Mark Stevens

Tony, 

The "Harvey & Lee" story claims "Oswald" attended Stripling for only 6-8 weeks in September - November 1954. I can't recall from memory where they claim he went after that, but they could then fit other schools into his timeline since he was only at Stripling for this short time.

Regarding the photos/shirts. I believe you made an astute observation. I believe it's clear both photos were taken on the same day. So either both Oswald's wore the same shirt that day and one took the photo for the other (this whole thing just gets crazier) or there is only one Oswald boy and both photos are of him. Regardless of the photo with the tooth "anomaly," it's clear that in another photo taken the same day he is not missing a tooth. 

Thanks Ron and Paul,

I'm torn honestly. I think the video resembles both of them and both their statements could have them interviewing witnesses and moving them to the S.O. within about 15 minutes of the shooting.

I'm leaning towards Decker at this moment though since Walthers went immediately to the Underpass and then back to the TSBD. The timeline fits less with him. Since Decker doesn't give many details in his testimony, it's harder for me to say for certain it's him.

My interest in this piqued after Jolliffe's comments regarding Brennan and which building he may have been referring to. I believe shot(s) were fired from the Dal-Tex building.

While doing some digging, I noticed this statement from Brennan in his WC testimony:

Quote

Mr. BELIN. All right.
Will you put a mark to “G” at the end ? And I believe you said that the car
that you talked to the Secret Service agent in was at point “G” approximately?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Now, are these accurate or approximate locations, Mr. Brennan?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, don’t you have photographs of me talking to the Secret
Service men right here?
Mr. BELIN. I don’t believe so.
Mr. BRENNAN. You should have. It was on television before I got home my
wife saw it.
Mr. BELIN. On television?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. At this time we do not have them.
Do you remember what station they were on television?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. But they had it. And I called I believe Mr. Lish who
requested that he cut those films or get them cut of the FBI. I believe you
might know about them. Somebody cut those films, because a number of times
later the same films were shown, and that part was cut.
Mr. BELIN. Who would Mr. Lish be with?
Mr. BRENNAN. The FBI.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
We thank you very much for that information.
Is there anything else that you did at point “G”

I believe he is referring to the section of film beginning below at 2:00:12 (I slowed it down for better clarity) (also sorry for the DVP link but I think his was slightly better clarity)

I'm quite certain that is Brennan, I'm not as familiar with the other faces though. Can anyone identify them?

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Where were similar secret identity baton swinging, pepper spraying and tear gas and projectile firing Federal troops when the November 22nd, 2,000 Miami-Dade County Brooks Brother's protests turned into a Government Bldg. charging, entering and door/window pounding riot?

So physically aggressive and threatening it "terrified" all the government employees in and around that facility.

The riot shut down the whole legal endeavor...through sheer violence and intimidation.

Did "any" of those charging, pounding, trespassing and physically threatening protesters get man handled or arrested by full military combat adorned troops?

And it is totally officially known that the Repub's main dirty trickster Roger Stone organized that violent protest and paid the participants to travel from other places to participate in it.

Why is it that right wing sentiment protests never get the same super aggressive baton, pepper spray, tear gas response more liberal left wing ones do?

And please don't say they aren't ever as threatening as left wing protests. Remember the Carolina protests by the Neo-Nazis just a couple of years ago where an unarmed young woman was run over and killed by a member of this far right group?

This part of the point is was trying to make. 

Even those situations were handled by clearly identifiable members of law enforcement. Not a camouflaged, masked, unnamed, with a complete lack of regalia...person.

Where's the due process? 

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.

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

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

It was, and 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

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.

 

51 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

You are not really curious. Nevertheless, Federal agents protecting Federal property doesn't seem like it should be too controversial.

Federal agents seizing private property kind of makes the comparison less than ideal.

Whether or not the property belonged to the Feds or the Bundys, the controversy was over ownership. That is, both parties claimed ownership of the property and out come the guns.

In Portland, I don't think any of the Antifacists are staking ownership claims to any Federal Court houses or that the Federal gov't is occupying a property that actually belongs to the Antifas.

It appears that the Antifas primary goal is to provoke. If they are breaking things for other reasons, let me know.

 

I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain no ownership was claimed of anything much less the federal building they took control over. 

The issue as I understand it, was the Bundy's being charged to graze their cattle on public land. The felt the federal government had no rights to oversee the land, which should have been retained by the state. 

The issue isn't so much abouts agents, but about unidentified persons being claimed to be agents and their actions and the legality of their actions. 

50 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

"Witty" like Mecham's "Fatty Barrbuckle" reference for those on this thread born before 1926.

Now you can remove that comment.

No, I won't. Regardless of you reading the comment and replying to save face, the point is still valid. 

Nonetheless, you still didn't answer either of my questions. 

35 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

As long as some are professionals, I don’t really take it personally.

So, no actually answer to either of my questions? Just a "witty" comment?

On 7/25/2020 at 11:13 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

People cannot be expected to remember insignificant things after 30 to 40 years. That's right.

They CAN be expected to remember highly significant things.

But you already know this. It is your hostility toward the H&L theory that is making you look dumb.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I need to make a few things clear.

I have no animosity towards anything. I do have an issue with unresearched claims being help up fact when even if he claims are not easily disputed, they are still far from facts.

I also have to point out that it is you all who have some deep animosity not only towards me, but towards anyone with the audacity to question "Harvey & Lee."

You were hostile towards me from the moment I began asking questions:

Quote

It's just Mark bitching about James supposedly moving goal posts.

Then you doubled down with comments saying I live in another universe, I'm living in the Twilight zone, that I need to use my "noodle." Not to mention it is my hostility which makes me look dumb. Adding on the numerous attacks by Norwood, it becomes clear where the hostility is coming from. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely irritated at not only how you all construct and defend your positions, but by the general behavior of the group as well. I have let my irritation out and made a couple of snarky comments, but I've done my best to maintain composure and encourage genuine discussion. I'm guilty though, and I do need to do better.

My overall point is evidenced in my ability to engage in discussion and offer my time and assistance helping you with other questions you had. I'm honestly not trying to be hostile towards any person or any idea, I'm just trying to determine the truthfulness and likelihood of it all. I've asked time and again to point out the flaws in my arguments and explain how my reasoning is wrong. Instead I get attacks on my writing style, gross generalizations of my points, and conflation of my points with the points of others. In all but literally 2-3 specific instances, no one has replied to things I actually said. In spite of all of this I'm still here, still trying to have a reasonable discussion and ascertain the validity of the statements surrounding Stripling,id.

To some degree we have made ground though, you for instance seem to agree that the anomalies with Galindo's statements would exclude him from being used as a witness, Norwood believes basically the same with Summers. I for example believe Kudlaty gave records to the FBI. There is common ground to be shared and if we are all genuinely interested in promoting the truth and determining what transpired and how it transpired versus just promoting our own pet theories, then it behooves us all to critically examine everything. This should include our own beliefs and belief systems. I don't believe myself or my beliefs are beyond reproach, I would hope you would agree for not only how the statement applies to me but to how it applies to you as well.

I wrote something years ago about divide and conquer, and about how "they" use this strategy to divide "us" on a macro and micro scale. I believe it happens at a macro scale (black vs white) for instance, but then further at micro scales (there are a variety of issues which divide the male community, the black community, the gay community). The same thing is true in CT and JFKA communities. Instead of unity, there are 200 JFKA theories from Greer to Files to freaking Jackie shooting him. There's 5 different versions of who the tramps are and even more versions of how many Oswald's. We claim to be people who have researched these associated patterns and are familiar with these behaviors, and then fall into the set traps.

Disrupt, fracture, minimize.

I don't believe the Stripling episode happened as relayed because the evidence which is provide does not support that assertion. I would like to discuss what I based this belief on, and I have done so by writing the OP to this topic. 

If you still are interested in having a genuine discussion then please...take any of the names in my OP and copy and paste that section into a quote and tell me what's wrong with my analysis. You don't have to reply to everything, pick a person and let's talk. From there I can only attempt to learn or attempt to teach. It's all done though in the hope of and quest for truth and knowledge. 

8 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Heard somewhere yesterday. "The people who are complaining about Federal Agents being sent in to cities to protect Federal Court Houses are OK that Federal Agents were sent into the Trump Campaign in the Summer of 2016."

I know this is just something you "heard," but are you equating surveillance (possibly even illegal surveillance) with what is happening regarding "agents" acting in contravention to the Constitution and due process?

If so, I understand more everyday the vitriol directed towards you. 

Curious though, if Obama sent unidentified mercenaries to break up the Bundy "protest" would you equally shrug your shoulders and tell Obama it's OK to do whatever necessary to defend federal property and restore "order?" 

4 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

"A photo is going viral on social media showing a federal agent holding a gun in Portland, Oregon while wearing what appears to be a patch that reads “ZTI.” Some people on social media are speculating that this is connected to a private company called ZTi. However, that is not accurate. The patch actually reads ZT1 and is part of an identifier system that federal agencies are using right now in Portland instead of placing an officer’s name on the uniform. Heavy.com

----

Well, if Susan Rice says it's true...

Obama administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice spread a baseless conspiracy theory Saturday, accusing federal agents in Portland of working for a private security firm named “ZTI.”

“We need answers and accountability,” Rice wrote on Twitter in response to a now-deleted post claiming that a federal officer’s shoulder patch bore those three identifying letters. 

Should be very easy to refute then. 

Any other pictures of these "agents" with other ZT# patches? 

42 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mark,

I'm interested only in the revolver that allegedly killed officer Tippit.

I have a lot of disjointed notes, but so far I can't find anything referencing who found CE 592. I do feel like I have something, I'll have to look tomorrow when I have more time. I have notes on "reports" regarding both the firing pin and firing the gun. I don't know if this is talk, news reports, actual reports, or testimony. I'll check more on that tomorrow.

I have around 2 terabytes of information, much of which I've just started to catalog better. It might be longer than tomorrow lol.

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I can buy the older Doyle matching the younger man in the Dealey Plaza perp walk photo.

But the other two?  No.

Did Doyle do anything interesting during his army service?

He sounded quite inarticulate in his later age interview.

I will however,  give Doyle his due in his 1963 fashion sense.

The man was dressed so stylishly with his knit shirt with upturned collar and nice coat ( both color coordinated ) and perfectly fitting men's jeans. A cool men's fashion look ahead of it's time. He sure doesn't look like a hobo in that perp walk picture.

If Doyle dug his clothes out of a Salvation Army bin that day or the night before, he sure had an eye for chic. And it's a compliment to the SA in giving away such nice clothes to the hobos and poor.

On the contrary, Gus Abrams looks like he's wearing Salvation Army throwaways.

Like he mistook the Salvation Army garbage can for their regular clothes bin.

A movie wardrobe department couldn't make a film hobo character look anymore disheveled, ragged and pathetic than Abrams in the Dealey Plaza perp walk. His hat alone looks more "side of the roadway" beat up than the one Jed Clampett wore in the TV series "The Beverly Hillbillies." 

And what hobo chooses over-sized "white" pants ( that would show every speck of grime and dirt ) while traveling the dusty, oily railroad boxcar circuit ?

Even the crumpled paper sack Abrams is clutching looks trash can found.

I could see Abram's train riding brotherhood buddies giving him the hobo nickname ..."Disgusting Gus."

Gedney's clothes look like they "could have" come from the Salivation Army bin.

Not too poorly matched and they do fit him and his tall frame. 

These guys all supposedly "cleaned up" at the homeless mission the night before or the morning of the assassination, including showering? Nice help provided there.

I guess those places back then even provided grooming items such as razors and toothbrushes? These men didn't look like they carried toiletry accessory bags.

And where do rail riding hobos get their haircuts?  Frenchy's is darn right sharp. The other's not bad with clean sideburns trim lines.

I suppose if the three tramps were really just wrong place/wrong time innocents, the only seriously suspect aspect of their pictures in Dealey Plaza that day is the one that many think shows General Ed Lansdale right by them in front of the Texas Schoolbook Depository bldg.

 

I haven't brushed up on all of this in some time so forgive if memory is off on some things.

From what I remember, Doyle and Gedney were some kind of migrant worker versus a straight up homeless drunk. From what I also remember, Abrams was more of a homeless drunk. With this in mind I'd imagine Doyle and Gedney would at least make some attempts at getting nicer clothes, to help with jobs. Even a person hiring migrant workers was probably more likely to hire one who wasn't smelly, dirty, and in torn and ragged clothes. I believe Abrams, being the more typical homeless drunk, went about getting money for alcohol in more typical "hobo ways." I'm also not sure if you're familiar with the Salvation Army, or ever had to shop there for clothing, but you would be surprised at what you can find at a Salvation Army. In all honesty, some people go through lengths to not appear as poor as they are. While someone like Abrams may not really care if someone thought they looked like a homeless drunk, Doyle on the other hand might not want to appear as someone living in a boxcar or some form of homeless shelter. The fact that he "popped his collar" would seem to lend credence to this idea.

While I think speculation about their appearances is warranted, I believe it's also at least reasonably explained by their individual stories. If they are trying to find work I'd expect them to have a better appearance than a person just trying to get drunk in an alley, or rail car day long. All I'm really saying is that if we are going to consider every reason why their clothes and appearances shouldn't look the way they do, we should also consider reasons why they would.

As far as Lansdale goes, I've always felt his identification was dubious, especially considering it was from the rear. Considering the personnel at Dealey Plaza, I don't find anything particularly odd about the photo.

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have a few questions regarding Oswald's revolver. I'd appreciate any help.

Which Dallas cop claimed to have taken bullets from LHO's pocket?

Was there an FBI report indicating the revolver had a bent firing pin?

Was there an FBI saying the revolver fired just fine?

Regarding the bullets, are you referring specifically to the revolver bullets, or in general? There are also reports of Carcano bullets taken from his pockets. (not specifically Carcano I should add, but rifle)

Since this thread started I've been looking for a video I saw with footage from the tower.

I haven't found that footage, but I did find the below video. I'll keep hunting for the video I saw.

There are two sections with footage from the tower in this video. (one of those views is the video image)

There also a few things I've never heard regarding Bowers, one of which was that he disappeared for a few days and when he returned he was missing a finger...

Seems of interest. Anyone familiar with this?

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

This thread from years ago highlights well the contradictions in testimony that in total almost forces one to consider the tramps with more interest than not imo.

And the pictures of the supposed tramps ( Gedny, Doyle, Abrams ) from years later are just as debatable and suspect.

I tend to disagree, at least in regards to the men in the photos commonly referred to as the three tramps.

I've yet to hear anything which leads me to doubt their identity. I think basically everything they've stated, and the stories as they relate to them are largely accurate. I do believe it's possible there were other people in the rail yards and their reports were intentionally mixed with these to create confusion, but I nonetheless believe these guys were arrested in the rail yards and were held in jail for a few days.

Before we assign conspiracy to every discrepancy related to the men, I believe it's important to keep in mind the amount of sheer unprofessional behavior and inconsistency of both the S.O. and P.D. that day. Numerous witnesses names weren't even collected, much less their accounts. Numerous instances exist of "irregularities" during questioning (least of which is no tape or notes for Oswald's interrogation). The list truly goes on for quite some time. I believe it's important to keep all of this in mind when considering the eventualities of how the paperwork and other information related to these men was handled. I'm not saying any of this rules out conspiracy or "funny business" when it comes to the tramps, but it doesn't automatically point to conspiracy or "funny business" either.

While this is only halfway joking, maybe there was some sort of concerted "effort" to just be horrible police that day. At least then, no single irregular instance could be singled out and examined. Almost everything that occurred that day was irregular when it comes to police procedure.

I believe at best there was nothing really to hide regarding the rail yards and their stories are what they say they are, and at worse there were other people found in the rail yards and their stories were intentionally melded with the tramps to hide or obfuscate events which actually transpired. I believe the latter theory helps account for discrepancies in their clothing, etc. If you look at good photos of the walk across Dealey Plaza, those men are clearly wearing stained and dirty clothes.

I also believe it's important to remember the same thing we say about every other witness, the passage of time between when the events occurred and when the statements were given. If these guys were what we'd call "hobos, tramps, and winos" I'd expect their memory of events to be about as bad as it could be, especially considering that one or more of them were drinking that day and may have even been drunk at the time (Abrams for instance I believe is clearly wasted). On a personal note, I've been arrested (a lot)

With all that being said.

Harold Doyle....I believe the photos are about as close as one can be. Granted, I have no formal training in photo analysis and this is just my opinion, but look....

While I don't draw much conclusion from the photo above (this is clearly from a video, why not get a still with similar expressions, intentionally muddy the issue?)....

These photos...

Do bear a striking resemblance to "Frenchy."

Gus Abrams, really...just look at him...I also believe if you look at his forehead under his hat you can see that weird curve up in his hairline in the center area of his forehead, it may just be lighting as well but look and make your own opinion...

Gedney

There are other photos, I should be working though so I didn't have much time to get better links.

As of now the only person with any information I've yet to hear has been Larry Hancock. I plan on looking into his comments regarding Bowers and what he saw regarding arrests. Which, if correct would negate almost all rail stories and tramps theories. According to what I understand regarding Bowers comments, not only were the tramps not arrested that day, he didn't see anyone arrested. If that's true, almost everything we think we know about the tramps and related incidents would have to be reconsidered in light of the new evidence.

No information put forth thus far changes my opinions that the men in the photos are the men above. These men bear as much, if not more resemblance than people like Holt, Hunt, Sturgis, Carswell, Crisman, Harrelson, and anyone else I may have left off. Coupled with their stories, for whatever flaws they have, nothing else has yet to convince me.

26 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

For reference,  Lee Bowers reported seeing an individual inside an open hopper car (not a box car) looking down from his position in the tower, the car was on a train moving into the yard from downtown Dallas and the engine was pulling it out of his yard over the bridge. He stopped the train, and held it for police. One man, not in a box car.  Bowers made no remarks in his statements about seeing tramps in boxcars or seeing them or anyone else taken into custody and removed by police in the yard behind the fence.

Thanks Larry,

If memory serves right, there were multiple reports/stories regarding the tramps and persons in the rail yard.

I believe there were two, if not three reports of people taken off trains and I believe at least one that stated the tramps were in or around the rail yard but not in a rail car.

How do you interpret these events in the context of Bowers statements? Do you believe the incidents may not have happened, or that if they did Bowers didn't see them?

Joe,

I believe the Tramps were just that...tramps. 

I believe they were on the train already and were told to move along by some form of law enforcement so they went to another car and were then pulled off again and arrested.

Here is a link I had with some information on the Tramps:

https://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/senate/5439/Documents.html

On 7/25/2020 at 2:31 PM, Tony Krome said:

What did the two Oswalds do when they saw each other out in the schoolyard at lunchtime? High 5 ?

This is a far reaching topic for which the "Harvey & Lee" cheering section will do their best to steer conversation from, and avoid the serious questions raised in this area.

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If you don’t think it is possible that both LHOs were at Beauregard School during the 1954 spring semester, then you obviously won’t believe it.  We still have school records showing LHOs in New York City and New Orleans throughout the 1953 fall semester, and all that Stripling School evidence placing LHOs in both New Orleans and Fort Worth for the 1954 fall semester.

John’s write-up for the 1954 spring semester at Beauregard relies heavily on the interview with Myra DaRouse. In a school with nearly 700 students, one LHO had home room 303 on the third floor, the other had his home room with Myra DaRouse in the basement cafeteria.  Since one kid preferred to be called Lee, and the other Harvey, who would notice these two boys out of nearly 700 other students--other than a records keeper in the office?   Photocopy machines were not in general use in those days, and so the records must have been merged—by someone--in the cumulative record we see.  It could have been done by school personnel, or by the FBI.

It is, after all, far easier to alter black and white copies than original documents.  As John Armstrong and the HSCA’s Joe Freeman discovered, all the original copies of the school and employment records of LHO disappeared, replaced by photographic copies.

[Picture removed from reply.]

Way back in 1964, New York City officials, including Judge Florence Kelley and NYC Mayor Robert Wagner were involved in a lengthy correspondence attempting to ascertain what had happened to the original school records of LHO, which apparently disappeared after Judge Kelley personally handed the originals to FBI SA John Malone.

In this post, I show John A’s write-up about the disappearing NYC records and five supporting documents.

Tony brings forth a serious question though. How exactly did 2 boys with the same basic identity attend the same school at the same time and not have any overlap which then confused the other students, and themselves as well? Even if it didn't confuse other students and faculty members, they surely would have been aware of both boys. Even in the 2000's, Beauregard only held just over 500 students. Think about your own school experiences with twins, brothers, kids with the same names, kids who looked alike.... My experiences with those groups of people in school don't match what "Harvey & Lee" says happened at Beauregard. I know that doesn't really mean much, but in a situation such as this, all one has to really go on is logic, common sense, and personal experience. 

Trying to fit that all into the "fact" that 2 different boys with almost the same identity went to the same school at the same time in the same grade and almost no one has any recollection of both of them doesn't quite work for me.

It's one thing to try to control everything regarding 2 boys, was everything related to these boys somehow controlled though? For instance, some girl wasn't transferred from one of Lee's classes to one of Harvey's classes and went..."wait...aren't you...Lee?" I feel like there is all kinds of situations where something like this would have happened, eventually someone would have told Harvey/Lee "hey there's another boy here who looks just like you with the same name." At some point, they would have bumped into one another. In the words of George Costanza, worlds would have collided.

Imagine the conversation...

43 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Steve,

This would seem to have a bearing on my point from yesterday: I doubt that the DPD themselves were the source of the description broadcast at 12:45 because Sawyer claimed he'd received information from two sources,  the second of which was an unnamed Dallas Sheriff's Deputy. (The first source, of course, was our unknown "35 year old man".) 

Who is the voice on the radio giving the description?

On 7/23/2020 at 9:28 PM, David Josephs said:

As much consideration as you give that it was Harvey who attended Stripling...  

I guess this still isn't clear to you all, but I have considered it. Considering it is what got me here. Reading "Harvey & Lee" and spending time researching claims in the book led me where I am today. Instead of reading a book and thinking to myself "yep, everything in there is obviously true." I actually looked into the things Armstrong stated and the evidence he provided which needed further verification. 

Quote

I'm sorry you find Kudlaty unbelievable ...  John just mentioned that it was Wylie who was principal in 1963 after Lucas' tenure - he was the Principal '53-'56 when Oswald attended -
 he had moved onto Arlington Heights...

He says Wylie on the tape because it was indeed Wylie...  yet Lucas had been there for years and Kudlaty and he were close... 

It not being consistent across all the platforms it's being presented is indeed a simple oversight.... and will be corrected.

I don't necessarily find Kudlaty unbelievable, so I'm not sure how to respond here other than to say I don't believe I've actually commented on the Wylie/Lucas discrepancy. 

Quote

As to the rest of your OP,   you are trying to impeach a direct witness with conjecture.. with your interpretation of how things SHOULD be... 

I'm not using conjecture though and "the rest of my OP" isn't about any single witness.

Mark Summers for instance, his timeline does not match the "Harvey & Lee" timeline. I'm not making conjecture. I'm not interpreting how something should be. I'm only calling attention to what is. Sandy Larsen then basically states that Summers should have stated 1954, but even though he didn't he's a good witness anyway because it fits the "Harvey & Lee" story.

Quote

You start with Robert... I address Robert by trying to have you understand the relationship between the three "brothers"... by giving you context 
for this you give me grief... The conflict between the 2 older brothers is central to understanding how it was even possible for Kudlaty to be telling the truth.

I guess I'm confused. Why do I need to understand the interpersonal relationship between the Oswald "brothers" to understand Kudlaty's statements regarding school records? Again, you seem to be questioning whether I think Kudlaty is being honest. Again, I do believe Kudlaty gave something to someone. I'm just not as certain as you as to what that something was.

Quote

You then proceed to say, repeatedly, that people don't mean what they are saying... that no one else was ever asked?  that's the rebuttal to which you want me to reply?

THIS is your point...
Further, numerous local personalities and people connected to Oswald have spoken to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram over the years, and as mentioned, newpapers across the country. Many of them have some connection to Oswald or a story to tell, none have Stripling stories.

It is clear the Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles which reference Robert Oswald’s statements regarding Oswald as attending Stripling are blown out of proportion to increase their otherwise neglible (sic) importance. At no point over the almost 60 years of coverage does the Star-Telegram update their reporting, and continues to this day to use statements Robert Oswald gave them in 1959. The paper likely was unable to get new statements, and continues to just run with what they have.

You seem to be forgetting his testimony in 1964...  Says the same thing...  has no idea about Beauregard... can you please try and remember it was 1959, not 2019?

So people COULD have said something... newspapers COULD have followed up... you truly do not comprehend the reach and power of the FBI in 1963.... the number of informants was staggering...  if Hoover's FBI didn't want you looking, you stopped looking...  I know you're not that naive....  man, I hope you're not that naive.

You're confounding two points though.

My point regarding the reporting on Stripling was:

Quote

After almost 60 years, the Star Telegram has not presented a single statement from any person other than Robert Oswald which would link Oswald to Stripling, in any year, much less the years as alleged by “Harvey & Lee.” Numerous opportunities have been presented, not the least of which was a teacher who taught durring the same time period and who also researched Oswald. She would have been in a prime, if not the most prime, position among Stripling witnesses of knowledge of Oswald at Stripling, and she curiously…”forgot” to mention it. In spite of the numerous times the Robert Oswald statements were printed, not a single person who taught Oswald at Stripling, or attended with him at Stripling, after seeing the articles thought they’d give their story to the paper.

(Another damn typo?!)

My point regarding Robert Oswald:

Quote

The statement from Robert Oswald, while clearly an error on his behalf regarding the chronology of 1952 is nevertheless blown out of proportion and taken out of context and bent to instead claim he meant 1954 and Stripling, another time period for which he had no direct knowledge. When the totality (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.) of Robert Oswald’s statements are taken into account, it is clear he is not referencing 1954, nor is he scrambling to cover up this reference. He is simply speaking out of turn regarding events he has no actual direct knowledge of.

I don't even use conjecture there. He doesn't actually have any direct knowledge of the events he is speaking of.

Quote

Summers is clearly confused about what he remembers. He references teaching Robert Oswald, when they weren’t at the school at the same time.

a semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses.  

The images below start with the 49-50 school year...  followed by 50-51....  Robert is listed along with Harvey... with different parents... 

Robert testifies to skipping 10th grade, 

Mr. JENNER. Would that be 1951, the end of your sophomore year?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; 1950 would be the end of the school year. That summer there I started a job with an A&P Supermarket there in Fort Worth.
I might say along this period mother seemed to be having difficulty keeping a job or making enough money and so forth to raise us. I stayed out of school that next year and worked for A&P.
Mr. JENNER. Out of school 1950-51?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Proceeding with you, at the end of the school year '50-'51--I assume you continued working there the summer of '51?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. And did you reenter school that fall?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I did
Mr. JENNER. Where?
Mr. OSWALD. Arlington Heights High School.  

Mr. JENNER. You attended Arlington Heights High School for the school year '51-'52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. JENNER. And what about the year '52-'53?
Mr. OSWALD. July 1952 I joined the Marine Corps.

Robert is crossed out in the 51-52 records.... despite finishing the entire year....  strange
so if Mr. Summer teaches him Jan 50 thru Summer 1951...  one way or another... that's about 2 school years in his mind... so what?

Harvey Lee Oswald in 7th grade would be 1954.... September.  He would be with the woman on the right, while Lee remained with the woman on the left...
Context again Mark... and for those who don't know everything about the subject, it helps.

[Picture included for whatever reason removed from reply]

I'm not sure what your point is here and to make matters worse, you're flat out wrong. Unless you all are now saying the two "Oswalds" were actually in different grades, Oswald entered the 7th grade in 1952 and the 9th grade in 1954. I thought you knew more about all of this than anyone?

Quote

Looking again at the OP, you simply try to impeach these witnesses with conjecture and hyperbole....  and you neither spoke with these witnesses or the people who did

If the bar for commenting on the JFKA is speaking to witnesses or people who did then I guess the list of people allowed to comment on JFKA topics just grew considerably short.

I have spoken to and interviewed one person related to the JFKA though, and while it wasn't directly related to Stripling I feel like it should check some kind of box. Even if it's next to "amateur."

In any event, I haven't really used much conjecture in my analysis, much less hyperbole. As stated above, I'm simply pointing out what was actually said. You all then use conjecture to make it fit the "Harvey & Lee" story.

Quote

   We have little else to cover here...   now we know about Wylie.... and you still think these guys are the same...     

[Pictures included for whatever reason removed from reply]

As I stated before, I haven't even talked about Wylie/Lucas and even though I haven't had breakfast yet, all these words being shoved in my mouth aren't very filling.

Quote

  On 7/24/2020 at 3:32 PM, Mark Stevens said:

A quick glance at any calendar tells me that 1952 and 1954 are in fact different years.

Not sure the point here. Maybe sarcasm? While you preach about context, it might be helpful to understand how it applies to that sentence you quoted. You might then do more than sarcastically slow clap...maybe not.

Quote

Yes, this is.   Reasonable doubt does not "impeach" anything... 

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof, requiring that guilt be proven to the satisfaction of a rational person. Clear and convincing evidence is somewhat less rigorous. It requires that a judge or jury be persuaded that the prosecution case is true.

"impeach the credibility"  ??   

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial.

In your haste to mock my supposed misuse of "impeach," you not only contradicted yourself, but were again flat out wrong.

Not only is that evident in your quotes (hence the contradiction), but....

Reasonable Doubt https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reasonable doubt

Quote

a doubt especially about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof

Impeach https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

Quote

 

1: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office After Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached, finished his chaotic and disgraceful administration, Grant was the inevitable successor.— Richard Brookhiser

2: to cast doubt on  

especially: to challenge the credibility or validity of

 

Reasonable doubt would seem to be the very process of impeaching something.

Quote

And here we have the crux of the matter Mark...    you're attempt at introducing reasonable doubt has no bearing on the credibility of anything any of the witnesses said because you fail to give the audience - those you are introducing the doubt to - the proper context for what was said.

The crux of what matter exactly? Is it how the statements do not add up to Oswald attending Stripling? Or is it how that even though they don't, when you look through "Harvey & Lee" colored glasses their statements still mean something?

Again you refer to this mystical context, I'm guessing this time context refers to Hungarian boys and merged identities, which I have to consider if I'm going to understand Bobby/Bobbie Pitts. Regardless of any supposed context, Pitts didn't attend Stripling in 1954 and didn't give any information regarding Oswald attending Stripling.

The only way he becomes a witness to Oswald attending Stripling is when you, Armstrong, Hargrove, Norwood, Larson, Butler it would seem, and any other "Harvey & Lee" supporter warp the reality by introducing conjecture, and even a dash of hyperbole for flavor.

I'm not using conjecture to state Pitts didn't attend Stripling in 1954. I don't need any "context" for that to be true. He didn't attend Stripling in 1954.

Quote

Your incredulity doesn't change the dynamics of the context....  a point you sorely miss, repeatedly.

Meaning...although the situation may look fuzzy now, if you would just put on these "Harvey & Lee" colored glasses it all becomes clear.

Instead of the evidence shaping the theory, the theory shapes the evidence. Got it.

Quote

As to your naive and assuming comment, of course we've proven it was not possible for Oswald to have done it...  proven it in a number of different ways.
...and we remain here to continue to dig and reveal...

What you find doubtful ....  is highly subjective....   the neglect of context appears to be your calling card in this discussion...
and you still aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know....

I believe you need to apply some of that context you keep preaching to me about to what I actually said.

Quote

Thanks for the discussion...

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Mark,

J. Edgar Hoover wrote a letter to J. Lee Rankin on January 14, 1964 that the Dallas Police Department had provided this description of the assailant based on the description provided by an unknown citizen, of a man seen running from the Texas School Book Depository immediately after the assassination. This unknown man had never reported to the Sheriff’s office as instructed.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=109

On November 2, 1964 ( two months after the Warren Report was published) Rankin again asked Hoover to find out where that description came from. Hoover responded with a letter on November 12, 1963 that, according to the Dallas police the information came from an ‘unidentified citizen’.”

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=72 -

The description had nothing to do with Brennan.

Steve Thomas

Steve,

Your first link isn't working.

Maybe I wasn't all that clear, but I don't believe Brennan really saw what he claims he saw. I haven't ruled out the possibility the description did come from Brennan though. A good number off witnesses gave information which later made it into reports but the witnesses never actually came in and gave official statements and it could have also been any number of them as well.

I also don't believe the initial description was of "Oswald" versus "possible shooter." The description really doesn't match Oswald for it to be a legitimate description of him.

6 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Mark,

Yes the Warren Commission wrote that Sawyer's description "probably" originated with Howard Brennan.

However, the problems with Brennan's 'identification" of "Oswald" are myriad and have been well-documented for over 55 years.

I'm aware of the issues with Brennan. I guess I didn't realize Steve meant "if we disregard Brennan as a source" no one knows where the description came from.

What I have trouble understanding is how why the newspaper reports attributed to Brennan (until after publication of his WC testimony) was that the man he saw was a "slender, nice looking man." This doesn't mesh with the detailed description said to be given to the police.

I doubt any reporter would leave out the details of Brennan watching the man fire. If though Brennan was truly afraid as he later claimed, he may not have mentioned this fact to reporters and only to police.

5 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

As a quick follow up, i argued in another post a year ago that there was good evidence that the DPD officer whom Brennan accosted and demanded to be taken to a Secret Service agent, was Marion Baker. Roy Truly said so in a fascinating interview in the spring of 1964, and I think he was (inadvertently) destroying the 2nd Floor Lunchroom encounter between Baker and our "Oswald."

But that's a different thread.

I have this article if you would like.

I don't buy Truly's statement though as it doesn't match the video evidence of Baker sprinting into the building. If he did yell it out to Baker and Truly, Baker never stopped to acknowledge it. I also don't buy the scenario because this is the description Baker gave of Oswald in his affidavit. If all of this is true, then Baker knew the person who he stopped on the 2nd floor matched the description and let him go just because he worked in the building. Was he under the assumption someone other than an employee was responsible?

5 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Mark,

Brenan failed to identify Oswald in a lineup at police headquarters later that day. It's hard to see how he could describe him, yet fail to identify him.

For more info on this lineup, see, Brennan's Lineup

Unfortunately, the DPD Archives has been taken down, and all the records were transferred to the Portal to Texas History.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKAM/browse/?start=0

Steve Thomas

Brennan did later state he feared for his life due to belief in others involvement so he kept quiet about what he knew about Oswald. Whether one believes it or not is up to them, but it would at least explain why he didn't identify him in a lineup. 

On 7/22/2020 at 8:24 PM, James Norwood said:

Mark,

Here is a summary of our debate activities during the past two weeks:

Quote

(1)  You posted a 6,822-word critique of the Stripling evidence entitled "The Stripling Episode - Harvey  & Lee:  A Critical Review"

Odd that are aware of the word count, but not the content.

Quote

(2)  I responded with a 2,500-rebuttal entitled "James Norwood’s Point-By-Point Rebuttal of Mark Stevens, 'The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review'"

You didn't really address anything I said though, just because you talked a lot doesn't mean you said anything of real substance. Of the 2500 words only 714 were even marginally related to my post or the content in it.

What you pointed out in your item (7) is exactly what I'm saying. Due to anomalies in the evidence, it is difficult to make firm conclusions regarding Stripling. I'm glad we both can at least agree on Summers.

Quote

(3)  You responded with a 4,650-word screed to my rebuttal that appears on this thread. 

.....

Quote

(4)  After you solicited "feedback" on your response, I wrote you my honest feedback.

......

Quote

(5)  You wrote a mocking reaction to my feedback above.

For a guy in a glass house you're quite thin skinned.

Here's a summary of some of your mockery:

Quote

You responded with a 4,650-word screed

I must confess that his writing and thinking, as expressed in his critique, were some of the most incoherent and bizarre that I have ever read in my life.

Another user on this site referred to your reasoning as comparable to “The Twilight Zone.”  While I might not select that metaphor, it does seem like a number of your sentences carry a meaning that only you understand. (Note: this "user" was fellow compatriot Sandy Larsen)

nearly incomprehensible critique of the evidence of Oswald having attended Stripling Junior High School written by a user named Mark Stevens.

Stevens, et al. haven't studied the evidence, and it's more fun for them to engage in harassment, as opposed to a civilized discussion.

I know, it was all genuine feedback. You pointed out the sections you "couldn't understand" when I asked you, repeatedly...wait...you actually didn't. So while you can pretend you're giving genuine feedback what you are in reality doing is expressing your condescending disdain at someone who has the audacity to challenge vague recollections and dubious connections.

Quote

Now, you want another chance at a debate, requesting that we start from scratch with a convoluted plan to "pose X amount of questions to one another and whoever can decide what the evidence supports and what it does not."

You keep referencing these chances and offers, but so far all you've done is dance around the issues and post irrelevant information.

Quote

 

Please be advised that I will not be wasting any more of my time in debate with you on this subject.  On this forum, I am primarily interested in interacting with individuals on the subject of this thread:  the far-reaching influence of Harvey and Lee.  I am not interested in spending my time with those who wish to create a toxic environment.

You have the totality of my current thinking on the Stripling topic, and you are welcome to respond to any of the eight topics below to your heart's content:

[COPY PASTE REMOVED]

 

You did at least concede that the anomalies in Summers statements make him a dubious witness and I appreciate that look at the evidence. All I wish is that you would give the other anomalies the same consideration. Schubert for instance has the same flaw as Summers, her timeline doesn't fit. While her timeline may be off by months and his may be off by years, she is still confident in her recollection as to the specific months due to her insistence on the jackets and the colder weather. This timeline makes whatever she saw a dubious connection to "Harvey & Lee."

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

I would add the high probability that this same man - with a similar description of the suspect - was earlier in the TSBD around 12:43 pm and talked to both J. Herbert Sawyer of the DPD and then someone from the Dallas Sheriff's Office a few moments later.

23 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

I don't have any opinion on this TSBD mystery man. There were just too many people floating in and out of this crime scene.

The person you all are referring to here is Howard Brennan.

I'm quite certain this is the description attributed to Brennan.