "in the slot" on November 22.  (The expression "in the slot" describes the role of the copy editor in charge of the design and layout for that day's newspaper.)  He made the decision to run the Altgens6 photo; he chose AP story; and he prepared the front-page layout of the paper.  

The editor confirmed to me that by 12:30pm, his afternoon newspaper was ready for printing when the first reports of the JFK shooting came off the wires.  For the next hour, the editor and his staff prepared a new front page as the news bulletins were arriving.  There were three employees revising the front page, or "working on the rim," in a kind of round table.  The decision for the selection of the Altgens6 photo was made by the editor, who indicated to me that there was only a small number of photos received during the first hour after the assassination.  When I asked him if he wrote the caption for the Altgens6 photo that appeared in his paper, he recalled that he pretty much ran with the information provided by the AP photo machine.  Indeed, the caption of the Racine paper has the same gist as the AP caption with only minor modifications.

In the all-important timeline, it is clear that the Altgens6 photo was received in the Racine office no later than 1:30pm along with the other news bulletins, and the photo became the centerpiece of the first page of the paper.  The final layout of the front page was completed by 1:45pm.  The editor personally handled the Altgens6 photo and assigned it to his assistant working in the photo room.  Once received in Racine over the news wire, the Altgens6 photo never left the small news building prior to the time of publication of the edition of November 22. 

The editor believes that the new front page with (a) the Altgens6 photo, (b) the AP wire story, and (c) Tex Reynolds's short column was prepared by 1:45pm.  At that time, the press run began, and the printed papers were distributed around the normal time.  The editor believes that on November 22, 1963, the newspapers were being sold on the streets of Racine shortly after 2:00pm, and home delivery subscribers would have received their papers by 4:00pm.

From the chronology above, it is obvious that there was no time for the intricate alterations on the photo to be made, as some of the members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign were claiming.  Because the hypothesis of Oswald's innocence based on the photo alteration was clearly untenable, I suggested that the focus of the group shift to other issues related to Oswald.  Because that proposal was unacceptable, I resigned my membership in the group.  Despite the amateurish nature of the organization, I nonetheless applaud the idea of a group of people dedicated to studying the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, a neglected area of JFK studies.  I also shared engaging correspondence with such members as Vincent Salandria and Jim Marrs.

James
 

James,

Ordinarily, I would go along with such as sound, well reasoned answer that you have provided.  You have put some work into this.  I would like to see the photo published in the afternoon edition of the Racine Journal-Times for comparison purposes.   

Altgens 6, like Altgens 5, and Altgens 7 are edited photos that do not tell what really happened in Dealey Plaza.  They tell the story of the Warren Commission and the Kennedy assassins.

So, when was Altgens 6 edited?   Here's the best example of magic cameras:

altgens-6-auto-strange-perspective.jpg   

The perspective of the Johnson support vehicle is extremely distorted, but the people directly behind are not distorted and are in normal perspective.  The Johnson vehicle is not extremely distorted in front of the support vehicle.  How do cameras do that?  If you will notice that the support vehicle is much larger than Johnson's vehicle.  It's like a Humvee.  And, of course there is the semi visible shotgun out the car window?  Another camera trick?

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, John Butler said:

James,

Ordinarily, I would go along with such as sound, well reasoned answer that you have provided.  You have put some work into this.  I would like to see the photo published in the afternoon edition of the Racine Journal-Times.   

John,

Thanks for your reply.  Here is an image of the front page of the article from the Racine-Journal Times.  You will notice a large empty space around the top of the page.  The editor told me that he was scrambling to make the deadline and was unable to round out the front page, resulting in the gap.  I located a library in Wisconsin where there was an original copy of the newspaper.  Of course, It would be impossible to find a copy of the photo pulled off the newswire by the newspaper staff.  That photo is long gone.

 

 

Racine.jpg.2ccf295b8f3a40093f9d7c0876f889a0.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

On this point about the Altgens 6, I must agree with Jeremy.  I was indeed a member of the organization called the Oswald Innocence Campaign because I admired the idea of a group of people dedicated to the study of Oswald.  But I was surprised at the emphasis being placed on a single photograph used as an attempt to demonstrate Oswald's innocence.

I have to agree with that surprise.  There's a ton of other evidence that is more useful than a bitterly argued Altgens 6.  For example there are the BYP's they are the best photos for examples of Oswald being framed. 

How much evidence is needed to say that Oswald is innocent.  One photo?  Yes.  If the photo in question, Altgens 6, is a fraud then there is a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  There was a conspiracy to frame the "correct" story in Dealey Plaza.  That correct story was framed that afternoon in the aftermath of a botched assassination.  I'm sure a prepared story was there before the assassination.  It had to be adjusted and that was done within the first hours by people like Landsdale. 

So, Altgens 6 was altered to specifications with the first few hours.  I don't know who the Doorman figure is.  It certainly is not Billy Lovelady.  That figure has a Lovelady face mask.  I don't think is Oswald either.  It is someone who should not have been there.  I place one Oswald on the 6th floor and another out in front of the TSBD by the SW corner near the large tree.

 

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

John,

Thanks for your reply.  Here is an image of the front page of the article from the Racine-Journal Times.  You will notice a large empty space around the top of the page.  The editor told me that he was scrambling to make the deadline and was unable to round out the front page, resulting in the gap.  I located a library in Wisconsin where there was an original copy of the newspaper.  Of course, It would be impossible to find a copy of the photo pulled off the newswire by the newspaper staff.  That photo is long gone.

 

 

Racine.jpg.2ccf295b8f3a40093f9d7c0876f889a0.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

James,

That appears to be the same photo.  No way to make a real comparison.  I still have to ask the question when was Altgens 6 altered? 

What bothers me is I have no idea how long it would take an expert photo editor like Altgens to arrange this photo.  Could it be just a few minutes?  There's a mystery here.

I am firmly convinced the photo is altered.  The example I gave you can't be real photography.  Camera lens just don't work that way. 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This would mean that between 12:30 and 5:35, of course the plotters also altered other films and photographs of the TSBD doorway -- which they didn't even yet have in their possession or know existed -- so that they could bring them into alignment with the newly faked Altgens 6. You've got to be kidding, right?

No kidding here.  What other films or photos match the Altgens 6 photo in time and place?  Tina Towner?  Here's the Towner version:

Capture3a.jpg

All the other films skip the area of the TSBD or are so far away you really can't make out much.  Here's the Hughes film as an example:

hughes-intersection-1.jpg

The Bell film doesn't show much of the doorway.  The Martin film skips that area.  What's left that's useful?  Nothing.

The FBI and others just didn't have the films and photos in there possession for a short period of time, one afternoon.  They had them for a long period of time.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I didn't see any unfinished business.

I can't see the sun on a cloudy day. Neither my, nor your position changes the fact that both those things exist.

Quote

 

We were discussing the Stripling School evidence in a thread I had started.  Mark Edwards decided to start his own new thread when he wrote a post attempting to discredit the Stripling evidence I had presented.  When Dr. Norwood wrote a detailed rebuttal to Mr. Edwards’ critique, I suggested he (Dr. Norwood) create a new thread, this one, just as Mr. Edwards had created a new thread for his critique.

 

I "decided" to start a thread on the topic of Stripling since the topic we were talking on did not pertain to Stripling. As much as I was "demanding" you all to reply to my questions and not change the subject, I realized I was equally at fault for introducing an off topic question. I felt posts related to Stripling and discussion thereof was fitting more in a thread about Stripling and not on a topic regarding Mexico City mole hunts. I felt that was the respectful thing to do. Then, discussion of Mexico City and mole hunts could unfold on the thread dedicated to that topic, and discussion on Stripling could take place on a thread dedicated to that topic. This is just genuine respect and forum decorum. All persons on any forum should create new threads to discuss different topics. I feel like you would agree.

I guess you then made your suggestion out of spite? Since I made a new thread? "just as Mr. Edwards had created a new thread for his critique." It sure sounds like it to me.

The problem is my critique was not on the topic of Mexico City, hence a new thread. Norwood on the other hand, had a direct reply to me which he decided to create a new thread for. That type of behavior is pretty disrespectful on a discussion forum.

Quote

I doubt your side will go for this, but if you’re willing to continue the Stripling School debate in this thread, which begins with clear examples of the influence of John Armstrong’s research, that’s fine with me.  Here, again, is the Stripling School evidence JA and I have compiled.

You're right I will not. 

I will not come here and discuss my thread. If you want to discuss it, you should discuss it where this reply should have been written...in my topic of Stripling.

Why the need to create a thread to reply to me? Seems easier, to just....reply on that thread.

There is no shortage of you complaining about people "not discussing this on the ED forum in THIS thread" and then turn around and prove your indignation by doing the same to me.

No, I will not accept your disrespect and attempt to bury my valid questions (which if not valid then show me how instead of just saying "nuh-uh Mr. Edwards").

This quote below is why I want a Stripling thread and anyone who follows these discussions knows why as well. So I can discuss Stripling without all the "what abouts..." I will not come to your "NYC/Beauregard School Records" thread and ask what abouts and mention everything under the sun but the records the topic is regarding. I will debate the specifics of that topic, if you all ever decide to make that topic, versus just trying to derail my topic with that discussion.

For instance I give clear explanations for the articles he continues to paste, yet he addresses not a single thing I say. Just says "Mark failed...." How?

Like a 5th grade math teacher, I'm going to need you to show your work.

Quote

 

First, of course, is the prerequisite 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.

NYC%20school%20record.jpg

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

Beauregard%20Record.jpg

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 still is, 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.

  Quote

Students_&_Teachers.jpg

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.  H&L critics 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.

=====================

The assertion that the Fort Worth newspaper was just repeating information Robert Oswald had given them years before the assassination is easily dismissed.  

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.

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.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

I must say that a number of very respectable researchers have weighed-in on this thread, so I was drawn to it.  But when it becomes polarized, and the argumentum ad hominem  begins, I suspect another agenda is at play.  The work of Armstrong - and Jim Hargrove's representation - must somehow threaten someone (or something) for it to become so personal.  Such staunch opposition ironically has the opposite effect on me ... it sends a message that there's substance to the H&L anomalies. 

 

4 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Gene,

Thank you very much your insightful and important commentary above. 

I too am puzzled by the long, rambling screeds.  In the case of the discussion of the Stripling evidence, I posted a 2,500-word commentary at the top of this thread.  But the only way the critics are refuting the evidence is to say that all of the eyewitnesses were wrong in their recall:  the newspapers were wrong; Robert Oswald was wrong; the students were wrong; the Vice-Principal was wrong.  That level of argumentation will not hold up under the weight of testimony that is corroborated by multiple witnesses.  

You wonder above why this extremely mundane instance of a boy's enrollment at a school would be so threatening to members of this forum?  Good question.

James

Thanks to both of you.  I try to just discuss the EVIDENCE about Oswald and keep my opinions about other forum members in check, at least as much as possible.  But I have believed in the Harvey and Lee research for more than 20 years now, and I’ve been posting about it and running HarveyandLee.net for decades.

For all these years, it has amazed me how angry, and clearly unhappy, the opponents to this research appear to be.  I’ve always felt the same as Gene Kelly does in reaction to the vitriol of the H&L opponents.

John Armstrong gave a series of well-known speeches in the late 1990s.  While he spoke, he had screens next to the speaker’s dais upon which he projected copies of the documents he used as source material for his talk.  I had never seen presentations made with so much documentation made available in real time.

In the transcription of his November in Dallas 1998 speech, I left in John’s references to the more than a hundred documents he projected during his talk.  The transcription began with this note:

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: As he did during the previous year's "Harvey
and Lee" presentation, Mr. Armstrong projected images of many of
the documents he used researching his speech.  Although it is
impossible to include them in this transcription, I have left in
his visual cues "(SLIDE #)" and "(RIGHT #)" to give the reader an
impression of the amount of documentary support he provided.]

As many of us have learned over the years, telling the truth makes some people REALLY ANGRY!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene Kelly writes:

Quote

I can’t for the life of me understand why some react so strongly to the thesis of Harvey and Lee.

The strongest reaction was probably the attempt by 'Harvey and Lee' propagandists to get their critics banned. I think we all understand why they reacted this strongly to unwelcome criticism.

Those of us who criticise the 'Harvey and Lee' theory do so for several reasons: because it is proven nonsense; because it is heavily but dishonestly promoted; and because it is liable to harm rational criticism of the lone-nut theory.

The thesis was proven to be wrong two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was even published, by the evidence of a mastoidectomy operation on Oswald's body. According to Armstrong's carefully worked-out biographies of his two fictional characters, the Oswald doppelganger who had undergone the mastoidectomy operation was not the one who was buried in the grave. But the exhumation in 1981 showed that the body was that of someone who had undergone the operation. Armstrong knew about the scientists' report of the exhumation, and knew that it disproved his theory, but he went ahead and published his book anyway. Not only that, but he dishonestly neglected to inform his readers that the mastoidectomy defect even existed.

That's the 'proven' part. The 'nonsense' part comprises, among many other far-fetched things, all the elements of 'Harvey and Lee' that distinguish it from other impersonation theories: the notion that two unrelated boys from different parts of the world were chosen for a long-term doppelganger scheme in the hope that they would turn out to look virtually identical when they grew up; that the boys magically did turn out to look virtually identical; that each boy had a virtually identical mother named Marguerite; that one Oswald doppelganger followed the other Oswald doppelganger around Dallas on 22 November and framed him for the murders of JFK and Tippit; and that one Oswald doppelganger and one Marguerite doppelganger vanished from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination. These ridiculous propositions are all essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

It's potentially harmful because it allows rational critics of the lone-nut theory to be depicted as a bunch of crackpots. If the general public got the impression that imaginary doppelgangers were part of the standard case against the official account of the JFK assassination, or that everyone who questions the official account also believes there were doppelganger Oswalds and Marguerites running around for a decade or more, we may as well all give up now, because without the support of the general public the case won't get resolved.

Quote

Such staunch opposition ironically has the opposite effect on me ... it sends a message that there's substance to the H&L anomalies.

If that's the effect it has on you, you clearly aren't looking at the points the critics are making.

The only way to decide whether or not "there's substance to the H&L anomalies" is to read what the critics have to say. You could start at the top, with what the 'Harvey and Lee' believers think of as their strongest area of evidence: an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling. Check out what the critics have to say on that topic, and tell us whether you agree or disagree, and on what grounds. If you think we're wrong, it would be good to be told why by someone with his head screwed on rather than the usual bunch of propagandists.

Mark Stevens took the Stripling evidence to pieces in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mark Stevens took the Stripling evidence to pieces in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Nonsense.  Mr. Stevens’ main points were that:

(1) the five Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles were based on the same misinformation from Robert Oswald, who said, before the assassination, that LHO “attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School about a year before he enlisted in the Marines.”  Several of the later articles mentioning Stripling, however, gave additional information, and once a different year of attendance for LHO at Stripling, clearly indicating that they were not just repeating information from Robert.

(2)  although a FWST article published two days after the assassination said LHO “attended Stripling Junior High School,” in a subsequent FWST article or two soon after the assassination Robert Oswald don’t mention Stripling School, which Mr. Stevens suggests indicates Robert realized his error and didn’t repeat it.  This is remarkable, since several years later, during his Warren Commission testimony, Robert repeated his belief that LHO attended Stripling. There are tens of thousands of FWST articles that don't mention Oswald and/or Stripling School, but that hardly negates the five that indicate LHO did attend Stripling.  Until Mr. Stevens or anyone else can produce a FWST retraction of its five articles, or at least a published indication that Robert Oswald was mistaken, nothing about the Stripling evidence has been disproved.
 

On 7/28/2020 at 4:28 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In other words, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram relied only on Robert Oswald's mistaken assumption about something of which he had no first-hand knowledge, just as Mark Stevens claimed.

The claim that Robert Oswald had no personal knowledge that LHO attended Stripling School a year or so before entering the Marine Corps is not exactly true.  In 1956 Robert, Marguerite, and LHO lived at 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth, just ten blocks or so from Stripling School. While they were living together, does anyone doubt that Robert and LHO surely compared notes about their Stripling experiences (Robert in 1948, LHO in 1954)?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, James Norwood said:

I too am puzzled by the long, rambling screeds.

Yeah, don’t you hate people who post lengthy screeds?

20 hours ago, James Norwood said:

In the case of the discussion of the Stripling evidence, I posted a 2,500-word commentary at the top of this thread. 

Um, isn't that a "long rambling screed"?

20 hours ago, James Norwood said:

But the only way the critics are refuting the evidence is to say that all of the eyewitnesses were wrong in their recall:  the newspapers were wrong; Robert Oswald was wrong; the students were wrong; the Vice-Principal was wrong. 

By George, I think he’s got it.

20 hours ago, James Norwood said:

That level of argumentation will not hold up under the weight of testimony that is corroborated by multiple witnesses.  

Oh, never mind.

Btw - re: Stripling, only one person testified.  Incorrectly.  The rest were interviewed by someone who is neither police nor lawyer.  Ought to shy away from calling a chat “testimony.”  In part because actual real-life testimony involves cross examination. 

20 hours ago, James Norwood said:

You wonder above why this extremely mundane instance of a boy's enrollment at a school would be so threatening to members of this forum?  Good question.

Threatened?  Don’t flatter yourselves.   But thanks for the laughs.

The only thing about H&L that causes fear is that it, too, will be used to paint all diligent researchers as nutbars and looneys, as have other books before it.  Two autopsies, twin assassins, the Secret Service accidentally killing JFK (whoops!),  to prevent JFK from releasing UFO information, Billy Lovelady in Altgens was actually Oswald...  We all know the kind of rubbish I mean.  You may be particularly familiar with the latter.

Which is sad, because the teenage spyboy stuff only undermines the seriousness of what else is contained within.

But there's a sucker born every minute.

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mark Stevens took the Stripling evidence to pieces in this thread

Mark Stevens has demonstrated that he is incapable of examining evidence impartially.  Here is a capsule of his argument about Stripling:

• All of the newspaper articles noting that Oswald attended Stripling were wrong;

• Robert Oswald was wrong on the multiple occasions when he recalled that his brother attended Stripling, including one testimony given under oath;

• The student eyewitnesses who recalled attending Stripling concurrently with Oswald in the academic year 1954-55 were wrong;

• A neighbor who lived next door to Oswald and recalled that he lived there was wrong;

• A distinguished educator who recalled handing over school records to the FBI was wrong.

I have written a 2,500-word assessment of the evidence that appears at the top of this thread.  Why don't you take the time to write a point-by-point rebuttal to my arguments, Jeremy?  Or, is it that you could could not improve upon Mark Stevens' unpersuasive critique, as summarized above?


 

Edited by James Norwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Mark Stevens has demonstrated that he is incapable of examining evidence impartially.  Here is a capsule of his argument about Stripling:

• All of the newspaper articles noting that Oswald attended Stripling were wrong; - MARK NEVER SAID THIS (AT LEAST IN THIS CONTEXT)

• Robert Oswald was wrong on the multiple occasions when he recalled that his brother attended Stripling, including one testimony given under oath; - MARK PARTIALLY SAID THIS BUT THIS IS NOT MARKS POINT

• The student eyewitnesses who recalled attending Stripling concurrently with Oswald in the academic year 1954-55 were wrong; - MARK NEVER SAID THIS

• A neighbor who lived next door to Oswald and recalled that he lived there was wrong; - MARK NEVER SAID THIS

• A distinguished educator who recalled handing over school records to the FBI was wrong.- MARK NEVER SAID THIS

I have written a 2,500-word assessment of the evidence that appears at the top of this thread.  Why don't you take the time to write a point-by-point rebuttal to my arguments, Jeremy?  Or, is it that you could could not improve upon Mark Stevens' unpersuasive critique, as summarized above?

This is a gross misrepresentation of my argument and Norwood knows this. He intentionally does this so people don't see what I actually said. This is why he created this thread, so he can mislead people on this thread and they have less access to the real debate. This is why he refuses to answer my questions and instead misleads and misrepresents.

Here is my summary, or "capsule about Stripling." 

Quote

Individually, no witness makes a clear case for Oswald at Stripling.

  • Robert Oswald – Refers to different timeframe
  • Kudlaty – Gives confusing information regarding school records
  • Schubert – Gives contradicting timeframe, gives contradicting descriptions of Oswald, gives contradicting location of where he lives (same house different apartment)
  • Summers – Is clearly confused
  • Gann – Does not make clear case for identification
  • Pitts – Gives no information about Oswald attending Stripling
  • Galindo – When weighed against totality of Stripling evidence, is clearly wrong

Do these actual words from my topic match the gross misrepresentation of my position given by Norwood? You be the judge. Ask yourself why he behaves in the manner he does.

Again....

Robert Oswald refers to a different time period - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why. My main point is Robert was in no position to have first hand knowledge. Notice how even though I said that multiple times in my "incoherent screed which makes one question my mental state" Norwood doesn't mention it once.

Kudlaty - gives confusing and contradicting information regarding the records - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why.

Schubert - gives a different time period, as well as contradicting information - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why.

Summers - gives a different time period, as well as other contradicting information - Norwoord agrees Summers statements are "anomalous" and does not believe he is a good witness. No other explanations from H&L

Gann - does not make clear identification - no reasonable explanation from H&L as to why.

Pitts - does not even reference Oswald attending Stripling

Galindo - when weighed against the other available information is clearly wrong.

Again, if I'm wrong then explain how my points I've listed above are wrong, not some other points like you did in the OP. My actual points.

It's pretty clear who is misrepresenting facts, it's pretty clear who is "angry and threatened by the truth." It's clear who will not make clear "point by point rebuttals." I've proved twice now that Norwood isn't even addressing my points. He refuses to address things I say then repeats, ad nauseatingum (intentional, for you English professors out there.

Again I ask you to point out the specific weaknesses in my argument versus saying "nuh uh Mark, you're wrong buddy."

How does Schubert for instance corroborate that Oswald attended Stripling for the first 6-8 weeks of the school year when she references a different time period?

I again ask everyone. Is Norwood genuinely summarizing my points? Is he giving me honest criticism and feedback? Is he giving genuine rebuttal to questions and topics I actually presented?

 

 

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...