Robert Charles-Dunne

Oh but you did. Was Sandy not clear enough? And thus it is that even when they're wrong, they're right.

Although Sandy has now deleted it, he posted an agreement that I accused Jim of "disinformation" too. And then a bunch of unsupported ad homs, because courage! And yet he must either have realized he was wrong to cite disinformation, or thought his ad homs unworthy of him, and deleted it. Because courage! Do neither of you read that to which you respond? Because I'm rather weary of being misquoted, then tarred and feathered for things invented by others. But that’s ok, because it seems that people are more anxious to attack my posts than to actually read them first. You know, DJ’s incontinent use of emoticons and shrill attack, until Sandy informed him that his post was in error. Whaaaaa? Why? Didn’t read the post to which he was ostensibly replying. But still had the cheek to comment that trying to teach me anything was like trying to teach a rock to swim. Even as I was extracting from Team H&L an acknowledgment of their error. (More on this below.) You know, Sandy’s accusations that I am dumb, and my stupid comments are unworthy of debate. Even as I was demonstrating that an Armstrong assertion was wrong. If I am so dumb and my posts so stupid, how did I manage the ultra-rare feat of procuring an admission of error from John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove? You know, when they were finally shamed into admitting that Weldon Lucas and Harry Wylie couldn’t have both instructed Kudlaty to meet with the FBI. You don’t often see them stand down in the face of their own error. Which, I stress, was a detail that neither DJ, nor Sandy, nor Doc Newbie, nor Jim H., nor John Armstrong, nor any other H&L acolyte - the ones who preach endlessly about attention to detail - had noticed. In decades. You’re welcome. Fact is, the most condescending and arrogant people who inhabit the JFK online forums are not the lone gunman advocates. Though they’re always in contention for the title. The most smug, shrill, condescending people I’ve encountered are the ones who propagandize on behalf of a tainted bill of goods. Why, they’re so clever, and so infallible, they don’t even need to read your posts in order to spit a withering retort in your direction. Just think what they could accomplish if they paid attention to detail. Instead we have Jim Hargrove referencing a contretemps he had with someone named Mark Edwards. Never happened. Mark Stevens, perchance? Maybe Jim would remember that name better had he not abandoned the thread in which Mark Stevens filleted the so-called Stripling witnesses to very little nubs. First, run away from Mark’s thread - and insist others do likewise - then pretend you don’t remember his name. Or maybe you actually don’t remember his name. Kind of like John Armstrong with Weldon Lucas and Harry Wylie. Heck of a way to run a railroad. Do continue. (For the umpteenth times, it seems necessary that I should point out I am not in disagreement with everything in H&L. Only the parts that aren't true, or even necessary to explain the assassination.)

Gene: Couldn't agree more. Since I never said that. I suspect you intended to mention Jim Hargrove, rather than Jim DiEugenio. So damn hard to keep all these doppelgangers straight. Your continued indignation over my continuing offensiveness is noted.

Wow, is Oswald posting here? Which doppelganger is still alive? Because I’d really like to ask him a few questions. Oh, but I see he’s not. So I’ll pose questions to - and make observations about - the others who are professing to recount his life story. Only this past week, John Armstrong was forced to swallow hard and concede that something in his book - and on the internet in his name for ages and ages, curated by you Jim - wasn’t actually, how you say? True? I understand you might not relish more of the same. Which is why you abandoned the two threads in which this was made plain. Just mosey on as if nothing had happened. Time to get the hell out of Dodge. Anybody want to talk about other things that might or might not turn out to be untrue? I’m old fashioned enough to believe that those who spread misinformation ought to be called out for it when it happens. So, as time allows and interest sustains, I’ll be doing just that. And - despite its many virtues (happy now, Gene?) - H&L contains much that is speculative, insufficiently substantiated, explicable by other plausible scenarios, or just flat out wrong. And worst of all, things that are unnecessary and superfluous to solving the assassination. When you asked me to critique John’s MS 20-ish years ago, I was instructed to tear holes where possible, ruthlessly demolish whatever didn’t withstand scrutiny, and generally present a counter-argument on all matters of import. You know, make it bullet-proof. I did so. And I understand if my critique may not have been entirely welcome, because I did so. In fact, I don’t recall even being thanked for my investment of time. (I may be wrong on that score, but that remains my impression.) I have an idea. Why don’t I search for my notes, so I can refresh my memory on precisely how much was wrong? Maybe that’ll liven things up a bit. Or maybe we should agree to go back to the Stripling thread and conclude unfinished business. You'll note that I'm not alone there in asking questions that may perplex you. In fact, I don't even ask the best ones. There are others like Mark Stevens - who started the thread with a nuclear annihilation of the Stripling witnesses - and Tony Krome who not only makes stellar observations, but does so in the fewest number of words possible. Keen eye, sharp wit, and brevity? Um, wow. What's not to like? Why wouldn't you want to deal with the thing you and yours have left undone? You'd be most welcome to return there by those whose questions you seem so determined to ignore. Or you could keep running away from your unfinished business to start new threads where mutual back-slapping and self-congratulation rule the day. Seems an easy choice for anyone confident in his ability to answer such questions.

Since the offending words below are mine, it’s own up time. As I’ve said - and more - many times before. And will do so again, if you really need to hear it. This does not, however, make him right in all things asserted. And even less so when his case is asserted here so poorly. How can all his fans have the same album, yet sing such different words? If you feel otherwise, that his work is impeccable and beyond improvement, please say so. If not, I don’t really see where you have any skin in the game. The disagreement at hand is restricted to Stripling. Had it stayed in the appropriate Stripling thread, instead of diverting here in an act of true courage, that likely would have been more obvious. Please bear that in mind before reciting the lengthy list of Armstrong contributions with which I've repeatedly stated agreement. Since before the book was published. Because they are moot for the purpose at hand. Being right about nine things doesn't give you credit for a tenth thing. Each must be earned. Back to Stripling.... Now, that was actually intended to be mildly complimentary. Jim’s been nothing but loyal, and not always to his benefit. While keeping company that doesn't always agree with him or all of H&L. Was “valet” the step too far? Feel free to substitute proxy, agent, operative, representative, webmaster, or any other term of art that doesn’t raise your hackles. This, not so elegant, but suitably descriptive. When varying proxies for H&L cannot stay on the same page, and argue with each other, what is to be done? It's like herding cats to keep them on the same script, or playing whack-a-mole with people whose story changes as the wind blows. Which seems not to bother you a whit. Let them throw mutually exclusive "solutions" at each other, but we're to watch our language in reply. When the author himself is not available, can we at least expect his chorus to all sing from the same page of the hymn book? Or at least the same hymn book? The witness says 1952, the book quoting the witness says 1954, but let’s declare them both correct, shall we? Best not to have to choose. But perhaps I'm being too harsh. Your argument is not actual content, but process. Because it would be unfair to say of people whose thinking was converted by reading H&L that they are "converts to the cause?" Is that likewise a step too far? Quick, hand me the smelling salts. On this point, I’d say you’re half right, at least, so let’s agree to disagree on the rest, shall we?

Perhaps you missed the inter-office memo on talking points. The H&L team has conceded the error was John Armstrong’s, and not Frank Kudlaty’s. Since changes often happen on the fly in H&L HQ, you should try at all times to tailor your current argument according to the current liturgy. So, it’s cool that you’re sticking up for Kudlaty, but according to your squad it’s not his memory that’s in question; it’s John Armstrong’s memory that is in question, for points already conceded by JA and JH. I have in this thread spit-balled the notion that the fault was not actually John’s, but that John may have felt his only recourse was to take the fall for the discrepancy himself. Painful as that might be, the alternative would be worse: Admitting that star witness Kudlatry could not remember something as significant as the school principal who told him to meet the FBI at Stripling that Saturday morning. It seems - by Sandy’s own definition - one of those moments so significant that it ought not be forgot. But by Sandy’s other definition, Kudlaty may have forgot, but didn’t need to recall facts correctly to be correct. (But then, by another of Sandy’s definitions, the use of quotation marks somehow doesn’t necessarily mean the quotation was accurately quoted. Got it.) So it’s ok if Kudlaty forgot it, because how can you ask a witness to remember something 30 years later? But, instead, it was John Armstrong who could not remember something as significant as the name of the school principal who told Kudlaty to meet the FBI at Stripling that Saturday morning. And John didn’t have a 30 year interim to explain his error. For him, it was only days, maybe weeks, maybe months? If he taped the interview - for which I think there is prima facie evidence - then he didn’t even forget, but misheard his own witness. Possible? Sure. Likely? Even I give Armstrong more credit than that. As for appearing dumb, it’s not my reputation at stake, Sandy. The Stripling discrepancies - plural - are not my dilemma to solve, thank Zeus. That’s your onus to bear. It’s your good name on the line, bud. There’s been a lot of talk here recently about puzzle pieces, and how they fit. Your team has various puzzle pieces, agreed. But they’re not from the same puzzle... so.... good luck with that In the meantime, I trust you’ll pardon me if I exercise my right to voice opinions that may run counter to your own.

So, if I’m reading Sandy correctly, he’s saying that people cannot be expected to remember various things after 30-40 years. The “witnesses” we’re discussing are allowed to get facts wrong, but that’s ok, because it’s been, like, forever. This is the impossibly low standard you're forced to create? Sandy, you do realize that these are your own witnesses, right? So what if their memories are wrong? They’re still right. This from a man who thinks anything written within quotation marks need not be a verbatim quote. If not for that very purpose, for what reason do quotation marks exist? Next we’ll hear from the good Doc that photos mean little in the grand scheme of things, after having spearheaded a campaign based upon the misreading of ONE photo. Lesson learned? From Cinque to Armstrong? Heck of a way to run a railroad. Do continue.

As promised, I have some questions for the crack H&L squad, and a few observations of my own. Actually, not even the whole squad. Just Jim Hargrove, as he's demonstrated he has sufficient pull to get John Armstrong to admit an error, eventually. Maybe Jim can clarify a few things that puzzle me. The rest of you can take a breather. Jim, you have said that John Armstrong made an unfortunate error by typing the name "Weldon Lucas" when he intended to type "Harry Wylie." Simple mistake; these things happen. Except that John was not riffing on his own, dropping heavy prose. The improper name appears in the text of a direct quote. "Early on the morning following the assassination, Saturday morning, I was telephoned by my boss, Mr. (Weldon) Lucas (Principal of Stripling), and told to go to school and meet two FBI agents." How does someone accidentally type the wrong name into a direct quote? Was that interview taped? Because if it was, a direct quote should have included Wylie, not Lucas. If the mistake was Armstrong's. I have in my life interviewed literally hundreds of people, and always used a tape recorder. (After finding out the hard way early on that it was the safest practice.) When typing out the transcript, I could never mistake one name for another. Why? Because one is only transcribing what one hears. I find it hard to imagine that a man of JA's laser-like focus would make such a mistake. Or that it could remain undetected for so long. (Do H&L adherents not read that to which they adhere?) I tend to think there was a tape recording of this interview. Re-read the quote above, and notice how Lucas' first name and school position are inserted. If this were simply prose, there'd be no insertion; it would be pointless. Notice too the awkward sentence structure. That's a direct quote, as spoken. Were it not, John would not word that sentence so poorly. Consequently, I think there is a tape recording. If so, I sure would like to hear the relevant portion, nothing else. However, if there was no tape recording of the problematic Kudlaty discrepancy, then John wasn't transcribing quotations from tape. He was taking the info from his notes, and then pretending - by using quotation marks - that what he wrote was a verbatim quotation. (And having seen some of John's notes – um, yikes!) That is the textbook definition of putting words in a person's mouth. However, as above, there are two hints - large hints - that this was recorded. Now, the more easily distracted of the crack H&L squad will say this is a minor quibble, over an understandable mistake. Jim's agreed to amend the text online, so what's the big deal? Big or not, the deal is that this mistake is also in the book, and was repeated on the H&L website for what? 10-15-20 years? How does one correct so widespread an error? I find it more than passing strange that of all the people who have read the book, researched the basis of the book, and those who proof-read it before publishing, no one noticed this discrepancy. Or perhaps I have just assumed that more people have read the book than is actually the case. (But if that's true, how can there really be 'far reaching' yadda yadda yadda?) The issue is of import not merely because a mistake has been allowed to taint what readers have been reading for multiple years in the book and online. (Although that's bad enough.) The existence of a tape recording in which Kudlaty says "Weldon Lucas" or "Harry Wylie" would demonstrate whether the mistake was JA's or Kudlaty's? If there is a tape, I'm sure people would love to hear it, just to certify definitively that the mistake was John's. Hence, Kudlaty's own voice would be on tape saying either the right name or the wrong one. If there is no tape, how does one use quotation marks to indicate a direct quote? From memory? That's a perilous practice, as nobody likes to be misquoted by someone who's acting solely from memory. So, a Q: Did John Armstrong tape the Kudlaty interview in which the latter said in a phone call either "Weldon Lucas" or "Harry Wylie?" If not, perhaps somebody could explain how an author comes up with a direct quote that purports to be precisely verbatim, until it turns out it wasn't....? Seems to me, when confronted with his "error" John would rather toss himself on his own sword than admit the error was Kudlaty's. Because it's Kudlaty's credibility that must be maintained at all costs. Even if/when he's not credible. I'll have some more questions as time allows. Hearing twenty seconds of the taped recording might add some more. Or prove the error was John's, in which case the rest becomes moot. But in the meantime, I think it behooves you to add an erratum notice on the website that contained the mistake, as already suggested by yours truly. * Side note to DJ - and before there's any more emoticon incontinence, these are not orders, or demands, or barks, or shrieks or howls, or whatever else you may hear in your head. They are suggestions. Take 'em or don't. Not really my dilemma.

Jim, it’s gracious of you to acknowledge the error and make the correction. I suspect we’ll be getting back to some of that later. But in the meantime, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure, allow me to suggest to you - a published author - that an * asterisk be placed next to the change in text. At the foot, a simple erratum notice: * "from whatever date until July 22/2020 this name inadvertently read “Weldon Lucas." We regret the error.” No big deal. The Times and Post run errata columns. It would show an interest in being honest in presentation of facts, which your site’s readers will no doubt admire. Is this the final word; that this was Armstrong’s own error, and not Kudlaty’s? I ask, because I have some questions about that. But let’s start with the erratum notice, as it’s the least an honest broker would do. Otherwise, things tend to slip into the memory hole. Good on you for trying to do the right thing.

Any news from Armstrong about Harry Wylie? Seems that's something you might want to get cleared up, right quick.

Ask John Armstrong. It's HIS unresolved - and I might add, undisclosed - discrepancy. You cannot possibly be this stunned. Missing the point. Willfully and not for the first time. Kudlaty told Armstrong two different things. It was HIS job to ascertain which principal was actually at Stripling at the time. He didn’t. Neither did you. And clearly, neither of you have any answer for this, nor do the rest of the crack H&L squad. Which you’re now trying to make my fault? Now I have to do both John’s AND your homework for you too? Have you no self-awareness? YOU didn’t even know anything about it, until I enlightened you. And then you still didn’t even read the relevant post, so anxious were you to go on the attack. Sandy needed to explain it to you. Yet you profess to be an expert at connecting dots. What a time-wasting joke. Aren't you the guy who claimed to know more about H&L than any human alive, save for Armstrong himself? Maybe next time you should not post until you know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, feel free to continue making yourself look stupid. In the meantime, nobody in the H&L fever swamp has an interest in Wylie. Why? Because it is but one of several fatal flaws to the H&L hypothesis. The H&L publicists didn’t recognize it because even they don’t know what they’re talking about. They do now. On this matter, at least. Harry Wylie. Get back to me when you know something. Preferably with whatever lame excuse you can torture out of Armstrong, now apparently struck mute ever since I mentioned Harry Wylie. Jesus, don’t you people ever learn? btw - Adults who use emoticons the way you do come across like they should be playing with crayons. It doesn't reflect a serious, studious approach one expects from a grownup. You're welcome.

Sorry, Doc, but your bias is showing. If the only people here who have critiqued Mark Stevens’ epic post - in the thread where your reply should have been, naughty boy - belong to the crack H&L squad... well, what else are they going to say? Disagree with you? There’s already enough intra-squad disagreement here. There’s Sandy, who believes, but certainly not completely. There’s Jim, who has been John’s loyal valet for decades, and won’t hear a bad word said, but will steer you away from posting in the thread to which you replied. Courage! There’s DJ, who needs some time in the H&L re-education camp. And then there’s..... who exactly? You keep claiming major things for H&L, yet other than being cited in a few other self-published books - you know, vanity publications - where are all the converts to this cause? Where are the comments posted here by those converts, rather than just the usual suspects? The demonstrable fact of LHO’s imposture during his adult life doesn’t in any way require two kids to have been teenaged spy larvae. So, if Jim Douglass mentions adult imposture, it is scholastically and intellectually dishonest to count such a book as being in agreement with H&L. It is not. If it were, it would have said so. You seem to think the imposture angle is something John Armstrong first discovered. But even aside from the already mentioned Richard Popkin book, one mustn’t forget Robert Cutler’s Alias Oswald, in which anomalies in LHO's military records got a thorough inspection. Both books in their entirety - and other books of merit, to a lesser degree - acknowledged adult imposture. They do not require teenybopper spy boys to make their case. H&L does. If you can’t see the disconnect between those works and Armstrong’s, you should re-read them. You’ve demonstrated yourself incapable of replying in any meaningful way to even your most cherry-picked of Mark’s cogent points, so now must warn him that unnamed “others” find fault with his writing. Well, why not let them do it, instead of you? Let’s see who all these people are who are incapable of reading and understanding English. Let them state their case right here. Please, Forum members, if you couldn’t make heads nor tails out of what Mark wrote, make your cavils known. Mark Stevens has even politely asked for precisely that criticism, which demonstrates ethics that might not register with a ban-hammer fan such as yourself. And yet you admit to having read H&L?

DJ: First, try reading for comprehension. Because there seems so much you fail to comprehend. Let's bring you up to speed. For the umpteenth time. Does the name Harry Wylie ring a bell? Aside from mentioning Weldon Lucas, Kudlaty ALSO told John Armstrong he got the phone call from school principal Harry Wylie. Must have been Wylie, he said, because that was the chain of command. So your star witness can’t remember his own principal? The one who instructed him to meet the FBI? Which NONE of you seemed to know, including Armstrong. Do none of you read and watch your own propaganda? Your fellow crack H&L squad members have already acknowledged the truth of what I said. Are you denying this? If so, take it up with Jim and Sandy, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. If Armstrong had an explanation for this, I’m sure we would have heard it by now. That’s your problem to deal with, not mine. And you’re doing a piss-poor job of it. Funny how your star witness in the Stripling episode can’t remember which school principal called him with instructions to meet the FBI at Stripling. Funnier still that NONE of you even knew this. But I’m the one who needs to pay attention to details, right? The one who made what Jim and Sandy called a “useful” observation and a “good catch.” Which you now seem to deny. Even more hilarious, none of you has a reasonable rationale for this discrepancy. You may think you know more than anybody about this aside from Armstrong himself. You said so. But if you don't know about Harry Wylie, you don't know something that maybe you ought to. Stop wasting our time. Learn your own propaganda. Because NONE of you seems to know how to deal with this. Do continue.

I will let Mark Stevens reply as he sees fit, since this is purportedly dealing with his thread, and he sure doesn’t need help from me or anyone else. But I have a question: Why is your reply to Mark Stevens not posted in the thread to which you’re replying? If you don’t know, but would like to, I can tell you why. Because you’d love nothing more than to see that thread sink into the ether. You don’t want people to read what he actually said, just your flaccid response. In which we see that you do not respond to everything Mark posted, just what you want to reply to. So you don’t post your reply where it actually belongs. Is this not cowardly, particularly for a man of letters? Can we expect you to beg the mods for the ban-hammer again? Because nothing displays your confidence in your utterings better than "please kill my opponents." Why are you people so frightened? Run away all you like. Other Forum members will just keep bumping Mark’s thread back to the top, where you cannot hide from it. But, since I'm here anyway... Kudlaty's confusion over two school principals. Drop your excuses for this right here:___________________________________________________ Do continue.

Sandy, you are wrong, wronger and wrongest. You want to talk evidence? Pot meet kettle. You want evidence that completely contradicts the central tenet of Stripling? Try reading the very FIRST post in this thread. Or, for that matter, mine. You and Jim found it “useful” and a “good catch,” yet haven’t replied to it. Because you have no idea what to say that won't make you look even more stupid than you already do. What the hell are you people afraid of? Explain how your key witness Kudlaty got the same call on the same day from two different school principals. Go ahead. If you can’t, which doesn’t surprise, don’t bother asking Jim because he had no idea how to deal with this either. Nor can the other H&L cheerleaders, who are even more useless. Nor, I assume, can John Armstrong, or we would have had his explanation for this by now. No you don’t. You just call it “useful” and “a good catch” and then pretend you never read it. Which is fine. Your comportment here tells every reader precisely what they need to know about H&L, your collective refusal to contend with contrary evidence, and your inability to even grasp what’s so wrong about this fast-unraveling hypothesis. Is Armstrong in the market for a new crew? If not, he should be, because the one he has here can't find their own ass with both hands. Two principals. Drop your explanation right here: ___________________________________________________________________

No, DJ, what vexes you - so much that you feel the instant need to attack me - is that I still have something to say. You don’t like it? Tough! Disprove my contentions. But you don’t, because just like every other curious person who’s fallen down the H&L rabbit hole, you have NO answer. Two school principals directed Kudlaty to go to Stripling and meet the FBI? That’s what YOUR key witness has said. But I’m out of line for pointing it out to you? To my mind, Kuldlaty’s credibility and value to your shared hypothesis underwent a serious shellacking as a result of my post - you know the post; the one for which none of you - including Armstrong it may yet transpire - have any rejoinder. A post to which none of the crack H&L team have conjured an answer. Don’t know why you’re attacking me for your own sloppiness. Shoot the messenger much? Yeah, because you and the Warren Commission both offer conclusions that share much in common, not least of which is the howlingly funny lowest-possible-bar you set for what qualifies as “evidence.” Dear God, this is where the H&L lost patrol actually claims that all disbelief must be suspended, all laws of nature and the universe must be abandoned in order perceive the perfect genius of what is being laid out for us. David, when you can explain Kudlaty directing Armstrong to two different school principals, I’ll read what you have to say. When you can explain why Armstrong didn’t ever address this fundamental fact, while encouraging us to believe Kudlaty, I’ll read what you have to say. If you can explain Armstrong’s apparent decision to hide Kudlaty’s incredibility from his readers, I’ll read what you have to say. Poison pen letters written out of a desperate inability to answer simple questions will not get you where you want to go. But they work wonders for me. Do continue.

Asked and answered, although I'm hardly surprised this has already been forgotten. So, here again for the remedial readers - I'm looking at you DJ - another chance to rub your own nose in it. Posted Sunday at 05:44 PM I like the kind of evidence that actually offers proof for a contention. Not a contention made, and then a whole lot of hot air about usually-unrelated other stuff. Don’t care about elaborate byzantine schemes that you think prove a pattern; without incidents like Stripling, your hypothetical pattern quickly evaporates. But let Stripling be the start. I like evidence that withstands scrutiny without the demand made upon me to depend on a dozen other things in a pattern for it to be true. If it can’t stand alone, how does one justify dependence upon it to show a pattern? Not all evidence is created equal. An impartial mind seeking a correct resolution to the mystery must be able to discern that which is substantial - with commensurate proof - from that which remains hypothetical, due to insufficient probative evidence, no matter how provocative or seductive. And to question one’s own hypothesis at every turn, in order to rule out all other possible, plausible likelihoods. This is a particular Achilles Heel for H&L. I like the kind of evidence that answers a question asked, not a hundred questions the crack H&L team wish they had been asked. I like evidence that gets posted on the first occasion when it is requested, rather than having to beat it out of hypothesizers with a dozen recitations of the same question. And then still get more derp. Unpersuasive. I like the kind of evidence that sustains a hypothesis. If it is to be made, let there be proof. Where the proof is not entirely persuasive, be prepared to answer the questions asked, not the ones you wish had been asked. And if all of you could avoid getting snitty about the fatiguing imposition of having to answer questions you’ve solicited, that would likely help public perception of the Armstrong hypothesis somewhat. It certainly couldn’t hurt the hypothesis any more than you currently do. Because H&L is a rather rickety construction, not many fundamental elements need be disproved before the rest becomes merely academic. Stripling is one such instance, but far from the only one. As I’ve already conceded, I am convinced of the fact of LHO imposture in his adult life. But that does not require him to have been impersonated while a pre-teen, and absent dead certain proof, neither am I required to endorse something just because you believe it true. The scientific method doesn’t bend no matter how hard you may sometimes wish. It places on those who make claims the onus of defending the claims and proving their validity. Yet these things don’t seem to much interest your crew. But let’s hear more about impossible 13 inch heads. Do continue.

Well, now that Jim and Sandy have had a chance to Lol a lot over my insane expectation of a straight answer from either of them, let’s recap where we are: Frank Kudlaty told John Armstrong two mutually exclusive things about a phone call he got instructing him to meet the FBI @ Stripling Nov. 23 and hand over LHO’s attendance records. He got that call from Stripling principal Weldon Lucas. He got that call from Stripling principal Harry Wylie. No, you’re not confused. Harvey & Lee doesn't just have two Oswalds, and two Ma Oswalds, but also boasts a pair of school principal doppelgangers. Armstrong’s key witness re: Stripling told him two different things and either: a) Armstrong didn’t realize the discrepancy (which is a stretch for a thorough man); or, b) Armstrong recognized the discrepancy but thought he’d keep it on the down low. Maybe nobody would notice. If so, he was almost right. Certainly none of his inter-tube publicists did. But they are apparently exempt from having to know what's in H&L. This is one of those unfortunate situations where we are forced to choose between two scenarios and the motives that lead to each. Was this the result of sheer incompetence or a more malign motivation? Oddly enough, it doesn’t seem that JA, JH, SL, DJ or any of their running-buddies have any ready reply. Sure, it was “a good catch” on my part, and “useful” even. Thanks for that, boyos. But where's the much-anticipated reply? Now please explain the discrepancy and why NONE of you, from author to flacks, seemed to know about it, when it is, after all, your own work? How many decades has this been part of your H&L curriculum without any of you noticing? Jim said he’d raise it with Armstrong 'ASAP” when he got him on the Batphone. So? Is John not returning your calls? Has he suddenly been struck mute? Pining for the fjords, perhaps? It’s obvious we can’t rely upon the memory of your key witness 30+ years after the fact, because of his - how shall we say?..... supreme unreliability. What is becoming increasingly obvious is that we cannot rely upon the purveyors of the H&L hypothesis to even vet their own output. Or own up with answers when challenged. Or listen to their own key witness while he tells two different tales. These mutually exclusive items have been used for 25 years by the H&L practitioners without any of them apparently realizing these different answers from Kudlaty cannot both be true. Hence, somebody's memory has let everyone down. And I don't mean Kudlaty. But then, I don’t see much evidence of JH, SL, DJ, or Dr. Newbie presence here since this tiny bombshell arrived here. They must be busy gang-Lol-ing and awaiting further instructions. Or.... is it something I said? Maybe Dr. Newbie will seek my expulsion for discovering a weakness in H&L that he hadn't? But then, he recently discovered fresh records that illustrate White-Out or Liquid Paper (choose your preference) had been used in order to correct an initial typing of Harvey Lee Oswald to the accurate Lee Harvey Oswald. Was this a Freudian slip on the typist's part? Or just a typo that was fixed? Since mundane explanations aren't favored among the crack H&L team...... Critics of H&L chastise the hypothesis because witnesses were quoted without a sufficient attempt to verify if what they said was true. (Lol expert Sandy Larsen thinks this means finding witnesses to corroborate your witnesses, which is just so goofy, so silly, I mean, really, who would do that?) “Somebody trying to do a proper job” would be the answer we're looking for, contestants. Listening to their own star witness re: Stripling, it becomes apparent that precisely zero effort was taken to verify which of the multiple choice principals called Kudlaty. Hell, they didn't seem to know there were a couple from which to choose, until it was kindly pointed out to them. That’s not journalism, or even authorship. It’s stenography. With an undeclared purpose, undisclosed to the reader. Jim, Sandy, DJ, et al, seem to delight in stenography, because it’s what they do too. They repeatedly regurgitate something they think should be of interest to us, and when they realize it’s not, they regurgitate it some more. Because when you’re flogging a losing proposition, the best course is to double down. And, for God's sake, whatever you do, don't acknowledge the labor-intensive, highly enlightening post by Mark Stevens that started this thread. Just argue the same old same old talking points, carpet-bomb him with condescension and emoticons and hope he wearies. *brilliant* Do continue.

Actually, all my posts have been useful in illuminating what’s weak about H&L. Which is why you find them unwelcome. They’ve exposed the paucity of sane argument underpinning too much of H&L. You’ve had no additional light to shed on the sane and meticulous dismantling of your weak evidence. Which you have now admitted by saying “we have what we have.” Yes we know. It wasn’t enough 20 years ago, and still isn’t today. Posting it thrice daily actually hurts your credibility more than helps it. Focus on answers to questions asked, not just repetitive derp. Q: What you and Sandy refer to as “useful” and “a good catch” - Frank Kudlaty’s mistake, fatal to his credibility, and Armstrong’s let me add - isn’t just something that John Armstrong ought to have caught before publishing. It’s something YOU should have caught in your twenty year career as John’s carny barker. Had you cast a critical eye toward your own H&L “evidence” you too could have made a “good catch” and proved yourselves “useful.” How is it that you, yourselves, know so little about the stuff you push so much? How is it that you can browbeat critics for not understanding the complexity of the hypothesis when you don’t understand the simplicity with which it comes undone? And because H&L is so rickety a contraption, each weakness revealed merely reduces the credibility further. How is it that Mark Stevens can dismantle Stripling in its entirety in a single meticulous post? He did the work you SHOULD have done, but didn’t. Your fallback of “we have the evidence we have” should be updated to admit “we started with little, but we still have a bit left.” It would be more accurate. If accuracy is your aim. Do continue.

Yeah, Jim, when you’re finished Lol-ing, maybe you or Sandy could pony up an excuse for why your key witness Kudlaty couldn’t remember which principal called him. And pony up another one for why John Armstrong either didn’t notice this discrepancy - highly unlikely - or didn’t disclose it to readers. Also, why does Sandy respond to something posted over eight hours ago, but completely blank on something posted only 90 minutes earlier? You know, the post that demolishes Kudlaty? Was that unworthy of comment? Or does that post explain Sandy's non-response? Maybe another page of derp and a hundred DJ emoticons? Yes, this Lol-ing is quite fun. Let’s trash some more of your alleged witnesses, shall we? The buffoon behavior displayed in this thread by the crack H&L team is juvenile and pathetic. Do continue.

So, we are advised that Frank Kudlaty took a call from his immediate superior, the school principal, and was advised to go to Stripling school and meet FBI men there who would be picking up LHO’s school records. Frank Kudlaty says that his boss at the time was principal Weldon Lucas. He told this to John Armstrong. https://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html Elsewhere, however, we have Kudlaty relaying he’d received the call from the school principal, Harry Wylie: Kudlaty: I believe it was Harry Wylie, you know I...that’s the only person who would have told...who would have called me, because that would have been the chain of command, you know...... Q: And who was Harry Wylie? Kudlaty: The Principal. In an effort to be charitable toward Frank Kudlaty for what seems an element of confusion, one might assume that he was new to the school, or to his job as vice principal. Kudlaty assures otherwise, in the very same interview: Kudlaty: Mr. Wylie...that may have been his first year as Principal at Stripling, I’m not sure. And I would have been far more familiar cause I had been there since...I’d been a teacher for...there for 9 years and that would have been my 4th year as Assistant Principal. He told this to John Armstrong. Thus we find a man who 30+ years after the fact can be relied upon to tell the difference between grades for Robert Lee Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald - something which by his own admission he only glanced at briefly - but cannot be relied upon to know which principal called him to arrange his date with destiny, despite having worked with both men for some years. And, sadly, we find an author who was told two different mutually exclusive things by Frank Kudlaty. If the discrepancy wasn't reported by that author, I would submit this was for obvious reasons. It just grows shabbier by the minute. Do continue.

I like the kind of evidence that actually offers proof for a contention. Not a contention made, and then a whole lot of hot air about usually-unrelated other stuff. Don’t care about elaborate byzantine schemes that you think prove a pattern; without incidents like Stripling, your hypothetical pattern quickly evaporates. But let Stripling be the start. I like evidence that withstands scrutiny without the demand made upon me to depend on a dozen other things in a pattern for it to be true. If it can’t stand alone, how does one justify dependence upon it to show a pattern? Not all evidence is created equal. An impartial mind seeking a correct resolution to the mystery must be able to discern that which is substantial - with commensurate proof - from that which remains hypothetical, due to insufficient probative evidence, no matter how provocative or seductive. And to question one’s own hypothesis at every turn, in order to rule out all other possible, plausible likelihoods. This is a particular Achilles Heel for H&L. I like the kind of evidence that answers a question asked, not a hundred questions the crack H&L team wish they had been asked. I like evidence that gets posted on the first occasion when it is requested, rather than having to beat it out of hypothesizers with a dozen recitations of the same question. And then still get more derp. Unpersuasive. I like the kind of evidence that sustains a hypothesis. If it is to be made, let there be proof. Where the proof is not entirely persuasive, be prepared to answer the questions asked, not the ones you wish had been asked. And if all of you could avoid getting snitty about the fatiguing imposition of having to answer questions you’ve solicited, that would likely help public perception of the Armstrong hypothesis somewhat. It certainly couldn’t hurt the hypothesis any more than you currently do. Because H&L is a rather rickety construction, not many fundamental elements need be disproved before the rest becomes merely academic. Stripling is one such instance, but far from the only one. As I’ve already conceded, I am convinced of the fact of LHO imposture in his adult life. But that does not require him to have been impersonated while a pre-teen, and absent dead certain proof, neither am I required to endorse something just because you believe it true. The scientific method doesn’t bend no matter how hard you may sometimes wish. It places on those who make claims the onus of defending the claims and proving their validity. Yet these things don’t seem to much interest your crew. But let’s hear more about impossible 13 inch heads. Do continue.

Nobody’s running way from your derp, Jim. Nobody can. It’s ever-present. What is not ever-present is your willingness to contend with questions for which you have no easy answer. You then regurgitate what we already know, but were it persuasive, this thread would be populated by people seeking to legitimize your shared hypothesis. They should be legion by now, and yet.... You have some evidence that various people made various claims, few of them uniform, about an event they witnessed 40-plus years earlier. No one disputes (with few exceptions) that these people said the things that are claimed. What is in dispute is the validity of these claims, predictable questions for which you seem remarkably unprepared. Hence, the instant replay of the same derp that wasn’t previously successful. As a face-saving pivot, it’s a flop. Do you have any significant information about Weldon Lucas?

You are correct. Robert told the same story to both the FWST in 1959, and to the WC four-plus years later. Doesn’t mean it’s accurate and true, but that’s a rampart on which you’re prepared to die for whatever reason. Which is a repeated occurrence. Things are only viable evidence if they are true. Decades after the fact, the uncorroborated recollections of even well-intentioned ‘witnesses’ don’t automatically get verified as “true.” Because while it may (or may not) be “evidence,” it certainly doesn’t constitute proof. Yet more problematic, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out - only to have it elided and ignored by the crack H&L squad : if keeping the LHO Stripling attendance top secret was necessary, why was Robert Oswald allowed to repeat this H&L-exposing comment for a four-plus year period? First to a newspaper in ‘59 and to the WC in ‘64? Not exactly low profile. Is that not something of a boo-boo for the CIA brain-trust? A boo-boo they had nearly five years to “fix”, yet didn’t. Did the Agency not maintain and glean from a folder that contained 1959 news stories from the mysterious defector's home town? If not, why? Not doing so would be considered a gross dereliction of the most basic intelligence duties. CIA has a mysterious defector to the USSR but DOESN'T keep local media reports in any file? But I thought this information was super-ultra-eyes-only and closely held. Public exposure had to be scuttled at all costs. So, how come we all know it? Why did no one caution Robert Oswald to stop discussing Stripling, if that was the heart of darkness at the core of a Top Secret program? It’s possible the Agency is so incompetent that it forgot to “correct” Robert Oswald. Or, equally possible, this is all a speculative Rube Goldberg device that wilts under impartial scrutiny. How can it be that an ultra-secret school attendance by LHO for six weeks is now “common knowledge” among people who weren’t even there at the time? And how does that constitute “proof” of anything? But it gets worse for the crack H&L squad. They say, of necessity, that Robert Oswald got the dates wrong in his WC testimony. Because telling the proper dates would give away the Top Secret plot, they allege. When in fact ANY testimony he gave about Stripling did the same. So, the crack H&L squad demands we accept Robert Oswald’s word LHO attended Stripling, just not when he really did, according to H&L dead sea scrolls. The modus operandi seems to be that we must believe him to be right, when he was clearly wrong, and then believe him wrong when it disagrees with their pet scenario. Way to cherry-pick just what suits you. I have tried, to no avail as yet, to locate any law enforcement documents on Weldon Lucas, the Stripling principal who allegedly tasked Kudlaty with providing documents to the FBI on Sat. Nov. 23. It would seem there should be some document - particularly within FBI holdings - that reflects the Bureau asked Lucas to arrange this, but it does not appear to exist. Is that because the doc was deep-sixed? Or just never existed? (I proffer no answer for that.) In any event, one must also rationalize just how much data the Bureau knew about a hush-hush CIA operation. Fractious political wars within and between the two agencies led both to prevent the other from obtaining certain of an agency's secrets. Data-sharing was not the default protocol, and we've seen many instances in which CIA and FBI refrained from sharing complete information. (Mexico City cables with Langley, as an example. Or that Hoover would in 1960 express interest in LHO's birth certificate. If the Bureau was in the know about the top secret H&L project, Hoover would have remained silent.) In order to verify Kudlaty’s tale in the mid-‘90's, would not John Armstrong have sought out the man who could confirm he’d given Kudlaty this task? Perhaps he tried to do so, but Lucas was already deceased. Or perhaps Lucas was still alive, reached by Armstrong, but then declined to make a statement. Or made a statement so at odds with the H&L hypothesis that it was stricken. At present, I see nothing that resolves these questions with certainty. But would very much welcome any additional info regarding efforts made to interview Lucas, and results, if any. I'd also like to see rationalized how it was that Paul Gregory, who attended Stripling in the same grade and same year as LHO, did not recall LHO at Stripling? Or recognize him a half dozen years later. While others are cited who recalled LHO clearly, Gregory didn't. It would also be interesting to see rationalized the existence of LHO Stripling school records dating back more than a half dozen years, yet still extant in late '63 and held at a school the top secret Oswald attended. Would CIA not have scrubbed those records in the interim? Why leave them lying around, if it could disclose to the targeted Soviets what CIA was planning? And please... no regurgitation of the derp already posted too many times in another related thread. Repetition does not render a falsehood true. And a billion emoticons will only use bandwidth to no constructive end. And it just pisses off the very people you're theoretically trying to convince.

Just a quick word, Mark. Bravo!