Jeremy Bojczuk

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

How do you know that only one person had a clear recollection of Oswald attending Stripling? ... How many people are going to remember him decades later? ... It was a long time ago and people forget.

The 'Harvey and Lee' believers have put forward for our consideration only one person who appears to have a clear recollection of Oswald attending Stripling.

In an attempt to explain away the lack of witness evidence, Sandy has brought up the very reason why we should not place too much trust in the witnesses' testimony: they were recalling things that may or may not have happened four decades earlier. People don't just forget things over the years; people inadvertently invent things too.

As Robert points out, weak witness testimony is all there is.

James Norwood writes:

Quote

You continue to misrepresent what I have written about Bobby Pitts

No, I haven't. I quoted exactly what you wrote about Bobby Pitts, and I demonstrated that what you wrote was untrue.

You wrote that Bobby Pitts (and five other people) "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." The only evidence we have about what Pitts recalled is on pages 102-103 of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee. It states that Pitts did not himself attend the school, and that his only recollection was of someone whom he identified, 40 years later, as a boy named Oswald standing on a porch watching some boys playing football in their front yard. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School."

Your original claim was that "a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." At best, only one of those people "clearly recalled" such a thing, and that was at a distance of 40 years. Two of the others didn't even recall Oswald at all, let alone clearly. It is striking that, out of perhaps 300 people who might have recalled a mysterious eastern European doppelganger who went by the name of Oswald, the majority of whom would still have been alive 40 years later, only one person had anything like a clear recollection of Oswald attending Stripling.

The witness evidence is very weak, as you seem to acknowledge by admitting that "Taken alone, Bobby Pitts' testimony does not seem significant.  Its importance becomes apparent when examined in conjunction with other eyewitness testimony." Pitts, instead of clearly recalling Oswald attending Stripling, now merely provides weak corroboration for one small aspect of someone else's story. That's progress, I suppose.

Quote

The main point that I explained in detail to Mark was the importance of examining the totality of the evidence.

Again with "the totality of the evidence"! The totality of the Stripling evidence would comprise a small amount of weak eyewitness evidence, plus all the documentation that we might expect to find if an Oswald doppelganger had indeed attended Stripling. But there isn't any of that, is there? No photographs, no yearbooks, no student directories, no report cards. No solid evidence at all. The totality of the evidence confirms that the only Oswald who attended Stripling was Robert.

Quote

We are answering all of your questions.

I don't think so! Here's one, posed by Robert Charles-Dunne:

Quote

So, Galindo led to a further 41 former Stripling teachers, all of whom a thorough John Armstrong tracked down and quizzed....

Excellent.

How many of them verified that it was “common knowledge” LHO attended Stripling?

Oh, it has been answered, and the answer turns out to be ... zero.

Here are a few questions that haven't yet been answered, for obvious reasons:

Question 1
Where's the photograph of your 5' 11" Oswald doppelganger standing in front of a height chart? When someone entered the Marines, his height was measured against a height chart, and a photograph was taken, as we see with the photograph of the 5' 9" real-life Oswald. Why isn't there an equivalent photograph from when Oswald left the Marines? It's because an exact height measurement isn't important at that point, isn't it?

Question 2
How come we have, according to 'Harvey and Lee' believers, official records of one top-secret doppelganger entering the Marines and official records of the other top-secret doppelganger leaving the Marines? Why would the authorities give away the top-secret plot by publishing the partial records of both doppelgangers?

Question 3
John Armstrong knew that the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave had debunked his theory two decades before he published his book. He knew about the scientific report of Oswald's exhumation, which mentioned the defect. He cited the report in his book, but he failed to mention the defect that he knew debunked his theory. He misled his readers. Why did he do this?

Question 4
This is the question Mark asked in the first place: take each of your "six eyewitnesses" in turn and show us how each of them "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School."

Once you've answered these, I'm sure we'll find a few more that haven't yet been answered.

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

I'm following this thread and I don't agree with Mark.

Fair enough, but you must have noticed the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' consistent failure to answer reasonable but awkward questions. Even by the standard of 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda threads, the amount of evasiveness here has been remarkable. That's the thrust of Mark's comment. Surely you can't argue with that?

What makes this particular thread notable is not just the amount of evasiveness but the fact that it is happening on a topic, Stripling, that was brought up by the believers themselves, presumably as their trump card (sorry for the use of foul language there). They chose this particular battleground, and even here they can't deal properly with criticism of their beliefs.

Quote

how does one explain J. Edgar Hoover's memo of June 3, 1960 [which mentions] "a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate"

It is nothing but conjecture.

The "impostor" claim began when the one and only, historical Marguerite Oswald got in touch with the FBI after she hadn't heard from the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who at this time was in the USSR. The context is explained in the preceding paragraph of Hoover's memo:

Quote

In that report [by an FBI agent, John Fain] you will note that subject's mother, Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald, Fort Worth, Texas, advised that she recently received a letter addressed to her son from the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland indicating that Lee Oswald was expected at the college on April 20, 1960. She stated subject had taken his birth certificate with him when he left home. She was apprehensive about his safety because three letters she had written him since January 22, 1960, have been returned to her undelivered.

Evidently the combination of Oswald's unconfirmed location and the absence of his birth certificate led to speculation ("a possibility") at FBI HQ. We know it was no more than speculation because Hoover produced no evidence that anyone was using Oswald's birth certificate. As is the way with 'Harvey and Lee' talking points, harmless speculation has been transformed into sinister fact. There's nothing to it.

Incidentally, Tracy Parnell has written a good account of the role of Oswald's birth certificate in the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html.

Even more incidentally, a friend of Jim's reminds us (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209p25-dear-jim#33915) that the account of Hoover's memo on the home page of Jim's website is inaccurate. It claims that "FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate". Hoover wasn't "stating" it; he merely noted the "possibility". Naughty Jim! The moral of the story: if someone tries to sell you a far-fetched super-conspiracy theory involving doppelganger boys and their doppelganger mothers, don't believe a word of it without checking the sources.

Quote

how does one explain the multiple instances of Oswald possibly being impersonated in Dallas and in Mexico City just prior to the assassination

It does look as though Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City (the best online account of this is Bill Simpich's State Secret at https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html). Oswald may well have been impersonated at the encounter with Silvia Odio in late September 1963 (for my view, see http://22november1963.org.uk/silvia-odio-visitors; for an alternative view, see https://gregrparker.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Sylvia-Odio.pdf). Each of these incidents can be explained without requiring a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme.

Apart from that, there's nothing that can't be explained by the well-known phenomenon that big news events often generate large numbers of honest but mistaken sightings of the central characters. We shouldn't be surprised that people absorbed facts about the assassination and then claimed to have seen Oswald at a rifle range or getting his rifle fixed. And even if these specific instances were indeed impersonations, there's again no need to propose a long-term doppelganger scheme to explain them.

The 'Harvey and Lee' superstition relies on the assumption that there's no smoke without doppelgangers. But it's the other way round: unless they can prove otherwise, there's always smoke without doppelgangers. It doesn't matter how many items of evidence there are, if each item is weak. Quality is far more important than quantity.

It's essential to take a skeptical view of 'Harvey and Lee' claims; the onus is on the the believers to prove their case, not for anyone else to disprove it. If there's a plausible alternative explanation, the 'Harvey and Lee' explanation goes in the bin.

Quote

If the answers to either/both 1 or 2 are "yes, I do believe Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 and/or in 1963", then in my opinion that person should lay off calling the Harvey and Lee theory nonsense.

I understand the point you're making, but the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is clearly nonsensical no matter whether or not Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 (he almost certainly wasn't) or 1963 (he almost certainly was). The central element of the theory is the claim that these and other impersonations were the results of a long-term top-secret plot in which two unrelated boys were chosen at a young age in the hope that they would grow up to look identical years later. There's also the claim that each doppelganger boy had a doppelganger mother, and that one of the boys and one of the mothers disappeared into thin air immediately after the assassination. The notion is constructed out of decades-old witness recollections and tendentious interpretations of anomalies in the documentary and photographic records. And we mustn't forget the small fact that the theory was debunked two decades before its foundational text was published. It is obviously nonsense.

Quote

clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.

Closer examination, certainly, but not the invention of preposterous long-term doppelganger plots. The impersonation in Mexico City and the Odio incident have perfectly plausible explanations that don't require two unrelated boys to have been chosen at a young age in the hope that they would grow up to look identical years later, and all the other improbable things that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory requires its believers to swallow.

Mark Stevens writes:

Quote

This is one of the most impossible threads I've been a part of in my 25 years on discussion boards/forums.

I was foolishly going to chime in regarding the head size, I figured what would be the point though?

Instead of actually addressing my statements, the H&L group would just claim "what about the school records."

If one foolishly attempts to discuss the records the reply is "explain the witnesses then."

If one foolishly attempts to discuss the witnesses the reply is "what about the 13 inch head."

If one foolishly attempts to discuss that the reply is "well explain the dental records then."At no point is any real attempt at discussion made. It is just a vicious cycle of redirecting the flow of discussion.

I think everyone who has been following this thread will agree with Mark. We're dealing with people who will do anything to get out of admitting that they are wrong.

Whenever someone points out a problem, Jim Hargrove usually responds in one of three ways:

- ignore the criticism and answer a question that wasn't asked;
- ignore the criticism and repeat the very 'Harvey and Lee' talking point that's being criticised;
- ignore the criticism and try to move the discussion onto a different 'Harvey and Lee' talking point.

Then there's the thin-skinned James Norwood, who made the obviously incorrect claim that witnesses such as Bobby Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School", and when challenged about it tried to bluff his way out by claiming that "I described Pitts' testimony very precisely and accurately". He was then challenged about that incorrect claim, and has so far failed to respond. Still, that was only a few days ago, so perhaps he'll be brave enough to answer the question eventually.

As someone said on another forum:

Quote

They will just carry on as if nothing happened. Shame on the mods there for letting this garbage theory pollute their forum.

It's been a disgraceful performance. Don't the 'Harvey and Lee' believers appreciate how their behaviour makes them look?

It doesn't make the Education Forum look good, either. If James Gordon is reading this and is thinking of closing down this thread, I'd ask him to reconsider. As long as this thread is open, the 'Harvey and Lee' believers are at least contained here and not filling the rest of the forum with their long-discredited theory.

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

The 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list LHO’s height as 5’11”.

Yes, we know that the 5' 11" height appears in official documents. Here is the question Jim is avoiding: what evidence do you have that Oswald was measured against a height chart? Where's the photograph of Oswald standing in front of a height chart, like the one that was taken when he entered the Marines?

You've been given a plausible reason to explain why no such photograph exists, and why the height is inaccurate. Exact heights would have been of no interest to the Marines when the subject was about to leave the service.

Where's the photograph? Let me guess ... it was destroyed! The bad guys destroyed the photograph to protect the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme! They couldn't risk any information getting out that might give away the plot!

Which leads us back to the other point I made, which Jim has yet to answer. If his preposterous theory is true, we have the official records of one doppelganger entering the Marines and official records of the other doppelganger leaving the Marines. Why would the authorities give away the plot by publishing the partial records of both doppelgangers?

Of course, what we actually have are the records of one real-life person, the historical Lee Harvey Oswald, entering and leaving the Marines.

Jim was also asked to deal with the problems with the Stripling witnesses. This time, his tactic for avoiding the question was to demand:

Quote

Have you found a published retraction from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the FIVE ARTICLES it printed saying LHO attended Stripling?

Why should we expect to find a published retraction?

The point is that a perfectly plausible reason has been put forward to explain those articles. Robert Oswald's incorrect assumption about his brother attending Stripling found its way into the first article, and the following articles simply repeated the claim.

Now, how about dealing with the problems with the Stripling witnesses?

- You could start by answering the questions Mark Stevens asked in this post, about the witnesses who supposedly "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423175.

- Then you could answer the question Robert Charles-Dunne asked in this post, and produce evidence for the claim that it was "common knowledge" that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423639.

John Butler writes:

Quote

Here's something for those fellows to decry.  It's a direct consequence of the head size difference

In response to one of Mr Butler's earlier masterful attempts at photographic analysis, another member wrote:

Quote

Are you completely mad or just pretending?

There is no head-size difference. It's just one more ridiculous piece of nonsense put forward by 'Harvey and Lee' believers:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

No wonder you NEVER, EVER make Mr. Parker's arguments here.  You just post a link with a few dismissive comments and hope no one takes the time to actually read the nonsense you have linked.

As we've pointed out in the past, what's the problem with posting links? That's what the web is all about. Jim himself seems happy to post links to one particular website, so why shouldn't others do the same?

Here's a link Jim might like to follow. It's to a thread dedicated to him personally, which he is welcome to participate in, if he feels brave enough:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209p25-dear-jim#33894

In this case, I'll "make Mr. Parker's arguments here", as Jim demands. Greg makes four points:

(a) The official measurements were approximate. He provides a link (Oh no! A link! Bring the smelling salts!) to http://www.militaryspot.com/marines/height-and-weight-requirements-marine-corps, which explains that "height measurement will be recorded to the nearest inch. If height fraction is less than ½ inch, round down to the nearest inch. If height fraction is ½ inch or more, round up."

(b) Marines had their heights measured so that their overall fitness could be judged. That wouldn't matter for someone leaving the service. If Jim is claiming that official measurements were taken on exit as well as on entry, where's the photograph of our 5' 11" doppelganger standing against a height chart?

(c) Is Jim really claiming that the authorities decided that the best way to keep the top-secret doppelganger scheme secret was to provide records of one doppelganger entering the Marines and the other doppelganger leaving the Marines? Greg expresses this point well, but in terms that might not be acceptable here. I suggest you click on that link and read it for yourself.

(d) Stop with this latest distraction and face up to the problems with the Stripling witnesses, or rather the lack of witnesses.

James Norwood writes:

Quote

When you engage in name-calling like the expression "paranoid fantasists" for those of us writing about the two Oswalds

I'm not sure about the clinical definition of 'paranoid', but the popular definition surely covers people who take a series of anomalies in written documents, witness statements and photographs, and construct a far-fetched long-term doppelganger scheme run by all-powerful evil overlords in which two unrelated boys from different parts of the world magically grow up to look virtually identical years later, and each doppelganger boy has a virtually identical-looking (apart from their eyebrows) mother, and one of the doppelganger boys frames the other for the JFK assassination, and one of the imaginary boy doppelgangers and one of the imaginary mother doppelgangers each vanishes into thin air immediately after the assassination, and all the rest of it.

As well as all the far-fetched nonsense, we mustn't forget the standard 'Harvey and Lee' explanation for any item of evidence that contradicts doctrine. "It's a fake!" Paranoid, in its popular definition, is a pretty accurate word in the 'Harvey and Lee' context, I think.

Quote

Harvey and Lee was published in 2003. ... It is also important that the reader approach the material with a healthy skepticism and draw conclusions based on the evidence, as opposed to the words of the author.

I agree. Unfortunately, skepticism of the holy text is exactly what 'Harvey and Lee' believers are lacking. Take, for example, the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, and the fact that this item of evidence contradicts a central part of Armstrong's theory. How many 'Harvey and Lee' believers have expressed skepticism about Armstrong's treatment of this evidence? I think you'll find it's only the critics who have brought it up. The believers have run away from it. Indeed, it was the desire to avoid discussing the mastoidectomy defect that turned this thread into a discussion of the Stripling evidence, as you'll see if you go back to the top of page 12 and follow things from there.

Let's see how skeptical the 'Harvey and Lee' believers really are. Armstrong knew about the scientists' report that mentioned the existence of the mastoidectomy defect. The report was published two decades before Harvey and Lee, and he cited it in his book. He must have known that the defect contradicted the doppelgangers' biographies that he had carefully constructed. He specifically claimed that the doppelganger who had undergone the operation was not the one who was buried in the grave.

Yet he didn't mention the crucial fact in his book. He misled his readers. A skeptic might say that Armstrong was being dishonest by not mentioning to his readers that a central element of his theory had been debunked two decades earlier. What do you think? Was Armstrong being dishonest? And how would you, in skeptical mode, resolve the contradiction between the mastoidectomy defect and standard 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine?

Tracy Parnell writes:

Quote

I've often said that using the H&L logic there could be a hundred Oswalds if you consider all of the discrepancies and false sightings.

As well as height discrepancies and false sightings, we mustn't forget the photographs. Jack "the moon landings were faked" White's montage contains 70-odd images. Using 'Harvey and Lee' logic, there are dozens of different Oswalds in there.

Simple variations in Oswald's pose are taken to define a new Oswald. In this picture, he's got normal shoulders; in that picture, he's got sloping shoulders. Those pictures show two different Oswalds! There's no other possible explanation!

In this other picture, he's standing some distance in front of a height chart, which gives the impression that he's got a 13-inch head! That's much bigger than most people's heads! That means one of the hundreds of Oswalds had an extra-large head! There's no other possible explanation!

And so on. The 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense is just one aspect of the paranoid, anomaly-hunting mentality that has infected this subject. Oswald was a fake; his mother was a fake; the Zapruder film is a fake; the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake; the wounds on JFK's body were fakes; the Jack Ruby who shot one of the fake Oswalds was a fake. Everything is a fake.

Put yourself in the shoes of an outsider who comes across this sort of nonsense for the first time. You'd probably conclude that everyone who's interested in the JFK assassination is a lunatic, wouldn't you?

David Josephs writes:

Quote

In terms of films... Towner, Muchmore, Nix, Zapruder, Bronson....  how about you give us the chain of custody for all these films and their copies....
Or explain how they were set to frame rates in the low 20's and high teens... as opposed to actual camera settings of 16 and 48 frames per second

Then again you STILL aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know...  so, whatever... right?

Yes, I know, all the films were faked. Everything's a fake.

Quote

How many photographs of the assassination sequence do you think there are?

The point is: how many images from Dealey Plaza did the authorities think there were?

As well as explaining the mechanism of a self-authenticating photo record, Thompson pointed out that the authorities had no way of knowing how many photos and home movies actually existed. Contrary to popular belief, there was no mass harvesting of films and cameras. Many people left Dealey Plaza with their films and cameras intact, as I pointed out in this post. Some of these photographers remained unknown to the authorities until months or even years later.

And that's just the ones we know about. Others may still be unknown. The woman popularly known as the Babushka Lady is the most obvious example. She's standing close to JFK as he is shot, and is pointing a still or movie camera at him. What happened to her film? Is it out there somewhere, waiting to be discovered? Probably not, but who can say for certain? If you were going to fake, say, the Zapruder film, you'd want to eliminate that possibility, wouldn't you? And you'd want to eliminate the possibility of other images turning up, too, but you can't because you don't know how many there might be.

The authorities had no idea how many photos or home movies might turn up in the future to expose any alterations they might make to the images they knew about. Given that a single obvious discrepancy would blow the whole photo-fakery plot wide open, how many alterations would it be safe to make? You might get away with, say, spotting out a small blemish on the back of JFK's head in the Zapruder film to hide an exit wound (as has been suggested, though the Zavada report shows that this couldn't have happened). Mass fakery of home movies and still images? Come on!

James Norwood writes:

Quote

I described Pitts' testimony very precisely and accurately, and you are misrepresenting what I wrote and once again casting aspersions that have no place in this forum.  Your argument will not persuade anyone, and you are in violation of the forum guidelines by stringing out the discussion until the thread devolves into chaos.  Please cease and desist and follow the agreed-upon rules of the Ed Forum.

How exactly was I "misrepresenting" what you wrote? This is what you wrote:

Quote

In addition to the testimony of Robert Oswald, a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School.

You were claiming that Bobby Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School". What's the evidence for this claim? You didn't cite any evidence then, and you haven't done so since. Let's see whether Scripture can help us out. If we turn to pages 102 and 103 of the cult's holy book, we find Armstrong's account of Pitts' recollections:

Quote

I located Bobby Pitts, who lived next door at 2224 Thomas Place during the 1954-55 school year. Bobbie [sic] was in the 10th grade at Arlington Heights High School but his younger brother, Jackie (2 years younger), attended Stripling. Bobbie [sic] remembered that when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee Harvey [bold in the original] Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch.

Armstrong doesn't provide a footnote for this passage, and his CD doesn't include any documents relating to Bobby Pitts for the years 1954 or 1955. It looks as though the passage I quoted is all the evidence we have about Pitts' recollection of something that may or may not have happened 40 years earlier.

That passage of Scripture contains absolutely nothing about a boy named Oswald attending Stripling school. Pitts did not recall what James claims he recalled. What James wrote was untrue, and I did not misrepresent him when I stated:

Quote

Pitts' recollection was (... how should I put it so that I don't get reported to teacher?) less than entirely accurately described by James

If anything, I was too generous to James. His "attending Stripling Junior High School" claim was a complete invention.

James "described Pitts' testimony very precisely and accurately," did he? I think our thin-skinned friend owes us a couple of apologies, firstly for making his untrue claim about Bobby Pitts, and secondly for accusing me of misrepresenting him:

Quote

In my zealous desire to spread the gospel of Armstrong, praise his name, I made a claim about Bobby Pitts that was clearly untrue. I and my fellow believers knew that what I wrote was untrue, which is why we all repeatedly refused to answer Mark Stevens' reasonable questions about it. May Armstrong forgive me for making his theory even more of a laughing-stock that it was before.

Something along those lines should do it.

David Josephs writes:

Quote

Nothing is “self-authenticating” Jon....  especially in the FBI’s grab bag of bs evidence...

How does the zfilm accomplish this Jon?   When we know for a fact it was heavily altered....?

In fact, use whatever image or film u like and please explain SELF AUTHENTICATING....

And then look up what evidence authentication means...

[All those ellipses were in David's post, by the way; I didn't edit anything. The English language has since got to its feet, and is expected to make a full recovery.]

The self-authentication concept was described by Josiah Thompson here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

He is saying that the whole of the photographic record from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating. Dozens of people were taking photographs and home movies in Dealey Plaza, and many of those images overlap. Photograph A was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Home Movie B, which was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Photograph C. And so on.

Because there is a mass of interacting images, altering one image is likely to generate discrepancies with other images, which would give the game away. The nefarious alteration of Image X is likely to require the alteration of Image Y, which will then require the alteration of Image Z. And so on.

Of course, no such discrepancies have yet been demonstrated (but that's another story, for another thread), which means that it is highly unlikely that any substantial alteration of the photographic evidence from Dealey Plaza took place.

Look at David's post again. Everything is a fake! It's hardly surprising that he ended up as a 'Harvey and Lee' believer, is it?

David Josephs writes:

Quote

Standard COINTELPRO techniques for disrupting forums

Is David really suggesting that those of us who dare to question the 'Harvey and Lee' cult are working on behalf of some nefarious official agency? Which one? The CIA? The FBI? The BBC?

I'd guess our thin-skinned friend James Norwood is just about to jump in and report David to Mr Gordon, the headmaster, for casting aspersions about fellow members. Don't do it, James! It's only David Josephs. He really does seem to think that if you don't support the 'Harvey and Lee' gospel and every other piece of far-fetched everything-is-a-fake nonsense, you must have sold your soul to the lone-nut theory-believing devil. No-one takes these remarks seriously. Well, maybe John Butler does.

There are at least two good reasons for critics of the lone-nut theory to oppose the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. Firstly, as we've seen with the Stripling stuff, it's based on no solid evidence at all, just a mess of anomalies, decades-old witness testimony, and unsubstantiated claims of fakery and document destruction. It's an invention, and it was debunked two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was published, by the discovery of a mastoidectomy defect on the body exhumed from Oswald's grave, thereby contradicting a central part of Armstrong's theory: the biographies of his two imaginary doppelgangers.

Secondly, and more importantly, it has the capacity to harm the public's perception of the JFK assassination debate. If the public starts to see it as a contest between the lone-nut theory and everything-is-a-fake nonsense such as 'Harvey and Lee', several things are likely to happen.

The rational majority of the general public will assume that the lone-nut theory must be correct. When people in the real world are introduced to a notion like a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme, most of them will dismiss it out of hand as a crazy fantasy, because in their non-paranoid experience the world doesn't work like that.

These are the people who are likely to be the most receptive to genuine criticism of the lone-nut theory, and whose support will be necessary for any future official investigation into the assassination. It was public pressure that prompted both the formation of the HSCA and the passing of the ARRB legislation (inadequate though each turned out to be), and it is only public pressure that can do the same job in the future.

As well as its effect on the general public, the everything-is-a-fake nonsense will turn away genuine researchers and those who might in due course become genuine researchers. How many intelligent people are there who developed an interest in the JFK assassination, and then learned that their time and effort was going to be taken up arguing with paranoid fantasists rather than doing proper research, and moved onto something more rewarding? Readers who have been following this forum for the last decade or so may have noticed the number of serious researchers who have either moved elsewhere (such as Greg Parker's forum) or who have given up on the JFK assassination altogether due to the amount of far-fetched nonsense they've had to deal with here.

Having said that, the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense isn't quite the craziest JFK stuff on the net. Check out this Altgens-6-is-a-fake idiocy:

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html

What hope is there, when there's stuff like this floating around?

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:

Quote

There are simply too many references to Stripling at so many different times that make it impossible to dismiss Oswald's enrollment at that school.  This work in pulling together the details was exactly what I had in mind in writing about the totality of evidence, as opposed to examining each piece in a vacuum.

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:

Quote

the [Warren] report locates Oswald's [sic] in 1954-56 in New Orleans.  But if it turns out that he attended school in Fort Worth during the academic year 1954-55, there is yet another gaping hole in the Warren Commission's biography of Oswald.

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:

Quote

You have been asked a question about why the Warren Commission skated around the issue of Oswald's education in the academic year 1954, and no response has been forthcoming.

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:

Quote

When you learn to answer direct questions, such as I've posed - as have at least three others - I'll be here.  Until you're prepared to meet that obligation, this thread has been and will remain a disaster for H&L.

John Butler also writes:

Quote

the FBI altered the railroad workers testimony. ... The 10 railroad workers lied.  They were not on the railroad bridge contrary to Altgens 7 and later scenes in the Bell film.

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:

Quote

I'm not sure it's a good idea to continue using this [Fort Worth Star-Telegram] newspaper article. ... This article in all probability was retyped sometime in the mid to late 1990's with MS Word.

What is important is the small script printing error in this 1963 Fort Worth Star-Telegram material.  It is an anachronism.  News papers didn't make that kind of mistake in the 60s.  The only entity that I know of that did was MS Word from the 1990s.  It was either MS Word for Windows 1995 V.7 or Ms Word 1997.

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:

Quote

Nobody's "harassing" anyone as evidenced by the fact that your compliant to the moderators produced no expulsions or even warnings as far as I know.

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:

Quote

Are we going to ignore the fact that Kudlaty himself has cast reasonable suspicion on the entire Stripling story? He himself states the records he gave over to the FBI may in fact have been his elementary school records and that Armstrong may already have them.

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:

Quote

You [Jim Hargrove] don't want to stay on the topic of Stripling, because you cannot answer the questions asked.  Which is why you rush along to other anomalies, without explaining the ones that surround Stripling.

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:

Quote

a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School.

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:

Quote

Pitts: eyewitness to "when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee Harvey Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch."

Again, this is the totality of Pitts' knowledge of LHO attending Stripling. This totality is actually him knowing absolutely nothing about LHO attending the school. His knowledge is strictly limited to remembering a boy who resembled LHO standing on the porch of 2260 Thomas Place watching them play. Never mind the fact that according to Armstrong, HLO lived in the rear apartment, and would be unlikely to be sitting on the porch of a house he didn't actually live in. If you live in the rear apartment of a front/rear duplex, there is clear separation of a porch. It would not be shared, the rear tenant would not hang out on the front porch and definitely would not just walk into the front apartment, without some preexisting relationship which allowed this type of behavior.

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:

Quote

All that matters is EVIDENCE!  Do ANY of you guys ever present EVIDENCE?

As usual, Robert Charles-Dunne sums things up best:

Quote

Those who make a claim are responsible for proving it via corroborative evidence or witnesses.  Those who question the claims are not.  For a group of smart men, you seem to know little about how this process works.  You present evidence, we get to cross-examine.  If that strikes you as unfair, find a new hobby.

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:

Quote

How is it that you can assert as fact what you cannot demonstrate to be true?  And why do you then complain of the horrible unfairness you suffer here for being asked to offer your proof.

Oh, of course.  Because you have none.

James Norwood writes:

Quote

The writers above intentionally want this thread to be chaotic which is why they repeat ridiculous questions that do not even merit replies.

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) :

Quote

a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School. In a videotaped interview, student Fran Schubert told John Armstrong that she recalled Oswald attending Stripling in fall 1954, and she noted that he resided with his mother across the street from the school.

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:

Quote

We started with a total of six eyewitnesses who "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." ... What we are left with though, is something a little different than that ... They though are not eyewitnesses. What they are is 1 eyewitness to LHO attending the school in 1954 (Kudlaty), 1 eyewitness to LHO attending in 1952 (Summers), 3 people who at best remember someone they think might be LHO going to the school (Schubert/Tubbs, Galindo, Gann), and 1 person who saw him at a house across the street (Gann). Take it for whatever it may be. This mishmash of ambiguity and unclear, unhashed characters is not though a total of six eyewitness to LHO attending Stripling. Exclaiming otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

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:

Quote

Pitts: eyewitness to "when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee Harvey Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch."

Again, this is the totality of Pitts' knowledge of LHO attending Stripling. This totality is actually him knowing absolutely nothing about LHO attending the school. His knowledge is strictly limited to remembering a boy who resembled LHO standing on the porch of 2260 Thomas Place watching them play. Never mind the fact that according to Armstrong, HLO lived in the rear apartment, and would be unlikely to be sitting on the porch of a house he didn't actually live in. If you live in the rear apartment of a front/rear duplex, there is clear separation of a porch. It would not be shared, the rear tenant would not hang out on the front porch and definitely would not just walk into the front apartment, without some preexisting relationship which allowed this type of behavior.

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!