W. Tracy Parnell

I have already explained that he in not "lying" in the traditional sense of the word. But his "remembrances" occurred after he was coached by White/Armstrong. If Mr. Kudlaty had approached authorities, or anyone for that matter, in 1963 after the alleged confiscation of records took place his story might carry more weight. But whatever happened (if it was anything at all) he wasn't concerned enough about it at the time to say anything to anyone. Journalist Nick Patoski looked into the tale and while he knew Kudlaty and respected him, he realized it went nowhere without verification. That's what happens when experienced investigators and journalists look into something like H&L. If Mr. Kudlaty had done what would be normal for anyone (much less the school principal) to do in such a situation-get a receipt for the alleged confiscated items-his story would carry more weight. But his story only emerged AFTER being coached by the creators of the H&L nonsense. What likely happened is that the FBI approached Kudlaty or someone at the school and asked if there were any records relating to LHO and was told that there weren't. But after hearing White's tales, Kudlaty "remembered" the "confiscation" of records. The suggestion was placed in his mind. In the end, Kudlaty has absolutely no confirmation for his story. He is not lying, but rather is the victim of a propogandist.

The totality of the evidence indicates that the one and only LHO and Marguerite left NYC around the 9th or 10th of January. They showed up in NO and he enrolled at Beauregard on the 13th as the records indicate. The records also state his previous school was in NYC. That is a misrepresentation of Parker's thesis. He says that it depends HOW you read the records. If you read them one way only, something could seem off. If you read them as Parker explains, the "mystery" is solved. https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy All of the other "evidence" has been accounted for. And you don't seem to understand that among thousands and thousands of records there will be errors, discrepancies and so on. The records are created by human beings and that is the nature of the beast. That is fine, you may call it an opinion if you prefer.

Debunked is just a term-you shouldn't get caught up in semantics. The point is, Parker has showed problems with the Kudlaty story.

And that simpler explanation is the H&L theory? The simple explanation is Robert mistakenly told the newspapers in 1959 that LHO had attended Stripling. He would have if he had not gone to NY but Robert had his timeline mixed up. Unfortunately, his remarks became a part of the "historical record." Newspapers are an important source of information but they are an "immediate" source and as such are not always accurate. Robert also told the WC that LHO attended Stripling which is what he believed. Which is amazing since, according to the H&L theory, he was working for the CIA who would not have wanted this "information" pointing to 2 Oswalds to come out. Greg Parker has debunked the Kudlaty thing repeatedly. You can go to his site and read a good discussion on it. Armstrong and White were not acting as journalists as David Lifton did when he spoke to McBride, but as activists and advocates for the H&L theory. Their methods were single-mindedly designed to produce one result.

The witnesses such as Schubert and Kudlaty aren't lying in the normal sense. They are taking experiences they had 40 plus years ago and applying them to the H&L situation AFTER being coached by Armstrong and Jack White. There is a natural desire to be associated with an historical event. For example, Kudlaty never associated anything sinister to the FBI visit he received (assuming it really happened) until he spoke with White.

I don't know for sure, possibly because it is not easy to move. But the continuing legal process with LHO finally compelled her to do so.

Yes, they were confusing LHO, who ALL of the evidence shows never attended Stripling, with his brother Robert who did.

John, It is reasonable to assume that the reporter obtained the information from press reports at the time of LHO's defection. It is a standard technique for them to go back and do that. Robert believed that LHO had attended Stripling but he was mistaken. As for Marguerite, she told the WC that she had moved to NY to be close to John Pic. She was probably hoped to "sponge off" of him (just my opinion).

Jim-my advice to you and Sandy is to go over to Parker's forum and register there if you truly want to have a debate and don't just want to draw attention to yourselves in hopes of getting a movie deal. There you will find a willing group of individuals who are eager to do so and who have some valid alternative explanations.

This report was based on Robert Oswald's statements to the media at the time of LHO's defection. The "witnesses" are either lying or mis-remembering Robert who did attend Stripling.

I already told you how. It depends on the method you use to count the number of days. Parker shows another way to do that. The H&L theory always relies on evidence being interpreted one way only. When you look at the alternatives, it all falls apart.

You (and lurkers) can go right to Greg's site and read his explanation Sandy. In fact, he addresses your arguments and you by name. Like it or not, it is an alternate explanation on how to read the records. You're not claiming it doesn't exist like Jim used to are you? That's why web sites exists-so you don't have to type things over and over.

Here's what Jim won't tell you. On Armstrong's CD there is a document that refutes the whole thing. It states for the date entered "1954-1-13." That same document states "Last School PS 44 New York." So there were not 2 Oswalds attending different schools at all. Jim will probably say that they had to alter the document which is what he says about any piece of evidence that doesn't match the H&L theory. Of course, the old joke is how do H&L people know what is fake? It doesn't fit the theory. We know that on January 6, the one and only Marguerite expressed to Carro her reservations about an additional court appearance for the one and only LHO. She didn't want to go. Funny thing, on the 10th, Grote from Big Brothers found out from Carro that Marguerite and LHO had left the city (CE 2223). Lo and behold, on the 13th, Marguerite and LHO turn up in New Orleans where he is enrolled at Beauregard. According to Google, it takes about 20 hours to drive from NY to New Orleans so they had plenty of time to get there. No mystery here. As for the school records, if you didn't know any better and read the records one way and one way only, you could be led to believe something was funny. But there is another way to interpret the records (and every other piece of "evidence" for H&L) as Greg Parker showed: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records So, Jim is being disingenuous when he says that Jeremy or anyone else has not provided alternative explanations to the points he has raised. In fact, Greg Parker has an entire section on his site titled just that "alternative explanations." Now, Jim may not like the alternative explanations or agree with them, but they do exist even though at one point he actually claimed that anything that was not on the EF did not exist. Jeremy is correct, the H&L theory is snake oil.

Yes, that is certainly a possibility John. I see in the last still you posted it looks like "LHO" has the same shirt as the mystery photo.

I don't think the record is insufficient in regards to his statements.

To be fair, the original plan was for Fonzi to interview Veciana in prison but that didn't happen due to Veciana's early release. That was what Newman was probably thinking of when he wrote that. I believe he is fairly familiar with the Fonzi-Veciana-Bishop matter. What he may have a hard time proving to everyone's satisfaction is that Veciana's release was arranged so that he could tell his story. There is a document in which Zabala states that he believed Veciana was released as part of a "secret deal" with unknown government agents specifically in exchange for testimony implicating the CIA. Newman may be basing his theory on this even though Zabala admitted his statements were speculative.

And she is doing exactly what any "panel" or investigative body would do if the H&L people took their evidence to one which they won't. They would provide alternative explanations because they would quickly realize that the vast majority of the evidence supports one historical Oswald. The "magic tooth" is an understandable anomaly in a body of records numbering in the thousands.

The bottom line is we have several reasonable alternate explanations. No 2 Oswalds needed.

You can go on Greg Parker's site and find a link to an article that offers another explanation besides mine that it is an error in the records.

I am convinced that this is the answer to the constant spamming and re-spamming. All it takes is getting the ear of someone with the financial means to do it. However, I can't take credit for the idea-as far as I know Paul Trejo was the first to come up with it.

BTW, the "gap" that H&L people believe exists would be the equivalent of two or three teeth not just one. That alone tells you it is not a gap. EDIT: I see Ron Ecker has proposed that it is his tongue and this is another good explanation out of several.

Do you have a document that states he went to a dentist as a result of this incident? If not you have a person that "thought" he went to a dentist. Even if he did go, it may have been just to make sure there was no permanent damage and all other evidence shows there was indeed none.

It is up to the moderators to determine if a post is off topic. I believe it is reasonable to expect general remarks about H&L in a post such as this.

Correct-he THOUGHT he lost a tooth. That doesn't make it a fact. Again, if true it doesn't prove he lost a tooth. Your language "what looks like" is correct. It could look like that to some people. But other evidence shows that is not the case. The lip is covering his teeth. Error in the records which was common in the military. Now, let me explain to you once again how the H&L thing would be handled in the real world as opposed to the imaginary world that the H&L believers operate in. Let's say that Marina fell under Armstrong's sway (a very unlikely circumstance since she was burned once by Eddowes) and and managed to arrange a legal hearing of some kind to prove or disprove the H&L allegations. The "evidence" would be presented but no specific piece would be shown in a vacuum. That is, the amazing "magic tooth" photo (for example) would be weighed against the evidence that shows LHO did not have missing teeth. When Sandy Larsen offered his "dental proof" into evidence it would be rejected because he has no qualifications to make such an assessment. And real experts would be called to explain why he is wrong. The amazing "impostor evidence" would be weighed against the known fact (that is, known to investigators, law enforcement and the legal profession but apparently unknown to H&L adherents) that in a high profile event, there will be dozens or hundreds or even thousands (as was the case in Dannemora) people that come forward and say they saw the person in question in any number of places that they could not have been. The amazing "2 Oswalds in the far east" evidence would be considered in view of the fact that LHO's time there was misunderstood by both the WC and HSCA largely because his mission was apparently changed due to unpredictable events in the world. However, researchers such as Greg Parker have offered an alternative explanation that shows where he likely was with no 2 Oswalds needed. The amazing "school records" evidence would be thrown out since an alternate explanation was provided long ago by Greg Parker (it simply depends how the records are read). I could go on, but you get the idea. The bottom line is there would be no legal or scientific basis for the H&L claim. The same thing would happen that happened to Eddowes. And after initially admitting defeat, he was soon back out promoting a new version of his theory. The H&L people would not give up either.

Question of the day-how does a H&L person know what evidence is faked and which is real? Easy-anything that doesn't support the theory must be faked and whatever they perceive as supporting the theory is authentic.