Jeremy Bojczuk

There were clearly three Oswalds! It is inconceivable that any of the following measurements were mistaken! Anyone can see this! - One of them was 5'11" (Marine records, 1959). - One of them was 5' 9' (Autopsy in 1963). - One of them was 5' 8" (Marine records, 1956). - One of them was 5' 6" or 5'7" (Bolton Ford witness). That's three, no, hang on, four Oswalds! Anyone can see this! Not to mention the exhumation in 1981, which estimated the height of the body as 5' 8 1/2". That makes five Oswalds! And one journalist in the USSR described Oswald as 5' 9" with brown eyes, while another journalist in the USSR described him as 5' 11" with blue eyes! It is inconceivable that either or both of these descriptions were mistaken! That makes six or maybe seven Oswalds! All of their earlobes were different by a couple of millimetres, too! And one or more of the six or seven Oswalds had a 13-inch head!

Totality of the evidence I see that the old "totality of the evidence" notion has cropped up again. David Josephs mentions it but leaves the definition vague. James Norwood explains what the phrase means to him: In other words, it's all about the quantity of evidence ("too many references"), not the quality of that evidence. The more items of evidence you dig out and assemble ("pulling together the details"), the more likely it is that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. The quality of that evidence ("examining each piece in a vacuum") isn't so important. Quality over quantity On the contrary, the quality of the evidence is vastly more important than the quantity. It doesn't matter how many items of evidence you have, if all of those items are worthless. If a particular item of evidence has both a doppelganger-at-Stripling explanation and a plausible non-doppelganger explanation, the latter cancels out the former, and that item of evidence goes in the bin. Whenever there's a plausible non-doppelganger explanation, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. It's the same principle that every rational person applies to alleged anomalies in the moon landings photographs: if there's a plausible explanation for those anomalies that doesn't involve fakery, we have to treat the moon landings photographs as genuine, because the default state of affairs is that photographs are genuine unless proved otherwise. Quality control The first thing to do with the Stripling evidence is to apply a quality-control check by eliminating all the items that have plausible non-doppelganger explanations. Once you've done that, only then can you look at the items that are left, add them up, admire the total, and think about creating some sort of top-secret long-term doppelganger story out of them. How many items of Stripling evidence would survive this filtering process? We've looked in detail at one such item: James's claim that "Bobby Pitts ... clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." We've seen (here and here and here) that Bobby Pitts certainly didn't "clearly recall" anything of the sort. He recalled someone who may or may not have been Oswald in the general vicinity of the school, which he did not himself attend. Leaving aside the fact that Pitts' recollection was (... how should I put it so that I don't get reported to teacher?) less than entirely accurately described by James, this particular item of evidence has an obvious alternative explanation: Pitts' memory was unreliable. Like almost every 'Harvey and Lee' witness, Bobby Pitts was recalling something that may or may not have happened several decades earlier. We have no reason to suppose that Pitts' memory of decades-old events was significantly better than that of the average person. Over the years, people forget some things and unwittingly invent other things. Human memories tend to be much less reliable than 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine requires them to be. Goodbye, Mr Pitts. Once you've performed a basic quality-control check by filtering out all those items of evidence for a doppelganger at Stripling that have a plausible non-doppelganger explanation, how many items remain? Not very many, that's how many. In fact, somewhat fewer than not very many. What are the believers to do? All these plausible explanations cause a bit of a problem for 'Harvey and Lee' believers. What approach should they take? They could copy and paste the same old items of evidence over and over again, of course, and they probably will, but that won't get them over this particular hurdle. Every open-minded reader will have seen through that ploy long ago. They could produce a solid item of evidence, such as an indisputably authentic photograph of an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling. It would be difficult to come up with a plausible alternative explanation for something like that. But after more than two decades of searching, nothing solid has turned up; all they have is anomalies and old memories. The only way out for the believers is to take each non-doppelganger explanation and demonstrate that it is not plausible. Until they do that, the default state of affairs applies: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. Absence of evidence: eyewitnesses There is another aspect to the "totality of the evidence" question: the non-existence of evidence that we might expect to exist. Eyewitnesses, for example, tend to come out of the woodwork whenever there is a big news story. Invariably, a large proportion of claimed sightings of criminal suspects are mistaken. If an Oswald doppelganger had indeed attended Stripling, we should expect John Armstrong's public prompting to have generated a large number of honest but mistaken recollections from people who had themselves attended the school but who didn't remember the doppelganger, or who remembered Robert Oswald, or who remembered a boy who didn't go by the name of Oswald but looked a bit like the one who did. We might expect some dishonest recollections, too. If, on the other hand, an Oswald doppelganger had not attended Stripling, we should expect Armstrong's public prompting to generate no more than a few recollections, all of them mistaken. There were perhaps 300 staff and pupils who might have "clearly recalled" Oswald attending Stripling. Only five have been cited, plus one person who didn't attend the school. Of those six people, two admitted that they didn't actually have any first-hand knowledge, and three of the remaining four, including Bobby Pitts, were so vague as to be useless. Why so few? Why didn't any of the other 290-odd Stripling witnesses come forward? Most of them would have been in their early 50s when Armstrong was poking around; a large majority would still have been alive, wouldn't they? Well, look, a 'Harvey and Lee' believer might say, you're asking people to recall things that happened a long time ago. The Stripling people weren't contacted until 40 years after the event! I mean, you can't expect people to remember stuff accurately after 40 years! The 'Harvey and Lee' believer would be correct. Absence of evidence: documents There appear to be no photographs, whether personal snaps or official class photos, of an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling. Nor are there any official documents, such as yearbooks, student directories or report cards, that mention any Oswald other than Robert at Stripling. Fran Tubbs, née Schubert, told John Armstrong that Stripling didn't have yearbooks, which presumably is correct, but she did mention the possibility of finding a student directory that the doppelganger had signed. Another pupil, Doug Hazelwood, who did not remember the doppelganger, also mentioned the possibility of a directory. Amstrong did reproduce part of a directory, but from the wrong year and sans signature. The presence of Oswald's name in a printed student directory from the correct year would probably settle the matter once and for all, but no-one seems to have located a copy of the relevant directory, or even looked very hard. That lack of effort might, of course, be because the absence of Oswald's name would also settle the matter once and for all, just as the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave settled the matter two decades before Harvey and Lee was published. And while we're on the subject of not looking very hard, have the 'Harvey and Lee' believers tried locating any other possible witnesses? If not, why not? Greg Parker has generously given them a hand by digging out the names of five who appear to be still alive, and he has dared them to follow up these leads: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33762. Let's see how they get on. Why choose quantity over quality? The "totality of the evidence" idea boils down to the quantity of the evidence. If you think the world is run by all-powerful evil overlords who go around setting up top-secret long-term doppelganger schemes, you might be tempted to seize on any item of evidence that seems to support your preconception, no matter how weak that item is. You might well be the sort of person who is more impressed by quantity than quality. Most people aren't impressed by quantity over quality, and don't think the world is run by all-powerful evil overlords, and don't take the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense seriously. Why is there so much evidence? A few pages ago, one 'Harvey and Lee' believer wondered why there would be so many items of evidence if there had been no doppelganger at Stripling. Even if the quality of the evidence is weak, there must be a reason for the quantity, mustn't there? How come there are all these claims about Oswald, when there aren't nearly as many claims about any other random person? There's no smoke without doppelgangers, is there? The answer should be obvious: Oswald was not some random person. People came up with their unreliable 40-year-old memories of someone they thought was Oswald because Oswald was the guy accused of killing JFK. That's why an anomaly-seeking fantasist like Jack White didn't pick some random person out of the phone book and then go looking for anomalies in that person's holiday snaps or school records. Instead, he went looking for anomalies in the photographs of the moon landings, and in the school records of the guy who was accused of shooting the president. As another 'Harvey and Lee' believer has demonstrated, if you look hard enough at any collection of evidence, you are likely to come up with plenty of what you think are anomalies but which turn out to have plausible, alternative, everyday explanations. The default state of affairs Again, if plausible alternative explanations exist, the default state of affairs applies: the moon landings happened, and Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. If the 'Harvey and Lee' believers want to be anything other than followers of a fringe belief, they need to stop simply regurgitating 'Harvey and Lee' talking points and then changing the subject every time they get caught out. They need to produce some evidence that doesn't have a plausible alternative explanation.

James Norwood also writes: And if, as we have seen, an imaginary Oswald doppelganger didn't attend school in Fort Worth, the gaping hole vanishes. So what? Greg Parker has replied to James's comment. I don't want to quote Greg, or I might get reported to teacher, but James can read the reply here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2215p25-fao-mark-stevens#33849. James is still, I believe, a member of Greg's forum, and will no doubt be keen to defend his beliefs there. I think it's time for yet another massive copy-and-paste of all the 'Harvey and Lee' Stripling stuff. Over to you, Jim!

James Norwood writes: I presume James is referring to David "I may know more about H&L across the entire spectrum than anyone other than John Armstrong himself" Josephs' word-dump on page 29. I'm impressed that James has managed to make sense of it. A few elements of the word-dump stood out for me: "the totality of the evidence ... piece together for you the anomalies ... this school record has been doctored ... a combined record of both Lee and Harvey." It's standard 'Harvey and Lee' stuff: quantity over quality, anomalies, unsupported claims of document fakery, and begging the question by assuming the existence of 'Harvey' and 'Lee'. Robert Charles-Dunne did respond to the word-dump. He reminded the 'Harvey and Lee' believers:

John Butler also writes: All the films and photographs which show the railroad workers on the bridge are faked now, are they? How were the films and photographs faked? When did this happen? Why would anyone bother? How did the bad guys find the time to fake all of these films and photographs? Weren't they busy enough faking some obscure article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram? Perhaps Mr Butler would kindly fill us in on some of these important details. This is another feature of 'Harvey and Lee' methodology: claim that documents are faked, but fail to give any reasons beyond "those bad guys faked that other thing, so they must have faked this thing too." We saw this with Jim Hargrove's claim earlier in this thread that the FBI "altered a document or two" to cover up a mastoidectomy operation that he imagined was carried out on imaginary doppelganger A instead of imaginary doppelganger B. That was how we ended up with this Stripling embarrassment: Jim repeatedly failed to provide any justification for his claim, and instead changed the subject to the imaginary doppelganger at Stripling, which he seemed to think was his trump card. That tactic doesn't seem to have worked out too well, does it?

John Butler writes: This pretty much sums up a large part of the 'Harvey and Lee' methodology. Look for apparent anomalies in every item of evidence you come across. Don't look for alternative, everyday explanations for those apparent anomalies. Don't even explain exactly what the anomalies are meant to signify. I mean, what's the problem with that newspaper article? Why would anyone want to retype it in Word? Even if anyone did retype it in Word, so what?

Tracy Parnell writes: Indeed. Why is this guy so thin-skinned? He seems to be frightened of having his beliefs questioned. Being asked to justify your claims is harassment now, is it?

Mark Stevens writes: Greg Parker has something to say about this. In particular, he asks why the FBI would want to seize and destroy elementary school records, copies of which existed elsewhere, and which in any case do not contradict the fanciful notion of a 'Harvey and Lee' long-term top-secret doppelganger scheme. For details, see: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2215p25-fao-mark-stevens#33795

Robert Charles-Dunne writes: It makes you wonder exactly who it is that Jim hopes to convert by repeatedly trying to change the subject. Perhaps there are people reading this who are thinking to themselves, "Hmm, every time this Hargrove guy gets asked awkward questions, he tries to change the subject. Maybe there's something to this 'Harvey and Lee' stuff after all!" It's ironic that he's now trying to switch away from Stripling, given that the subject of Stripling was introduced by Jim himself when challenged earlier in this thread to justify his claim that the FBI had "altered a document or two" to conceal evidence that a mastoidectomy operation had been performed on doppelganger A instead of on doppelganger B, as Armstrong had argued. Would Jim prefer to return to the topic of the mastoidectomy evidence? You know, the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, as mentioned in a report by several respectable scientists, that contradicts a central part of Armstrong's theory. Does Jim really want to continue that particular discussion?

Let's make it easy for Jim and his friends, by allowing them to deal with one item of criticism at a time. Their responses will allow readers to see clearly whether or not each claim by Jim and his friends has any merit. If, for example, Jim and his friends respond to each item of criticism by running away and hiding, or by trying to get the critics banned or this thread closed down, informed readers will conclude, quite reasonably, that Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. Let's start with the claim made by James Norwood on page 18: Now let's look at each of the six eyewitnesses in turn. We could start with Bobby Pitts. This is what Mark Stevens had to say about Mr Pitts' apparently clear recollection of Oswald attending Stripling: Up to now, Jim and his friends have not dealt with Mark's analysis, for reasons that should be obvious. As far as the evidence of Bobby Pitts is concerned, Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. Since it was James Norwood who made the claim that "Bobby Pitts ... clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School", perhaps we should ask James to take the lead in defending this particular item of 'Harvey and Lee' evidence. Once he has done this, we can move onto the next of James's six eyewitnesses, and see what James has to say about that witness. James, how would you respond to Mark's analysis of Bobby Pitts' recollection?

Jim Hargrove writes, in big letters: As usual, Robert Charles-Dunne sums things up best: Jim seems to think that the question - of whether Oswald was one person or a pair of doppelgangers - will be settled by measuring competing piles of evidence. If I produce a taller pile of evidence than you, I win the debate! That seems to be why he keeps posting the same stuff over and over and over again, and refuses to confront the criticism that has been made of the stuff he posts over and over and over again. It doesn't work like that. It's all about the quality of the evidence, not the quantity. The critics, as he likes to call the rest of us, are not under any obligation to produce any evidence at all. Jim and his friends are obliged to prove their case. No-one is obliged to disprove it. The default state of affairs is that Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. That's because, in the world that most of us are familiar with, each person we know is invariably just one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. Until Jim and his friends make a convincing case to the contrary, the default state of affairs applies: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. So far, Jim and his friends have not done so. They have not come anywhere near making a convincing case, as judged in the court of informed public opinion. How many people in the world possess a serious, informed interest in the JFK assassination? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? And how many of these informed people find the 'Harvey and Lee' theory credible, after two decades or more of promotion by Jim and his friends? Thousands? Hundreds? A couple of dozen? In the court of informed public opinion, the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not one person but a pair of doppelgangers is a fringe belief. It's sitting at the back of the class alongside the notion that the moon landings were faked, a belief that was of course held by one of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's co-inventors. As Bernie Laverick pointed out some time ago, more people believe that the Queen of England is a lizard than believe in the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. If Jim and his friends want to rescue their belief, they need to expand their repertoire beyond regurgitating the same talking points and trying to get their critics banned. They could start by actually dealing with the points their critics have made. Again, it's about the quality of the evidence, not the quantity: - If Jim and his friends claim that six eyewitnesses recalled Oswald attending Stripling, and critics point out serious flaws in this evidence, and Jim and his friends fail to deal with the points raised by the critics, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. - If Jim and his friends claim that the school records can be interpreted to show that Oswald was attending two schools at the same time, and critics point out an alternative, perfectly plausible way of interpreting the school records which doesn't require Oswald to have attended two schools at the same time, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. And so on. It really is up to Jim and his friends to deal with the points their critics make, and not respond by ignoring the criticism, posting the same stuff again and again, and trying to get the critics banned or this thread closed down. Jim and his friends need to confront the criticism. Otherwise, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. And the 'Harvey and Lee' theory will remain a fringe belief. As Robert points out:

James Norwood writes: On the contrary, the writers above (me, Mark, Tracy and Robert) do not want this thread to be chaotic. What we want is for 'Harvey and Lee' believers to justify the claims they make. We haven't had much luck with this, so far. It isn't a matter of "ridiculous questions that do not even merit replies", but of reasonable questions that merit and demand replies. It's all about Jim Hargrove's consistent refusal to deal with criticism of claims he (and James Norwood) made concerning the eyewitnesses statements. Since James has now poked his head above the parapet, let's look at the claim he himself made on page 18 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=42299) : Mark analysed the statements made by those eyewitnesses, and found that they didn't provide much support for James's claim (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423033, on p.19). He concluded: It should be obvious to any reasonable person who has read Mark's analysis that James's "six eyewitnesses ... clearly recalled" not very much at all. James made a specific claim which appears to be unjustified by the evidence. Perhaps, instead of trying to get his critics banned, he would care to reply to Mark's analysis. What, exactly, about those eyewitnesses' statements led James to conclude that these six people "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School"? James could take each witness's statements in turn, and show us how they support the claim he made. If he isn't able to do that, perhaps he would be good enough to admit that he was wrong. To get the ball rolling, let's see what James has to say about one of his six eyewitnesses, Bobby Pitts. This is Mark's analysis: Not exactly "clearly recalled", is it? But perhaps James can tell us what led him to state that Bobby Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School". Once he has dealt with Pitts' evidence, we can move on to the next witness. Over to you, James!

Jim Hargrove claims that: It is Jim's claim which is simply untrue. He has been asked several times to state why Mark's analysis of the eyewitnesses' statements is mistaken. He has not done so. If that isn't "hiding from their questions", what is? Mark's analysis is here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423033. Everyone who reads it will understand why Jim has repeatedly refused to confront the points Mark raised. Come on, Jim! Tell us what you think of Mark's analysis! It isn't good news for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, is it? Sandy Larsen, a fellow 'Harvey and Lee' believer, has been brave enough (here and here) to admit that the six eyewitnesses' statements aren't up to much: Well done, Sandy! Will Jim be brave and follow Sandy's fine example? Does he agree with Sandy that the statements are "not very convincing"? If he doesn't agree, would he please explain why? Sandy also writes, optimistically: Here, once again for Jim's consideration, is Mark's perfectly reasonable demand:

Jim Hargrove writes: Mark Stevens responds: Any casual reader will have worked out by now that Jim isn't interested in honest discussion. He is a propagandist, out to promote a worthless and harmful theory that was debunked two decades before its holy text was published. Any method will do, apart from honest discussion. Jim has frequently misrepresented other people's arguments. He has repeatedly failed even to acknowledge criticism, let alone deal with it. He changes the subject, answers questions he wasn't asked, and refuses to answer the reasonable questions he was asked. Whether any of this is against the rules, I don't know. It certainly doesn't help the reputation of what is supposed to be a place for serious discussion of the JFK assassination. I'd be surprised if James Gordon is happy for this forum to be used as a dumping ground for endless amounts of 'Harvey and Lee' spam. Perhaps, as has been pointed out at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2215-fao-mark-stevens#33729, Jim is trying to get this thread closed down. That might be his best way out of his current predicament. He wouldn't need to face up to the criticism he has received here, but he would be free to create new threads in which to dump yet more 'Harvey and Lee' spam. Let's give Jim one more chance to show that he isn't simply a one-dimensional propagandist, and that he can deal rationally with criticism. Look at the eyewitness statements which, according to Jim (and James Norwood, who seems to have gone missing again), show that Oswald attended Stripling. Then look at Mark Stevens' analysis of those statements, on page 19. Now answer the question Mark raised on page 20:

Tracy Parnell writes: Jack White? Let me think. Which Jack White was that? It must be Jack "Frank Kudlaty was a friend of mine for fifty years, er, hang on, Frank who, no, never heard of the guy" White. Is he any relation to Jack "the moon landings were faked" White? For White's changing story about his relationship with Kudlaty, see: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy#33635 - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy#33647 Greg also makes a good point about the unreliability of Robert Oswald's memories of what his brother had done years earlier: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33533 Robert wrote in his book that "In the early 1950s, Lee watched that show [I Led Three Lives] every week without fail. When I left home to join the Marines, he was still watching the reruns." Robert's recollection appears to have been faulty. The show was not made until 1953, the year after Robert joined the Marines, and the reruns would not have started until at least 1956, when the original broadcasts ended. And who was it who demonstrated that Robert's recollection was faulty? Why, it was none other than John "I deliberately concealed from my readers a fact that disproved my theory" Armstrong * (in H&L, p.42). On the subject of Robert Oswald's unreliability, I'm quoting an excerpt from the cult's manual, How to Cherry-Pick Evidence: As others have pointed out, 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that the unreliable source in question, Robert Oswald, was in on the plot, and would surely have been instructed not to give the game away by blurting out the incriminating claim that his doppelganger brother had attended a school he wasn't supposed to have attended. Robert would have been just as stupid as the Oswald doppelganger who also gave the game away when arrested in the Texas Theater, by telling the cops his name was Oswald. * And what was the fact that was concealed from his readers by John "I deliberately concealed from my readers a fact that disproved my theory" Armstrong? Why, it was the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, which contradicted Armstrong's carefully worked-out biographies of his two fictional doppelgangers. Armstrong's theory had been disproved two decades before he published his book, and he knew it. It was the necessity of diverting readers' attention from that unwelcome information that obliged Jim Hargrove to bring up the Stripling stuff as a distraction, as you can see if you go back to page 12. Now that the Stripling stuff is facing similar challenges, what will the 'Harvey and Lee' shuffle bring us next? Bolton Ford? The 13-inch head?

James Norwood writes: Here's one such link. A friend of Jim's from down under points out that James is at risk of making himself the subject of ridicule, like his fellow believers: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33708 Just because the 'Harvey and Lee' believers like it so much, here's some interesting reading on the whole Stripling nonsense: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1624-forwarding-school-records-and-erroneous-recorded-information - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1444-the-stripling-bullxxxx-rears-its-ugly-head-again - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1397-armstrong-asks - https://www.thenewdisease.space/hardlylee-nut - http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24524-the-hl-two-schools-at-the-same-time-mystery/ - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24469-new-article-by-john-armstrong/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-366368

The lastest episode of "look over there!" evidence-avoidance by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers began when James Norwood declared that Mark Stevens did what James had neglected to do: he actually looked critically at the eyewitnesses' statements. Mark explained why none of the six "clearly recalled" what James claimed they "clearly recalled". Jim Hargrove then performed his usual "look over there!" act. He completely ignored Mark's analysis; he pretended it didn't exist; he congratulated James on upholding 'Harvey and Lee' dogma; and he brought up a different 'Harvey and Lee' talking point to divert attention from the problem of the eyewitnesses' statements. James, on the other hand, invented spurious reasons to avoid answering Mark's questions: But Mark's questions are entirely relevant to the issue of whether an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, the very issue James himself had raised. Mark explained how the statements of James's "six eyewitnesses" did not support James's claim. If James wants anyone to take seriously his claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, he needs to rescue his now worthless "six eyewitnesses" by countering Mark's analysis of their statements. Neither Jim nor James has yet felt brave enough to deal with the points Mark made, despite several reasonable requests to do so. Why? What have they got to lose? It's unlikely that they would end up sacrificing potential converts to their belief system; surely everyone still reading this thread has already made their mind up on the 'Harvey and Lee' question. Come on, guys! Everyone makes mistakes! You may as well come clean, admit that Mark was right and you were wrong, and then (and only then) move on to the next 'Harvey and Lee' talking point. Actually, the believers do have something to lose. James's Stripling witnesses are not anomalies. A sizeable part of the 'Harvey and Lee' edifice is built on exactly the same shaky foundations: vague recollections of something that may or may not have happened several decades earlier. Once you admit the weakness of one set of vague, decades-old recollections, how do you deny the weakness of all the other vague, decades-old recollections? You'd open the floodgates, and the flimsy 'Harvey and Lee' structure would be swept away. If you know how flimsy that structure is but you can't face admitting it, your best option is to divert attention from the weak eyewitness evidence. Look over there! School records! Bolton Ford! Texas Theater! If James Norwood and Jim Hargrove truly have faith in their belief system, they should risk opening those floodgates, and follow Robert Charles-Dunne's advice: Stop running away, James and Jim! Take each of the "six eyewitnesses ... [who] clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling" and explain how their statements justify that conclusion. If you can't do that, just admit that you were wrong.

Sandy Larsen writes: Jim may have discussed the statements, but he hadn't (and still hasn't) discussed the problems Mark identified with those statements. I'd guess this comment by Jim on page 18 is what Sandy is referring to: In the comment immediately following Jim's, Mark dissected these four witnesses' statements. Mark gave good reasons to doubt that these witnesses actually saw Oswald attend Stripling: one of them didn't remember Oswald at all, and the other three (in the traditional style of 'Harvey and Lee' witnesses) offered nothing more than vague recollections from several decades after the event. It was James Norwood who first mentioned the Stripling Six, in the comment immediately after Mark's: Then James condescendingly told Mark: A 'Harvey and Lee' believer telling others to "look [at] evidence with greater care"! Mark looked at James's evidence for the Stripling Six with greater care, and pointed out the usual flaws: Mark has explained the weakness of Jim's four Stripling witnesses and of the other two witnesses mentioned by James. As for the seventh witness, Tracy Parnell has pointed out that Robert Oswald had no first-hand knowledge of which school his brother attended, because by that time Robert had joined the Marines and was no longer living in Fort Worth. And that's it. Neither Jim Hargrove nor James Norwood has attempted to produce a counter-argument. It's up to Messrs Hargrove and Norwood to justify the claims they made, if they can. Until they (or Sandy, or John Butler) do so, there are no credible witnesses to Oswald's attending Stripling. It's interesting to compare the responses by Jim Hargrove and James Norwood. Jim did what he usually does when backed into a corner: he avoided the uncomfortable questions Mark asked by regurgitating a 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, as if repeating the same stuff over and over will convince anyone. James, on the other hand, has gone awol. Has anyone seen James recently? As Mark wrote:

Wow. The 'Harvey and Lee' belief system really is a cult, isn't it? Mark Stevens has demonstrated the flimsiness of Messrs Hargrove and Norwood's witnesses: What does Jim do? Does he come up with arguments to counter Mark's analysis? No, because of course he can't; Mark is clearly correct. Instead, Jim puts his head in the sand and pretends that nothing has happened! He doesn't even acknowledge the evidence Mark put forward. He simply regurgitates the same 'Harvey and Lee' talking point all over again. It's as though Mark's comments don't exist. If anyone has ever debated religious fundamentalists, you'll recognise the same mentality here. Fundamentalists, a category which evidently includes 'Harvey and Lee' cult members, cannot accept that they might be wrong. Praise Armstrong! We know in our hearts that we are right, and that's the end of it. Whatever evidence the unbelievers put forward cannot, by definition, be correct. We know that the unbelievers are wrong, so let's keep quoting more Scripture at them, and eventually they'll understand the error of their ways. Will Jim at least have the honesty to deal with the points Mark made? Take each of the six witnesses in turn and explain how Mark was wrong, or admit that Mark was right.

As much as I admire Sandy's expertise in dentistry and photographic analysis, I don't find his excursion into philosophy very convincing. I've explained why the circular reasoning he claimed to see was a figment of his imagination. As for all the other "logical fallacies" he claims to see, Armstrong alone knows where he got those from. If anyone other than Sandy really gives a [insert rude word here] about any of this, they can examine the evidence for themselves by following these handy links, where Jim will find his Stripling allegations dealt with: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy Jim writes: Do I detect a hint of paranoia here? I've got nothing against Jim as a person, and I'm sure he's a fine, upstanding citizen who frequently rescues cats stranded up trees, and always takes his library books back on time, and never goes one mile per hour above the speed limit. As Al Pacino said, it's nothing personal. But Jim is Chief Evangelist for one of the nuttiest (yet most actively promoted) and cult-like theories associated with the JFK assassination, and he deserves to be criticised for that. If the general public were to associate questioning of the lone-nut theory with the speculative 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, even rational critics are liable to be dismissed as crackpots, and the case will never be treated seriously. The problems I raised with Jim were twofold: Firstly, he made a substantial claim for which he has provided absolutely no evidence, namely that the FBI "altered a document or two" regarding the mastoidectomy that was carried out on the one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Jim hasn't even been able to tell us which documents he was referring to, let alone demonstrate that they were altered. He gives the impression that he simply made it all up, and he deserves to be put on the spot about this. Secondly, he has repeatedly been unable to refute the evidence that his guru, John Armstrong (praise his name!), deliberately concealed from his readers an important fact that proved Armstrong's theory to be false. So let's see if Jim can come up with some answers this time: What is your evidence that the FBI "altered a document or two" concerning Oswald's mastoidectomy? If you can't produce any such evidence, will you admit that you made the whole thing up? Armstrong, co-inventor of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense along with Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White, was behaving like a slippery, dishonest snake-oil salesman, wasn't he?

Sandy writes: You may feel that way, but you're still obliged to explain why each alleged instance of alteration might have occurred. What you can't do is simply snap your fingers and declare that documents have been altered, as Jim did when he claimed that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy. Jim made a claim for which he has produced absolutely no evidence, just to get out of having to admit that Armstrong deliberately misled his readers. Not only has Jim not produced any evidence that these documents were altered, despite repeated requests, but he can't even tell us which documents he was talking about. It looks as though he made the whole thing up. Just because the FBI and other official agencies altered some evidence, you can't assume that any other given piece of evidence has been altered. You still have to justify your claim with regard to the piece of evidence in question, and explain why you think it was altered (sadly, "it contradicts Scripture" won't do). The second assumption is justified. But the phrase "both Oswalds" contains an assumption that isn't justified. The onus is on 'Harvey and Lee' believers to prove that there were two Oswalds; it isn't on critics to prove that there weren't. Until a case can be made that convinces a large number of reasonable people, there's no justification for treating the doppelgangers as anything other than hypothetical (or, as I would prefer to put it, imaginary). Critical examination of 'Harvey and Lee' talking points reveals a remarkable tendency for them to possess perfectly ordinary alternative explanations, as we have seen with topics such as the 13-inch head, the missing tooth (which, according to Jim, was game, set and match for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory!), and most recently the Stripling school records (see here and here). Once you take away the talking points that have perfectly ordinary explanations, what's left? Not much, that's what. For anyone who's interested, here are some of the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points that have perfectly ordinary explanations: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations - http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee Now, a reminder of those questions that Jim has been refusing to answer: (a) Which documents, exactly, did the FBI alter regarding Oswald's mastoidectomy? And what evidence do you have that they were altered, apart from the fact that they apparently contradict Scripture? (b) Do you have an explanation for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect that doesn't make him look like a snake-oil salesman?

Sandy also writes: I suppose "inconsistency" is one way of describing the fact that a scientific report flatly contradicted a central element of Armstrong's theory! But it doesn't look as though Armstrong does have an answer for this "inconsistency". His book was the place to explain the "inconsistency", since he knew about it when he wrote his book. He deliberately neglected to tell his readers about the "inconsistency", which was a little bit naughty, wasn't it? Unfortunately, Armstrong has so little faith in his theory that he won't defend it by debating with critics. It would be good to see him join Jim and Sandy in defending his theory on Greg's forum (I assume their applications for membership are in the pipeline). In the meantime, perhaps someone to whom Armstrong has graciously granted an audience could tell us how he hopes to get over the serious obstacle that the scientists' report poses for his theory. He's had a couple of decades to think of a way out of this problem. Has he come up with anything yet? The more important question is: who was the Lee Harvey Oswald who underwent the mastoidectomy operation in 1946? There are several candidates: (a) The one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Until the existence of any doppelgangers can be proved, which, as we have seen, is a very long way off, he's the default candidate. (b) Imaginary doppelganger A, the American one, who was not buried in Oswald's grave. This is what Armstrong claimed in his book. Unfortunately, the scientific report of Oswald's exhumation proved that Armstrong was wrong about this. The body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy. (c) Imaginary doppelganger B, the eastern European one, who was buried in the grave. This is what Jim Hargrove claimed a few pages ago. On the plus side, it's good that Jim has bravely gone against established doctrine on this point. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Jim has so far been unable to provide any justification for his speculative claim. Also unfortunately, this interpretation would involve a serious reconstruction of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's speculative biographies, since, according to Scripture, imaginary eastern European doppelganger B wasn't supposed to have been selected for the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme until several years after the mastoidectomy operation took place, and so wouldn't have been using the name of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. (d) Imaginary doppelgangers A and B. This seems to be Sandy's preferred option. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, Sandy too has so far been unable to provide any justification for his speculative claim. Items of evidence that are currently missing include: documents showing imaginary doppelganger B's entry into the USA; and documents showing the date of doppelganger B's operation, and the hospital in which it was performed. (e) A creature from outer space. This is probably the candidate Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White would have chosen. The problem with this option is that any documents concerning the creature's mastoidectomy operation would be written in Klingon or something. But at least it's a credible alternative to the two imaginary doppelgangers. By the way, it's good to see Sandy mentioning "Jack White's crazy beliefs", twice. At least he agrees with me about White's sanity! While we're on the subject of Armstrong's problems with the mastoidectomy, has Jim managed to think of a plausible reason for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect in his book? He was behaving like a slippery snake-oil salesman, wasn't he, Jim? Come on! You can admit it! And let's not forget the other question Jim keeps forgetting to answer, the "document or two" relating to the mastoidectomy which Jim claimed had been "altered" by the FBI. Which documents, exactly, did the FBI alter, Jim? And what reasons can you give to show that they were altered?

Sandy made the same mistake in another post: No, that's not the only reason to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about handing over copies of Oswald's school records to the FBI. I gave Sandy several reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong. The "[assumption] that there was only one Oswald" was not one of them. These are the reasons I gave: 1 - Kudlaty made no statements about the matter until White (whom Kudlaty had known, a pertinent fact that went unmentioned) and Armstrong got in touch with him several decades after the assassination. 2 - Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons: 2 (a) - the records are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself; 2 (b) - he did not take the elementary precaution of asking for a receipt or making copies of those records (and copiers had been commercially available for four years by this time, contrary to one of Jim's claims, which Jim appears for some reason to have deleted); 2 (c) - it appears that he never tried to reclaim the missing documents (something genuinely impartial researchers would have asked him about closely, and something White and Armstrong of course didn't do); 2 (d) - and in any case the records would have been obtained not by the FBI but by the local police, acting on behalf of the Attorney General. None of those points include the assumption that there was only one Oswald, as Sandy suggested. P.S. Jim Hargrove disagrees with point 2 (a) above. He will find Greg Parker's view explained here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33556 I look forward to reading Jim's discussion of this and other matters with Greg. We all know how keen Jim is to debate this particular topic.

Sandy Larsen writes: The list Sandy came up with does contain an example of circular reasoning. But it is a misrepresentation of what Greg wrote. Greg's argument does not, as Sandy claims, begin with the assumption that there was only one Oswald. It does not contain any circular reasoning. Sandy has Greg's premise and conclusion the wrong way round. Look at Sandy's point 4: "Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records." Sandy's "therefore" refers to his assumption in point 3: "Since there was only one Oswald." But that isn't what Greg claimed. That assumption is Sandy's, not Greg's. Greg pointed out reasons to doubt that Kudlaty was correct. The implied conclusion, that Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers, followed from, and did not precede, his demonstration that there were good reasons to doubt that Kudlaty was correct. It isn't that difficult to understand, surely? If Sandy genuinely can't grasp the point, and needs to examine it further, he can find it explained here: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy If, after further examination, Sandy still thinks he can see evidence of circular reasoning, he should quote here the relevant passages in Greg's posts, so that we can see exactly what he's going on about. Better still, Sandy should discuss the matter with Greg himself, if he's brave enough. Once he's done that (and I'd pay good money to see it), he should contact that elusive investigative journalist and let us know exactly what the journalist thinks of the evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. Here is a more accurate version of Sandy's numbered list, with Sandy's circular reasoning removed: 1 - If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling. 2 - There are, however, good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong. 3 - If Kudlaty was wrong, a good deal of the evidence placing Oswald at Stripling vanishes. 4 - If Oswald was not at Stripling, yet another piece of evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory turns to dust. 5 - With the disappearance of yet another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, there is even less reason to doubt the default setting: that there was only one Oswald and that he wasn't part of a top-secret long-term doppelganger project that was partly thought up by some crazy guy who believed that the moon landings were faked.

Sandy also writes: Part of the reason might be that you haven't yet been accused of assassinating a president, thereby attracting moon-landings-crazy cranks who are motivated to delve deeply into old documentary records, and to put unlikely interpretations on ambiguities in those documents, and to interview witnesses several decades after the event when their memories may not be reliable, and to misrepresent their personal connections with those witnesses, and do any of the other things that characterise our intrepid 'Harvey and Lee' detectives, Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White and John "I deliberately withheld information which disproved my theory" Armstrong. On that last point, does Sandy have a credible explanation for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave? I've asked Jim many times for his view, and he has run away each time. I think we can conclude from Jim's prolonged silence that he admits that Armstrong was being dishonest in deliberately misleading his readers. What's Sandy's explanation for Armstrong's behaviour? Does he agree with Jim that Armstrong was being dishonest? Or if Jim doesn't want people to think that, would he be kind enough to give us an alternative explanation for Armstrong's behaviour? There's another question Jim has so far been unable to answer, one that Sandy may also be able to help us with. Jim claimed that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy. I've asked Jim several times to provide evidence to justify his claim, but he can't even specify which documents he was talking about, let alone demonstrate what it is about the documents that makes him think they have been altered. Does Sandy know which documents he was talking about? Jim was just making stuff up, wasn't he? It's an example of the old 'Harvey and Lee' tactic: whenever you come across a piece of evidence that contradicts your theory, simply declare that it's a fake. You can't lose! You're free to spout any old nonsense! It's the same tactic creationists use when they come up against the fossil record. It's a fake! If Sandy is genuinely concerned about logical fallacies, he could start by requiring his fellow believers to provide evidence to support their frequent claims of fakery.