Jeremy Bojczuk

Jim Hargrove writes: Seriously? Perhaps Jim can tell us how he managed to start from here: and end up here: There was no implication that Jim was "here under a false identity" or anything of the sort. The point I made was that using James Wilcott to support the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense can't be excused on the grounds of ignorance, since Wilcott's HSCA testimony was transcribed by Jim himself. I wondered, in jest, whether the Jim Hargrove who transcribed the testimony was not the Jim Hargrove we all respect for his skeptical attitude to blatant nonsense, but a different, doppelganger Jim Hargrove, who was ignorant of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense and thus wouldn't have been aware that Wilcott contradicted essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy. It's a play on the doppelganger concept. Jim likes his doppelgangers. I think Jim needs to get on the waiting list for a sense of humour transplant.

Sandy Larsen writes: What we actually have is this: (a) Medical records for one mastoidectomy operation carried out on one person named Lee Harvey Oswald. (b) One mastoidectomy defect on one exhumed body that had been buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. That's one operation, one defect, one body, and one name. If, as Sandy speculates, items (a) and (b) refer to two different people, two important items of evidence are missing, namely: 1 - The body of Lee Harvey Oswald Doppelganger A, complete with mastoidectomy defect, the subject of the medical records in item (a). 2 - Medical records for a mastoidectomy operation carried out on Lee Harvey Oswald Doppelganger B, the exhumed body in item (b). If Sandy's speculation is correct, we ought to have physical evidence for two operations, two defects, and two bodies. But we only have one of each. Where are the missing medical records? Where is the missing body?

James Norwood writes: James Wilcott's phrase 'Oswald project' was appropriated by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system and given a new meaning involving a long-term doppelganger scheme. In his appearance before the HSCA, Wilcott explained what his 'Oswald project' involved: Wilcott said and implied nothing about doppelgangers at all, let alone: - that a long-term doppelganger project was set up involving two unrelated boys from different parts of the world who were chosen at a young age in the hope that they would turn out to look virtually identical a decade or more later; - or that the boys did magically turn out to look virtually identical; - or that each boy had a virtually identical mother named Marguerite Oswald; - or that one of the boys had a 13-inch head; - or that one of the boys followed the other around Dallas on the day of the assassination to frame the other for the murders of JFK and Tippit; - or that both of the Oswald doppelgangers got themselves arrested in the Texas Theater and each told the cops that his name was Oswald, thereby giving the game away; - or that one of the Oswald doppelgangers and one of the Marguerite doppelgangers disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination; - or any of the other far-fetched speculation that makes up the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. James Wilcott said nothing about any of that. Wilcott certainly never claimed, as John Armstrong did, that one of the Oswald doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation and that the other doppelganger was the one buried in Oswald's grave, despite knowing that this claim was untrue, the claim having been debunked by Oswald's exhumation two decades before Armstrong wrote his book. Tracy Parnell has written an informative article about James Wilcott, which includes links to Wilcott's HSCA testimony in which Wilcott mentions the 'Oswald project' and explains what he meant by the term: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html Here's Wilcott's testimony: http://www.jfklancer.com/Wilcott.html There's even less excuse for the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to misrepresent Wilcott when you consider that the above version of his HSCA testimony was prepared by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system's Chief Evangelist, a Mr Hargrove (unless our Mr Hargrove is actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers). Here's Wilcott's unpublished manuscript, 'The Kennedy Assassination': https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=9 On pages 16 and 17, Wilcott writes: Two aspects of Wilcott's account specifically contradict 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine: - He claims that Oswald was recruited while in the Marines during his late teens, not as a young boy as part of a long-term doppelganger scheme. - He claims that Oswald was taught Russian while in the Marines. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, on the other hand, claims that the Oswald doppelganger who defected was a flawless, native speaker of Russian (or a very good speaker, or a moderately good speaker; they can't seem to agree), and certainly not a native English-speaking American who was taught Russian in the Marines. In short, James Wilcott said nothing about doppelganger Oswalds, and specifically contradicted two other important elements of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2248-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-the-early-lives-of-harvey-and-lee - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2250-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-frank-wisner-and-world-war-ii-refugees There's plenty more information about the 'Harvey and Lee' theory here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

Sandy Larsen writes: [Slaps forehead] I have a theory that the person known to history as Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact two different entities: a shape-shifting lizard who underwent a mastoidectomy operation at Harris Hospital in 1946, and a creature from the planet Zog who took human form, then had a mastoidectomy operation before being beamed down to Earth, and was later buried in Oswald's grave in Fort Worth. And lo and behold! The evidence of the medical file and the exhumation report prove my case! The medical file shows that Oswald was a shape-shifting lizard, and the exhumation report shows that he was also a creature from the planet Zog! That's two Oswalds: a shape-shifting lizard and a creature from the planet Zog! Now, some cynics might object to this, on the grounds that the evidence can be explained perfectly well as applying to one human being: the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. They would say that I'm making it all up, creating a far-fetched fantasy to satisfy my paranoid view of the world, just like a 'Harvey and Lee' believer. But it's true! On a serious note, the question I was asking was: where is the second medical file, the one for the second mastoidectomy operation? So far, we have documentary evidence for one mastoidectomy operation, and one body that had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. If you want to claim that the only body is not that of the person to whom the only medical file applies, let's see the documentary evidence for the operation that was carried out on that body: - What's the name of the hospital? - What's the name of the surgeon? - What was the date of the operation? There's nothing. There isn't even a second body.

Jim Hargrove writes: It in [sic] not simply enormous. It in [sic] very weak. That evidence was taken to pieces by Mark Stevens here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ To avoid dealing with Mark's analysis, the 'Harvey and Lee' believers abandoned that thread and created a new one. Now that their new thread has become contaminated by Mark's analysis, they've created yet another. I suppose it's easier than actually dealing with the points Mark made. Let's remind them of the points Mark made, starting with his account of Robert Oswald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: (a) The first mention of Stripling by Robert Oswald was in the 31 October 1959 edition, in response to the apparent defection of the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Robert was accosted by a reporter while at work. (b) The following day, Robert was interviewed at home. The paper included a statement by Robert that his brother had attended Arlington Heights for a year, but did not mention Stripling. Presumably the paper would have mentioned Stripling if Robert had done so. (c) The relevant passage from the second article was then repeated word for word in a third article later that week. (d) Mark reproduced six further Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles (from 1962, 1963, 1980, 1999 twice, and 2006) which mention Oswald attending Stripling. Each uses virtually identical wording. Two of the articles (from 1999 and 2006) use the phrase "including awkward teenage years at Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School". Clearly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, like every newspaper, was in the habit of recycling earlier reports. (e) None of these articles mentions any pupils or teachers who recalled Oswald at Stripling. (f) A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 1992 does mention a teacher who taught at Stripling at the time the imaginary Oswald doppelganger is supposed to have been there: Beulah Bratton, who taught English and journalism at Stripling from the 1940s to the 1970s. Under the headline, "Teacher Recalls Famous Students", the article actually states that "After President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, Bratton was asked to do research on Lee Harvey Oswald's family for the New York Times." If an Oswald doppelganger had attended Stripling, and especially if that fact was "common knowledge" as the 'Harvey and Lee' believers claim, there's a pretty good chance Ms Bratton would have uncovered the fact and mentioned it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wouldn't you think? But it appears that she didn't. Mark concluded: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's evidence is next to worthless. It provides only very weak support to the fanciful claim that an imaginary Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. Stripling is supposed to be the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' strongest area of evidence. The onus is on them to prove their case. How will they deal with Mark's analysis this time? Ignore it? Start yet another new thread? Perhaps they'll come clean and admit that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram evidence really isn't very strong at all. Let's see.

A few days ago, I wrote: Now we know how they responded. Did they finally summon up the courage to admit that the Stripling evidence isn't actually very strong? Sadly, no. Did they at last get around to dealing with the points Mark raised? Sadly, no. Instead, Jim Hargrove created a new thread to pump the same old stuff that Mark disposed of in the thread you're now reading. Presumably the idea is to get this thread to sink into the murky depths of page 2, then page 3, then ... Would Jim or any other 'Harvey and Lee' believer care to actually deal with the points Mark raised?

You are probably aware of the discovery last year of a statement by Oswald that he "went outside to watch the presidential parade" (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25532-then-went-outside-to-watch-the-p-parade/). You are probably also aware that two news films taken within seconds of the assassination show an unidentified figure standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository. You will certainly be aware of what would happen if the figure were to be identified confidently as Oswald. Now you can do something to help determine whether or not Oswald did go outside to watch the parade. You can force the relevant authorities to make (or allow others to make) high-quality scans of frames from original or early copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films which are not currently available to the public. Each signature to the petition sends an email to NBC and the National Archives and Records Administration. You can sign the petition here: https://gregrparker.com/dowloads/petitions/ Here's the text of the petition: This is a chance for you to make a difference: https://gregrparker.com/dowloads/petitions/

Jim Hargrove writes: Jim will be pleased to learn that his friend from down under, Greg Parker, is providing plenty of honest scrutiny of the hardlylee.nut website: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2248-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-the-early-lives-of-harvey-and-lee - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2250-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-frank-wisner-and-world-war-ii-refugees - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2252-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-1947 There may be more to come, and each of these may well be updated and added to in the future. Jim must keep his eyes peeled and be sure to thank Greg for his really appreciated scrutiny. Of course, if there's anything Jim disagrees with, we'll look forward to seeing him join Greg's forum to debate him there.

Mark Stevens writes: You need to look at things from Jim's point of view, Mark. The 'Harvey and Lee' believers' big problem is that they simply don't have any proof that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. Of all the documents that might show the existence of the doppelganger, such as student directories, yearbooks, report cards, and photographs both official and unofficial, none have yet been discovered, although John Armstrong would surely have looked hard to find them. All the evidence they've put forward has a perfectly plausible alternative explanation: easily understandable mistakes, and decades-old recollections. What can they do apart from misrepresent you, ignore your criticism while posting the same stuff over and over and over again, and finally change the subject? Well, I suppose they could be honest about it, and write something like this: Rather than acknowledge the weakness of their evidence, we get this sort of thing, in this case from Jim: Stating as a fact that which he needs to prove! No doubt this will be followed by the usual copy-and-paste regurgitation of the same stuff Mark and others have already shown to be flimsy. It makes you wonder why they bother. If their goal is to attract casual readers to their cause, they are going about it in quite the wrong way. There can't be many casual readers who haven't seen through the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' tactics. Stripling is supposed to be their strongest area of evidence. If it's so strong, let's see them deal honestly with Mark's criticism: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ As Mark writes:

James Norwood writes: Some time ago, James wrote: James seems to understand the words 'bias' and 'impartially' to mean something along the lines of 'fails to swallow nonsense uncritically'. Perhaps, if I find the time, I'll see what I can do, if only to try and prise a straight reply out of James. I'm not optimistic that such a thing is possible, though. Mark Stevens tried that, and got this reply: Before all of that, James's response to criticism was to try to get his critics banned. Then he created a new thread to sink the one in which Mark sank the 'Harvey and Lee' Stripling nonsense. Now, James's latest response to Mark's criticism is to misrepresent what Mark had written. As I say, I'm not optimistic that I'd get a straight reply. How about James gets the ball rolling by actually addressing the points Mark made? After all, the Stripling evidence is supposed to be the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' strongest suit. You might think they would be keen to address the criticism fully and honestly, without omission and misrepresentation. As it happens, I have already dealt with one part of James's response to Mark's analysis. My post on page 8 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26644-the-far-reaching-influence-of-%E2%80%9Charvey-and-lee%E2%80%9D/?do=findComment&comment=425574) deals with the newspaper articles. So far, James hasn't replied. For his benefit, or that of any other 'Harvey and Lee' believers who may wish to participate, I've reproduced my comment on the thread to which it really belongs: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/?do=findComment&comment=425888

Jim Hargrove writes: I'm not sure the word 'disproved' is the right one to use here. Until Jim and his friends come up with something substantial, there's nothing to disprove. After all, the burden of proof is on them. As for a "retraction" and a "published indication", newspapers aren't in the habit of correcting trivial mistaken recollections that harm no-one. The critics don't need to prove anything. All they need to do is provide plausible alternative explanations. They have done so for the newspaper articles: Robert Oswald was mistaken. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, Robert Oswald was in on the top-secret long-term doppelganger plot, and would have been told by his all-powerful evil overlords that his imaginary eastern European doppelganger 'brother' had attended Stripling. But in the real world, Robert Oswald had no all-powerful evil overlords to tell him which school his real-life, historical brother, Lee Harvey Oswald, had attended. Robert had been away in the Marines at the time in question, and so he had no first-hand knowledge of the school his real-life, historical brother had attended. Robert might reasonably have assumed that his real-life, historical brother had attended Stripling, since that is what he himself had done, but he would have been making an easily understandable mistake. Again, the burden of proof is on Jim and his friends. So far, they have produced nothing remotely resembling proof that any Oswald, real or imaginary, other than Robert attended Stripling. As Mark Stevens has explained in detail, the evidence put forward by Jim and his friends is very weak: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ Rather than copying and pasting the same stuff yet again, or abandoning Stripling and replacing it with another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, perhaps Jim could actually deal with the points Mark has made. Jim also writes: What Stripling experiences? In the absence of proof to the contrary, the only Oswald who attended Stripling was Robert. Whose experiences could he compare his with? One of the Marguerite Oswald doppelgangers?

Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy appears to believe not only that there were two Oswald doppelgangers but that each doppelganger had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Burn the heretic! Scripture makes it clear that only one of the imaginary doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Scripture also makes it clear that the imaginary doppelganger who had undergone the operation was not the imaginary doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave: Sandy must not blatantly contradict the Holy Word of the prophet Armstrong! The infallible prophet has failed to find any documentary evidence of a mastoidectomy operation carried out on the other imaginary doppelganger! Sandy too has failed to produce any such documentary evidence! Scripture tells us that there were two doppelgangers but only one mastoidectomy operation! Repent, Sandy! Accept the word of the prophet Armstrong! Back in the real world, the evidence of a mastoidectomy defect* on the body in Oswald's grave disproved Armstrong's far-fetched theory two decades before Harvey and Lee was published. * Source: L.E. Norton, J.A. Coffone, I.M. Sopher, and V.J.M. DiMaio, ‘The Exhu­mation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald,’ Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol.29 no.1 (January 1984), pp.19–38 (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm).

Mark made several points, so far unaddressed by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, about Robert Oswald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: (a) The first mention of Stripling by Robert Oswald was in the 31 October 1959 edition, in response to the apparent defection of the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Robert was accosted by a reporter while at work. (b) The following day, Robert was interviewed at home. The paper included a statement by Robert that his brother had attended Arlington Heights for a year, but did not mention Stripling. Presumably the paper would have mentioned Stripling if Robert had done so. (c) The relevant passage from the second article was then repeated word for word in a third article later that week. (d) Mark reproduced six further Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles (from 1962, 1963, 1980, 1999 twice, and 2006) which mention Oswald attending Stripling. Each uses virtually identical wording. Two of the articles (from 1999 and 2006) use the phrase "including awkward teenage years at Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School". Clearly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, like every newspaper, was in the habit of recycling earlier reports. (e) None of these articles mentions any pupils or teachers who recalled Oswald at Stripling. (f) A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 1992 does mention a teacher who taught at Stripling at the time the imaginary Oswald doppelganger is supposed to have been there: Beulah Bratton, who taught English and journalism at Stripling from the 1940s to the 1970s. Under the headline, "Teacher Recalls Famous Students", the article actually states that "After President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, Bratton was asked to do research on Lee Harvey Oswald's family for the New York Times." If an Oswald doppelganger had attended Stripling, and especially if that fact was "common knowledge" as the 'Harvey and Lee' believers claim, there's a pretty good chance Ms Bratton would have uncovered the fact and mentioned it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wouldn't you think? But it appears that she didn't. Mark concluded: Mark has shown that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's coverage provides no strong evidence to support the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. The burden of proof is on the 'Harvey and Lee' believers. Since Stripling is supposed to be their strongest suit, we can assume that they will be keen to put Mark right. Let's see how they respond.

Here are some instructions for working out which photos of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald are of the fictional character 'Harvey' and which are of the fictional character 'Lee': 1 - Take a coin; any denomination or currency will do. 2 - Toss the coin. 3 - If it's heads, it's 'Harvey'. 4 - If it's tails, it's 'Lee'.

Gene Kelly writes: The strongest reaction was probably the attempt by 'Harvey and Lee' propagandists to get their critics banned. I think we all understand why they reacted this strongly to unwelcome criticism. Those of us who criticise the 'Harvey and Lee' theory do so for several reasons: because it is proven nonsense; because it is heavily but dishonestly promoted; and because it is liable to harm rational criticism of the lone-nut theory. The thesis was proven to be wrong two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was even published, by the evidence of a mastoidectomy operation on Oswald's body. According to Armstrong's carefully worked-out biographies of his two fictional characters, the Oswald doppelganger who had undergone the mastoidectomy operation was not the one who was buried in the grave. But the exhumation in 1981 showed that the body was that of someone who had undergone the operation. Armstrong knew about the scientists' report of the exhumation, and knew that it disproved his theory, but he went ahead and published his book anyway. Not only that, but he dishonestly neglected to inform his readers that the mastoidectomy defect even existed. That's the 'proven' part. The 'nonsense' part comprises, among many other far-fetched things, all the elements of 'Harvey and Lee' that distinguish it from other impersonation theories: the notion that two unrelated boys from different parts of the world were chosen for a long-term doppelganger scheme in the hope that they would turn out to look virtually identical when they grew up; that the boys magically did turn out to look virtually identical; that each boy had a virtually identical mother named Marguerite; that one Oswald doppelganger followed the other Oswald doppelganger around Dallas on 22 November and framed him for the murders of JFK and Tippit; and that one Oswald doppelganger and one Marguerite doppelganger vanished from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination. These ridiculous propositions are all essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. It's potentially harmful because it allows rational critics of the lone-nut theory to be depicted as a bunch of crackpots. If the general public got the impression that imaginary doppelgangers were part of the standard case against the official account of the JFK assassination, or that everyone who questions the official account also believes there were doppelganger Oswalds and Marguerites running around for a decade or more, we may as well all give up now, because without the support of the general public the case won't get resolved. If that's the effect it has on you, you clearly aren't looking at the points the critics are making. The only way to decide whether or not "there's substance to the H&L anomalies" is to read what the critics have to say. You could start at the top, with what the 'Harvey and Lee' believers think of as their strongest area of evidence: an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling. Check out what the critics have to say on that topic, and tell us whether you agree or disagree, and on what grounds. If you think we're wrong, it would be good to be told why by someone with his head screwed on rather than the usual bunch of propagandists. Mark Stevens took the Stripling evidence to pieces in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Robert Charles-Dunne writes: Alex Wilson has commented elsewhere (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2228-doc-norwood#34074) that James Norwood used to be chairman of an organisation that's dedicated to the notion that the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake. Now Robert alludes to the same thing. Is it true? In the interests of psychiatric research, I've checked out the website of this 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' (and had a good antiseptic rinse-down afterwards). They do indeed think that Altgens 6 was faked. And not just given a small tweak here and there, but practically rebuilt from the ground up. It was quite an achievement by whoever did it, considering that the photograph was sent out to newspapers all over the world only half an hour after the assassination. Apparently, the purpose of faking the Altgens 6 photograph was to disguise the fact that it originally showed Oswald standing on the steps, where we now see Billy Lovelady. The figure of Lovelady, whose physical similarity to Oswald generated widespread suspicion that Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor during the shooting, is actually a fake; it was pasted over the figure of Oswald. You see, to prevent people thinking that Oswald was on the steps, the bad guys chose to use the image of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it led people to think that Oswald was standing on the steps. Oh, and the bad guys altered most of the other figures in the photograph too, and altered other films, and inserted figures taken from photographs that weren't processed until long after Altgens 6 had been sent all over the world. Quite an achievement! As with the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, you wonder at first if it's all a joke. Then you start to worry that there may be people at large who actually believe this stuff. Here's an excerpt from the insanity I found at http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html: You might think that's not too bad, really. But there's more: And more: The craziness goes on: And on: It concludes: I'm not sure about the exact medical definition of insanity, but whoever wrote that stuff must be at least knocking on the door of the asylum. Is it true that James Norwood actively associated himself with these crackpots? If he did, how much of that paranoid drivel does he still believe?

Jim Hargrove writes: And then he fails to dismiss it. James Norwood does the same thing in his original post in this thread: In other words, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram relied only on Robert Oswald's mistaken assumption about something of which he had no first-hand knowledge, just as Mark Stevens claimed. The first post in the following thread is where Mark Stevens (not his doppelganger, Mark Edwards) made a good case that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram simply repeated Robert Oswald's mistaken assumption: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ Mark made several points: (a) The first mention of Stripling by Robert Oswald was in the 31 October 1959 edition, in response to the apparent defection of the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Robert was accosted by a reporter while at work. (b) The following day, Robert was interviewed at home. The paper included a statement by Robert that his brother had attended Arlington Heights for a year, but did not mention Stripling. Presumably the paper would have mentioned Stripling if Robert had done so. (c) The relevant passage from the second article was then repeated word for word in a third article later that week. (d) Mark reproduced six further Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles (from 1962, 1963, 1980, 1999 twice, and 2006) which mention Oswald attending Stripling. Each uses virtually identical wording. Two of the articles (from 1999 and 2006) use the phrase "including awkward teenage years at Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School". Clearly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, like every newspaper, was in the habit of recycling earlier reports. (e) None of these articles mentions any pupils or teachers who recalled Oswald at Stripling. (f) A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 1992 does mention a teacher who taught at Stripling at the time the imaginary Oswald doppelganger is supposed to have been there: Beulah Bratton, who taught English and journalism at Stripling from the 1940s to the 1970s. Under the headline, "Teacher Recalls Famous Students", the article actually states that "After President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, Bratton was asked to do research on Lee Harvey Oswald's family for the New York Times." If an Oswald doppelganger had attended Stripling, and especially if that fact was "common knowledge" as the 'Harvey and Lee' believers claim, there's a pretty good chance Ms Bratton would have uncovered the fact and mentioned it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wouldn't you think? But it appears that she didn't. Mark concluded: Neither Jim Hargrove nor James Norwood has dealt with the points Mark made. If they want to do so, they should head over to this thread, which was set up specifically to deal with the topic: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ Alternatively, I suppose they could try to get him banned. That's probably their best bet.

James DiEugenio writes: The point I've been making is slightly different. It's that the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense has the potential to be harmful. At the moment, the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense is very much a minority point of view, despite its heavy promotion by a small number of propagandists. But imagine what might happen if a sufficient number of gullible newcomers got the impression that Armstrong and White's preposterous long-term doppelganger scheme was part of the standard interpretation of the assassination. Even worse, imagine what would happen if Hargrove and Armstrong ever got their movie deal (if that's what it is they are working towards), and the general public started to become aware of the notion that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites and all the associated craziness. If enough recognition of the 'Harvey and Lee' crackpottery were to build up beyond specialist JFK assassination circles, the media would be able to use it to portray all critics of the lone-nut theory as a bunch of crackpots. That's their preferred method of misleading the general public and avoiding discussion of the evidence, as Oliver Stone knows. Don't listen to him, he's a 'conspiracy theorist'! You know, like those people who think the world is run by a top-secret cabal of shape-shifting lizards! That's what all those JFK people are like! The 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense belongs with the lizard illuminati, but rational criticism doesn't. Posner served the interests of power in a different way, by providing the media with an allegedly authoritative source to refer to, again so that the media could keep any discussion of the evidence to a minimum. The real danger with all the tin-foil-hat stuff that the JFK assassination attracts (and the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense isn't the worst example) is that it is liable to prevent a genuine resolution of the case. Without the support of the general public, the case will not get resolved.

James Norwood writes: And Douglass was just as wrong as Armstrong. As I explained in another thread, there is no good reason to suppose that two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theater, each of them giving away the plot by telling the cops that his name was Oswald (whoops!): http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

Jonathan Cohen writes: Indeed! As well as the fake Marguerite giving interviews (whoops!), and Robert Oswald giving the game away, twice, about his doppelganger brother attending Stripling (whoops!), there's also the incident in the Texas Theater, when both of the Oswald doppelgangers managed to get themselves arrested and each told the cops that his name was Oswald (whoops!). Then there was the decision to publish the 5' 9" doppelganger's official Marines entrance records and the 5' 11" doppelganger's official Marines leaving records (whoops!). It does make you wonder who was in charge of this Laurel and Hardy-style top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme.

Jim Hargrove writes: So you keep saying. Mark and others have presented evidence to show that these "obvious facts" are the result of a perfectly understandable but mistaken assumption by Robert Oswald. If there's a plausible everyday explanation for something, use it. These "obvious facts" are worthless. How about dealing with the points Mark made? As several people have pointed out, here and elsewhere, how come the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme let Robert Oswald give away the plot not once but twice? He let the doppelganger cat out of the Stripling bag to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and then again several years later in front of the Warren Commission, no less! What sort of clown-car top-secret doppelganger scheme was this? It has been conclusively countered. Read Mark's original post. If you can find faults in what he's written, tell us what he got wrong. And why on earth would the newspaper want to print a formal retraction? It's not as though they've libelled anyone! Years ago, they printed an utterly trivial mistaken recollection that harmed no-one. The only people who care are 'Harvey and Lee' believers (as well they should).

Excellent piece of research, Mark! But we all know what's coming, don't we? Three ... two ... one ... What about the Bolton Ford incident? What about the Texas Theater? What about the 13-inch head? (Repeat ad nauseam) P.S. I'll take back the comment I made on the other Stripling thread about there being only one witness with a clear recollection of Oswald attending the school, namely Schubert. We can now cross her off the list too.

James Norwood writes: No problem. Always happy to help! I wasn't the first person to point out your mistake, though. And it did take quite a bit of pointing out, by several people, before you admitted you'd actually made a mistake, didn't it? There are a couple of possible reasons for making your original claim, and 'sloppy writing' isn't one of them. It may have been that you weren't sufficiently familiar with the witnesses' statements, and you told us what you hoped they had said rather than what they actually said. Alternatively, it may have been that you knew perfectly well that the six witnesses didn't all claim to have "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling," and, like Armstrong neglecting to mention the mastoidectomy defect, you hoped that no-one would notice. But everyone is liable to exaggerate things in the heat of the moment, so let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the first reason applies. Mark Stevens has blown that suggestion apart: - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ - https://gregrparker.com/essays/ The evidence may be substantial, in the sense that there is plenty of it, but it is also almost uniformly flimsy. Take away all of the items that have perfectly plausible alternative explanations, and what's left? A handful of anomalies? Anything at all? As I've pointed out before, the quality of the evidence over-rules the quantity of the evidence. If all you have are decades-old recollections and paranoid interpretations of anomalies in documents and photographs, it really doesn't matter what sort of pattern you weave out of that evidence. You're left with nothing that is strong enough to overcome the default state of affairs: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. A few pages ago, Sandy, the only 'Harvey and Lee' believer who seems to have even a grain of common sense, asked a question along the lines of "how could there be so much evidence that Oswald was a pair of doppelgangers if Oswald was actually just one person?" The answer should be obvious: - Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially when recalling events decades later. - Newsworthy events invariably generate false memories of the central characters. - Researchers, even honest and open-minded ones (I'll let you decide whether Armstrong belongs in that category), can prod people into recalling things that didn't actually happen or, say, into mistakenly identifying nondescript boys as youthful alleged assassins. - Written documents frequently contain anomalies, and those anomalies can almost always be interpreted in both sinister and innocent ways. Oswald's peripatetic life is exactly the sort of thing that would generate more of these apparent anomalies than most. - Photographs tend to contain even more anomalies than written documents, especially when interpreted by people with a limited knowledge of the practice of photography. The question should have been: "how come there is so little evidence?" If Oswald really was a pair of doppelgangers, there ought to be far more evidence than there is. Just in the case of Stripling, only a tiny proportion of potential witnesses claimed to have remembered the Oswald doppelganger, and all of those recollections were vague. There doesn't appear to be a single piece of official documentary evidence for his attendance at Stripling: report cards, student directories and the like. There's nothing! To return to a question that was asked earlier, why isn't there an official Marines photograph of a 5' 11" Oswald standing in front of a height chart? They took a photograph of him in front of a height chart on entering the Marines, so why not on leaving too? If one of the Oswald doppelgangers really was 5' 11" tall, where's the photograph to prove it? The standard 'Harvey and Lee' reply to the lack of expected evidence is, of course, that the bad guys faked and destroyed that stuff over there, so they must have faked and destroyed this stuff over here too! Another question is: "how come there are so many inconsistencies and contradictions?" If you were running a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme, you'd really want to keep your doppelgangers under control, wouldn't you? As Jonathan Cohen pointed out earlier, why was the fake Marguerite doppelganger allowed to go around giving interviews to newspapers and FBI agents? Why did both of the Oswald doppelgangers get themselves arrested in the Texas Theater and then each tell the cops that his name was Oswald? And why did Robert Oswald, who was supposedly in on the plot, let the cat out of the bag not once but twice by telling a newspaper and the Warren Commission that his doppelganger brother attended Stripling? You'd also want to keep the documentary evidence under control. Why did the bad guys publish the official records of one doppelganger entering the Marines and the other doppelganger leaving the Marines? And so on. We mustn't forget the big contradiction. According to Armstrong's carefully worked out biographies, the doppelganger who had undergone a mastoidectomy operation was not the one who was buried in Oswald's grave. But the body in the grave had undergone the operation. That fact alone sinks the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. It isn't surprising that Armstrong neglected to tell his readers about it. You can weave some sort of tapestry out of any number of weak items of evidence, but the fact that the individual elements are weak will cause the structure to quickly disintegrate, as we have seen. The 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense isn't a threat to me personally. How could it be? But it is a potential threat to the prospect of ever getting the JFK assassination properly investigated by an official body. Such an investigation will only come about with the support of a substantial part of the general public. The main way in which the media tries to defuse this threat is to pretend there is no rational argument against the lone-nut theory, and that every critic is a tin-foil hat-wearing 'conspiracy theorist'. They tried this back in the 80s by using Lifton's body-alteration fantasy. Imagine what they could do with an even more tin-foil hattish fantasy such as the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense.* Given a choice between a lone assassin and a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme in which (for example) one doppelganger entered the Marines and the other doppelganger left the Marines, it isn't difficult to see how the rational majority of the general public would react, is it? And the case would never get resolved. That's where the problem lies with the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. It isn't much of a threat in that it hasn't an impact with JFK assassination specialists even after more than two decades of promotion. But it still has the opportunity to do harm. Angry? Moi? You're the one whose response to criticism was to try to get your critics banned, remember? There are plenty of things in the world that are worth getting angry about. A political assassination that took place over half a century ago isn't one of them, all things considered. But the assassination is a serious historical event, and it's worth opposing preposterous theories about it that aren't even close to being credible and that are liable to impede genuine progress in getting the case resolved. Well, I'll take your word for that. There's only one way to find the truth in a case like this, which contains a huge amount of evidence that can be interpreted in any number of plausible and implausible ways. It's to adopt a critical attitude to that evidence. That's what anyone who is genuinely concerned with finding out the truth would do. Take each item of evidence and see if there's a plausible everyday explanation. If there is, use it. When you do that, the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense doesn't last long. That's why hardly anyone with an informed interest in the assassination takes it seriously. * Of course, you could argue about whether Lifton's nonsense is more or less nonsensical than the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. Magical bullets that are fired from the front and turn around to hit Connally in his back? Or magical mastoidectomy defects that transfer themselves from one doppelganger to another? Difficult choice, isn't it?

James Norwood writes: Let's see if I was misrepresenting the words you used. These are the words that you seem to think I have been misrepresenting: It's a straightforward sentence, with no ambiguity. What you were saying was: The one member of this group that we eventually got you to deal with was Bobby Pitts. I pointed out that Pitts appears to have recalled nothing about "Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." Here, again, is the relevant passage from Scripture (The Gospel According to Armstrong, pp.102-3): Diligent exegesis of this passage of holy text reveals a remarkable thing. There is no mention of Oswald attending Stripling. But this cannot be! James has stated that Pitts did indeed recall Oswald attending Stripling, and that Pitts recalled it clearly. Where did James get his information from? Did he make it up? But that is a preposterous notion, for James is a 'Harvey and Lee' believer, and 'Harvey and Lee' believers never make things up! If Bobby Pitts "recalled Oswald attending Stripling", he evidently did not do so "clearly". Almost certainly, he did not recall Oswald attending Stripling at all. If he had, we can expect him to have mentioned it, because Armstrong would certainly have asked him about it, and we can certainly expect Armstrong to have mentioned that Pitts mentioned it. The unavoidable conclusion is that Bobby Pitts did not recall Oswald attending Stripling, which is hardly surprising since Pitts did not attend the school himself, a fact he did see fit to mention. Sadly, I think we may have to consider the possibility that James did indeed make it up. Pitts is not, as James claimed, a witness to "Oswald attending Stripling" but merely a witness to an event in which someone who may or may not have used the name Oswald watched some boys playing football from the porch of someone else's house, four decades earlier. Having been caught out, James has backtracked significantly, and is now claiming that "Taken alone, Bobby Pitts' testimony does not seem significant. Its importance becomes apparent when examined in conjunction with other eyewitness testimony." Pitts' revised recollection now merely corroborates one small aspect of a different four-decades-old recollection: someone named Oswald lived at a house near Stripling school. It forms a small part of a flimsy tapestry of weak evidence. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, quantity beats quality. Let's look at what James ought to have written about his six Stripling eyewitnesses: It isn't looking quite so good now, is it? When Armstrong was looking for people who had attended Stripling at the same time as the imaginary doppelganger, there would have been something like a couple of hundred possible witnesses still alive. Look at how many he managed to find. Now consider the complete absence of any of the solid evidence that we might expect to exist, such as photographs, yearbooks, student directories and report cards. We might also wonder how clear most of the identifications of Oswald actually were. Did the conversation go like this: "I remember him clearly, Mr Armstrong!" "You sure about that? I don't want to put anything in my book that isn't 100% certain. I have only the very highest standards. I'm not some unscrupulous huckster, you know." "Definitely, Mr Armstrong! It was Oswald all right!" Or like this: "I remember a boy, and he may have looked a bit like that guy we saw on the TV after the assassination." "That boy, his name was Oswald, wasn't it? Come on! It was Oswald! Tell me it was Oswald!" "Well, I'm not sure, but I suppose it could have been." "Great! Another clear recollection of Oswald at Stripling!" "By the way, Mr Armstrong, are you planning to mention that mastoidectomy defect in your book?" "Shut up about the mastoidectomy defect!"

Jim Hargrove writes: Famous speech, indeed! And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your doppelganger can do for you; ask what you can do for your doppelganger. We shall invent doppelgangers on the beaches, we shall invent doppelgangers on the landing grounds, we shall invent them in the fields and in the streets, we shall invent them in the hills; we shall never admit that it's all a load of made-up nonsense. Four score and seven years ago, a crazy guy who thought the moon landings were faked helped to bring forth on this continent a theory involving doppelgangers. The world will little note, nor long remember what this crazy guy said here, but it can never forget what the doppelgangers did here. I have a dream that one day, down in Texas, with its vicious racists, one day right there in Stripling Junior High School, imaginary doppelgangers will be able to join hands with actual human boys and girls. I have a dream today! I knew those famous speeches. Those famous speeches were friends of mine. Jim, that was no famous speech.