Jim Hargrove

Tracy has provided a link above to Greg Parker’s latest version of his ever-changing explanation of the overlapping NYC/New Orleans school records for “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Near the end of his screed Mr. Parker writes, “Anyone with two firing brain cells and without a turd to polish and sell….” and “you should soon be able to see your own faces in that feces.” Nice associates you have, Tracy! The rest of Mr. Parker’s write-up is about as relevant as his scatologies, but he does debut a tiny new line of thought. It is entirely contained in the following sentence: The point is that though the Re Ad figure equates to the number of days attended in the 54-55 school year, the assumption that this would also be the case for the 53-54 year is incorrect because Oswald was not enrolled for the entire period. Hey, don’t take my word for it, follow Tracy’s link above and see for yourself. Mr. Parker wants us to believe that the number of days attended (as listed in the “Re Ad” column in the Beauregard cumulative record) had one meaning in the 54-55 school year, and an entirely different meaning the previous year. Tracy, I’ve asked you again and again and again to explain, in your own words, how this “error” as you refer to it could have occurred. How does an entire school semester, including course names, attendance records, and pass or fail marks get invented out of thin air? Mr. Parker clearly does not have the answer you claim. I’d be happy to provide short, clear descriptions in my own words of how the Beauregard record could have been created, at least one possibility not involving FBI malfeasance. The fact that you can’t or won’t do the same speak volumes.

Since Tracy can't seem to remember this, I’m reposting below the PS 44 record from New York City, and below that the Beauregard cumulative record, and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing the Beauregard data. NYC PS 44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.  Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students. The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things. At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.” But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.” So which is it? Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period? The answer is right before us in the documents shown above. In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column. It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year. Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year. But that can’t be! Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken. On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers. Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year! The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school. So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard. It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days. For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for. Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time! As to Parnell's question, Why does the French St. address appear on the Beauregard record, I'm anxious to hear his explanation. Clearly, real Marguerite and Lee Oswald were in NYC during the earliest semester covered by this cumulative record, and not at the Murrets. Two schools, two cities, two Oswalds.

TO TRACY PARNELL: I’ll be happy to have a discussion with you about Hartogs, Kurian and Youth House, but first I want answers from you that I have been asking for days. First, give me a real explanation for how school records clearly indicate that Harvey Oswald attended school part time in New Orleans at the same time Lee Oswald attended school full time in NYC for the full fall semester of 1953. Don’t just say it is an error. Explain how full records can come into being that list course names, attendance records, and passing or failing grades. How does this type of error occur? Second, explain to me why you choose to declare that witnesses interviewed by John Armstrong are wrong or ly1ng without any evidence at all except to say they can’t be right because there was only one Oswald. That’s almost always the only argument you’ve got. Then explain to me why you believe in the integrity of the FBI reports and testimony, even though I’ve put up a half-dozen or so examples of J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI’s clear dishonesty. Why do you believe the FBI and not John Armstrong’s witnesses? Only one of the two has been proven to be dishonest, and that isn't John Armstrong. I’ll put up the FBI Treachery post again if you’ve forgotten it. Please give me some answers that make sense to these two questions.

For much of 1953, Harvey and phony Marguerite lived at 825 E. 179th St. in the Bronx. Harvey was enrolled at PS 117, and then Youth House, and then PS 44. During this same period, LEE and real Marguerite lived at 1455 Sheridan, also in the Bronx, while Lee attended PS 44. During the spring and summer months of 1953, Harvey’s truancy and run-ins with New York authorities were starting to get out of hand, which would eventually result in demands for court appearances late in the year. I suspect that Harvey’s handler(s) began to worry that identification requirements in NYC courts for “mother” and/or “son” would threaten to expose the Oswald Project still in its early stages. That’s probably why phony Marguerite and Harvey fled to North Dakota in the summer of 1963. Left to handle the mess were real Marguerite and her real son Lee, who eventually solved the problem by fleeing also. By September 1953, Harvey and phony Marguerite had moved to New Orleans and began living at 126 Exchange St. Harvey began his full semester as a part-time student at Beauregard. A few months later, faced with trying to tidy up the mess Harvey and phony Marguerite had made in NYC, real Marguerite and Lee also also fled to New Orleans, where they first stayed with her genuine sister Lillian Murret at her little frame house at 809 French St. In January ‘54, on or around the start of the second semester of the 1953-54 school year, Lee entered Beauregard School, and was assigned home room 303 on the third floor. (Harvey’s homeroom was in the basement cafeteria.) Since Lee was briefly with the Murrets, that’s probably why the Beauregard records listed 809 French St. as his address. He soon moved to 1454 St. Marys St. in New Orleans and continued to attend BJHS.

January 14, 1954 is right around the start date of the second semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard. The January 14 start date could represent the time LEE Harvey Oswald first entered Beauregard, or the time Lee HARVEY Oswald first became a full time student there, or both. The identical or similar names would have potential for record-keeping errors by the school, and the complexities of making one student disappear were apparently too difficult for the FBI to finesse for someone who looked at this as closely as John Armstrong.

Bumped for Tracy Parnell. Tracy, time and time again you say or imply that witnesses interviewed by John Armstrong are being untrue, but you have not responded to the clear proof above that the FBI utterly buried the truth. Why do you accuse others of ly1ing and ignore FBI’s perfidy? This is the investigation you say you believe in? Really? This is the government you say can investigate itself and make us all believe the Lone Nut saga? Sheesh! What a fantastic double standard you employ!

Thanks for keeping an open mind about the Harvey and Lee evidence, Sandy. The clarity of your thinking and writing is what is ticking people off, because they can’t just tap dance away from the evidence. It is remarkable how many attacks we have to endure from jokers who say they’re better researchers than we are, and yet they don’t even know enough to debate the evidence. The exception is Mr. Parnell, who knows quite a bit but, even though he is devoting a huge portion of his life to trying to debunk Harvey and Lee, can’t even make a coherent rebuttal to the conflicting school records. He claims he doesn't even know which Oswald arrived first at Beauregard.

That's right boys... if you can't make the evidence go away, just attack me, make a general comment or two, and be done with it. You don't think you can start to see similarities in kids' appearance when they are quite young... five, six, seven years old? The "Oswald Project" was a major Intel operation, with tax dollars to do whatever was needed to make it work. For all we know, there may have been other pairings set up, watching for kids who kept their similar appearances. And don't pretend "Lee HARVEY Oswald" wasn't an intelligence agent! 20 Facts Indicating “Lee Harvey Oswald” was a CIA Agent 1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” 2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963. 3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s. 4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962. 5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA agent who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child. 7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and no doubt monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death. 8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE. 9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA. 10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination. 11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report. 12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots. 13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear. 14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story. 15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, but the CIA ignored his warnings. 16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.” For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations. 17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs…. 18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again! 19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.” 20. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, and “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

You're kidding, right? Here is Francetta Schubert's 1996 YouTube interview describing her observations of Lee HARVEY Oswald at Stripling School in 1954!

Hey, D.J…. That residence—since torn down-- at 2220 Thomas right next to Stripling School must have been some sort of Safe House. Its association with the Oswald Project may go all the way back to 1947. That’s when Georgia Bell moved into her new home at 101 San Saba and became acquainted with her neighbor, Marguerite C. Ekdahl. When Georgia was 82 years old, in 1996, John Armstrong visited her at her home, still at 101 San Saba. Georgia told John that Mrs. Lucille Hubbard, Marguerite’s neighbor to the east, drove Marguerite to a house she had rented “next to the Stripling School,” which contained clothes and a lot of furniture. That house was probably the duplex at 2220 Thomas. In 1954, Fran Schubert watched Lee HARVEY Oswald walk from the Stripling School building across Thomas St. and to the house at 2220 Thomas. She also saw “Marguerite,” who she said always wore a white nurses uniform. In 1963, “Marguerite” moved back to 2220 Thomas, where, if memory serves, she was at the time President Kennedy was murdered.

J. Edgar Hoover's Treachery A few years after the assassination, Atty. Mark Lane interviewed three Dealey Plaza witnesses to the assassination of JFK and showed how the FBI dramatically altered their statements. These Mark Lane interviews recently were uploaded to YouTube by JFK researcher Gil Jesus. See the proof of FBI report falsifications right here. In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC. By mid-1964, the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys. In his otherwise uninspiring book called Portrait of the Assassin, former U.S. President and Warren Commission member Gerald R. Ford wrote that the first emergency meeting of the Warren Commission was convened to discuss information that Lee Harvey Oswald was a paid informant of the FBI up until the day he was arrested at the Texas Theater. Ford indicated that the information came from Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, District Attorney Henry Wade, and counsel to the Attorny General Leon Jaworsky. In Portrait of the Assassin, p. 14, President Ford described the information as follows (President Ford never attempted to deny it): The Texas officials slipped into the nation's capital with complete anonymity. The met with Lee Rankin and other member of the staff and told what they knew. The information was that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually hired by the FBI; that he was assigned the undercover-agent number 179; that he was on the FBI payroll at two hundred dollars a month starting in September 1962 and that he was still on their payroll the day he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre after having gunned down Officer J.D. Tippit! The officials returned to Dallas after their visit on Friday, January 24. Their presence in Washington was unknown to the press or the public. It should be noted, again, that Pres. Ford, never denied the claim, although the Warren Commission accepted J. Edgar Hoover's emphatic denial. Of course, the FBI’s malfeasance is hardly limited to the Kennedy assassination. Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal? Another example is a 2015 Slate article entitled: Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science. READ IT HERE! The Warren Commission relied on the FBI to do its detective work. Nothing the FBI produced can be trusted.

I never had a "so what" attitude to Harvey and Lee. I don't remember saying anything like that, and assume you are misstating something I said. John Armstrong left a multi-million dollar career in the oil business and custom home construction in order to spend more than a decade of Harvey and Lee. The money he made from the book is a pittance compared to his other ventures. He is a very wealthy man. I'm not so wealthy, but I have never made a dime off John's work or the Kennedy assassination in general. I promote John's work because I believe he has fundamentally solved this case, and I care deeply about it. Mock me all you want, but you won't make the evidence go away. All you ever do is whine about the evidence John has uncovered and point to various cover-ups always involving, in one way or another, the USG.

Of course we do. Hoover’s FBI destroyed, invented, and altered records in order to conceal the Oswald Project from the Warren Commission and the world. But merging two young men’s lives into a legend of a single person is tricky business, and Hoover and his FBI made plenty of mistakes. We are learning from the data Hoover failed to cover up.

You’d almost think they were talking about two different kids, eh? John has been very clear about this for many years. The second semester of the 53-54 school year at Beauregard started in January. For the first semester, Lee was attending PS 44 in New York and Harvey was at Beauregard in New Orleans. Since Harvey only took two classes, he was clearly a part-time student, formally or informally, and probably didn’t have a homeroom. Starting in the second semester of that school year, in January, Harvey walked into the basement classroom of Myra DaRouse, handed her his file, and became a full-time student. Harvey and phony Marguerite were living at 126 Exchange Place while he attended Beauregard. Myra only had a homeroom for a single school year while she taught at Beauregard, and it was located in a basement room that also served as the school cafeteria. See part 1 of Myra DaRouse's interview with John HERE. For that same second semester, LEE Oswald and his real mother left NYC and moved to 1435 St. Marys St., also in New Orleans. Like Harvey, Lee also began attending Beauregard School, but he was not in Myra Darouse’s basement homeroom. Instead his homeroom was No. 303 on the third floor. Existing Beauregard records list 303 as LHO’s homeroom.

Yeah, this is American-born LEE Oswald in a photo taken by Ed Voebel. For the second semester of the '53-54 school year only, both Oswalds were at Beauregard, Harvey in Myra DaRouse's homeroom in the basement cafeteria, Lee in room 303 on the third floor. BTW, we've corrected Robert E. Lee Oswald's age at his death on the web page, though Marguerite remained wrong about his age. John asked me to thank you for pointing out the error.

Four days ago, I posted the following WC documents showing that “Lee Harvey Oswald” simultaneously attended school in the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year at PS 44 in New York City and Beauregard junior high school in New Orleans.  Minutes after I posted the conflicting records, Tracy Parnell wrote: Greg Parker has answered all this stuff ad nauseam so no need to reinvent the wheel. here is a typical thread that discusses the subject if anyone is interested: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong/&page=91#comment-313030 BTW, Parker explains the situation very clearly and succinctly in his book Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War vol. 2 in the section titled "Creating Mayhem With Historical Records." Mr. Parnell then spent several days explaining he couldn’t tell us what was in Parker’s book because it was “copyrighted.” After enduring some criticism about this excuse, he finally made an effort, last night, to address the facts. Most of Tracy’s post addresses the fact that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended schools in New York City for the 1952-1953 school year. But, as Tracy surely knows, we weren’t talking about that year. The Beauregard and PS 44 school records conflict for the next year, 1953-1954. At the end of yesterday’s post, Tracy finally gets around to Beauregard with these remarks: This is Parker’s analysis from Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War vol. 2 as paraphrased by me: Wilfred Head told the FBI that the number opposite “Re Ad” was the total number of days LHO attended. Head says 180 days were “regular” and 170 the mandated minimum. But in the case the 54-55 school year 168 days are listed. Parker says that since this is below the minimum mandate that it is obviously not the total number of days in the school year. But if you add the days absent (12) to the “Re Ad” you get 180 the “normal” number of days. For the 53-54 year, you get 184, but there is allowance for some variance. Parker does not mention the grade cards but they are wrong apparently. Anyway, there is an alternate explanation so don’t say I have never done anything for the H&L guys. As you can see, the “alternate explanation” we have been waiting days to hear about does not even attempt to explain how Oswald was attending two different schools some 1300 miles apart at the same time.

Tommy, You can get all Googly for as long as you want looking for "greg parker" and a rational explanation of why, for example, the Warren Commission published school records showing "Lee Harvey Oswald" attended school simultaneously at PS 44 in New York City and Beauregard school in New Orleans, but you won't find it. Tracy Parnell tried, and he didn't find it either, as I will demonstrate in my next post. David and I post evidence, and all you can do is tell us to look somewhere else to find the "truth." That's pretty damned lame!

Michael, You really should try to make an effort to at least understand the basics of the analysis you are trying to debunk. It would just take you a few minutes. The “Oswald Project,” as CIA accountant James Wilcott referred to it, had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination in the 1950s. It was created to give an American identity to a Russian-speaking kid so he could eventually “defect” to the USSR, which is exactly what happened. The Oswald Project didn’t become entangled in the Kennedy assassination until the summer of 1963. School records weren’t an issue until Nov. 22, 1963, and then they suddenly became a big problem. That’s why Hoover was collecting school and teenaged employment records for “Lee Harvey Oswald” before he even determined if there were others involved in the conspiracy of if other government officials were targeted. All this information is presented near the top of the first page right here: HarveyandLee.net

Thanks, David. As always, your presentations require a bit of effort to fully comprehend, but anyone who takes the time to understand your illustrations can clearly see how the evidence we’ve been given for LHO’s school attendance during just these few years is utterly impossible. As good as Hoover’s FBI was at playing the cover-up game, they sure failed their school assignments on the Oswalds! Or maybe they were trying to be funny. It is kind of laughable that a kid with so impossibly many extra days of school should have spent part of that time in reform school for truancy. And remember, since this is a thread about the two Marguerites, these two Oswald boys were just kids … there HAD to be two “mothers” for them, despite what anyone thinks about their physical appearances.

Thanks, Sandy. Isn’t it sad how few people in this thread can even discuss the evidence that has been presented here. Tracy says Greg Parker has the answer in a book Tracy owns, but he won’t tell us what the answer is because… uh… the book is copyrighted and so he can’t describe what’s in it. Everyone else just deals in generalities and sarcasm. Not much of a debate here on the JFK Assassination Debate forum!

Bump for Sandy and Tracy.... Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell have been arguing for years that the PS 44 school records in NYC and the Beauregard records from New Orleans don't conflict. The post above clearly shows that they cover two different people. To see a wonderful debunking of this, Parnell suggests we buy Greg Parker's book so we can see how Parker disproves the above analysis, but when asked for the specifics about Parker's argument, Parnell demurs because, he says, he is afraid of "a copyright violation." Tracy, you can tell us about Parker's analysis without fearing our copyright laws. A paragraph or two (or usually even several pages) directly quoted from a book are usually considered "fair use." And, of course, you can always put Parker's thoughts into your own words and put them right here. Shouldn't take you long, but I doubt you will do it. You tell us again and again how the government has proved there was only one "Lee Harvey Oswald." Most of the people here are sick and tired of hearing about the government's position on just about anything related to the assassinations during the 1960s of both Kennedy Brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King. All we can do is examine the details the government failed to cover up. The school records from the fall of 1953 are one of the thousands of details that somehow made it through the FBI/CIA shredding machine.

At the very least, the NYC PS 44 records and the Beauregard New Orleans records clearly indicate that a single Lee Harvey Oswald could simply not have attended Stripling school in Fort Worth at the same time. Now let’s see if the PS 44 and Beauregard records by themselves conflict with each other. I’m reposting below the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it. Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school. Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students. The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things. At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.” But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.” So which is it? Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period? The answer is right before us in the documents shown above. In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column. It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year. Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year. But that can’t be! Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken. On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers. Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year! The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school. So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard. It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days. For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for. Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

Then by all means please post excerpts here so I can debate them! You and Parker have devoted considerable portions of your lives trying to debunk Harvey and Lee, have you not? Are you and Parker afraid of open debate? Please post Parker's best arguments "debunking" Harvey and Lee right here! Let's talk!!!

Tracy, Let’s stop directing people to everywhere but here. Instead of sending people to another thread (that hardly supports your position) or pointing to a book written by someone else (but not presented in any arguable detail here), let’s get back to our debate. The PS 44 records from New York City and the Beauregard records from New Orleans clearly indicate that “Lee Harvey Oswald” spent, at the very least, some or most of the semesters starting in the fall of 1953 at both schools. Sandy raised as a possibility that since “Oswald” seemed to only have a couple of classes when he attended Beauregard in the fall semester of 1953, perhaps that is when he attended Stripling School in Fort Worth Texas, as remembered by so many witnesses, including his “brother” Robert Oswald. You blithely suggested that perhaps LHO was truant and missed a whole slew of school days during the ‘53 fall semester at Beauregard because, in your own words, “he was a deadbeat” and had been truant in NYC. But the truth is, he attended more than 62 school days in the fall semester at P.S. 44 in NYC, nearly an entire school semester, leaving precious little time for him to be a truant deadbeat for the same semester in New Orleans. Once again, you seem to be misleading people. Sandy’s suggestion that Oswald my have attended Stripling in the 1953 fall semester is clearly untenable, since he was attending both a NYC school (for the overwhelming majority of that semester) and a New Orleans school (for a duration we can argue about) during that very same semester. That, among a number of other reasons, including real Marguerite’s residence at 1454 St. Mary’s St. in New Orleans from early 1954 to 1955, indicates “Oswald’s” presence at Stripling School in Texas cannot be explained by Beauregard school records covering the fall ‘53 semester. The contradictions clearly go deeper than that, which you can only explain by saying a whole lot of people are mistaken or ly1ng, including newspaper reports predating the assassination of JFK.

It's considerate of you, Sandy, to offer Tracy this open window of opportunity, but he knows he can't wriggle through it. The real reason he can't is that the first semester at Beauregard (starting in fall 1953) conflicts not with Stripling (which started in the fall of 1954) but with New York City public school records. As you can see, this record shows that he attended Public School 44 in New York City in the fall semester of 1953 (starting September 14) and attending for more than 62 school days--well into 1954.