James Norwood

Jeremy, Thank you for catching a mistake that I made in an earlier post. I have returned to what I wrote, and it was sloppy writing on my part to suggest that Bobby Pitts actually recalled Oswald attending Stripling. The point that I was attempting to express was that the composite testimony of the eyewitnesses identified (in parentheses) in the sentence you have identified clearly point to Oswald as a student at Stripling in 1954-55. But I acknowledge my error in syntax, and I'm glad that you pointed it out. I stand corrected on a poorly written sentence. At the same time, you are aware that on multiple occasions on this thread, I have clarified the exact testimony provided by Bobby Pitts, namely that he resided next door to Oswald on Thomas Place in Forth Worth in a location directly across from Stripling Junior High School. While he was not a fellow student at Stripling, Pitts' recall is important for two reasons: (1) he explicitly recalled Oswald living at 2220 Thomas Place and (2) the time frame was during the academic year 1954-55. Those revelations are corroborated by other eyewitnesses. You are correct when you write above that Pitts' testimony is part of a large tapestry of evidence. But you are badly mistaken in suggesting that the evidence is "flimsy." To the contrary, it is a substantial body of evidence that has been set forth in great detail on this thread. I simply cannot understand why you feel so threatened by the Harvey and Lee evidence that you would spend this much time with your screeds. You may not be aware of it, but your tract writing actually calls more attention to the thoughtful posts of Jim Hargrove, Sandy Larson, and David Josephs, wherein the ocular proof in documents and images is thoughtfully presented. The views of this thread now exceed 13,000. In your writing, you come across as an embittered, unhappy, and angry person. You need to be more respectful of fellow JFK researchers because we all share the same goal: the pursuit of the truth. James

Jeremy, Once again, you are taking the words that I have written out of context, distorting what I have written, selectively misrepresenting the words that I used, missing the bigger picture of the importance of Stripling, and failing to answer the questions that I have repeatedly asked you. Yesterday, David Josephs posted a set of criteria used by those who disrupt forum discussions. The following is a perfect description of your approach: "Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proof: Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material is irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by. In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, or deny that witnesses are acceptable." Take for example your limited understanding of the "totality of the evidence" as you write above. The totality of the evidence includes much more than Stripling. Within the period of 1954-56, there were three consecutive instances of Oswald enrolling in a school, then inexplicably dropping out. They include in chronological order: Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth (dropped out after approximately two months), Warren Easton High School in New Orleans (dropped out after a month), and Arlington Heights High School in Forth Worth (dropped out after a month). During this kid's entire upbringing, he was being moved around like a piece on a chessboard. The question is: why? The Warren Commission asserted that the years 1954-56 are critical for understand how Oswald was a malcontent and unable to adjust to his surroundings to the degree that he dropped out of school permanently and enlisted the Marines in October 1956: "Oswald inability of lack of desire to enter into meaningful relationships with other people continued during this period in New Orleans (1954-56). It probably contributed greatly to the general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment, a dissatisfaction which seemed to find expression at this particular point in his intense desire to join the Marines and get away from his surroundings and his mother." (384-85) My three questions for you are as follows: (1) Why does Warren Commission fail to offer a detailed chronology of the schools Oswald attended from 1954-56, in the section of the report quoted above? (2) Why does the Warren Commission fail to offer examples of Oswald's "general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment" during the critical period of 1954-56? (3) What is your view on how Oswald developed fluency in the Russian language at such a young age?

Jonathan, is obvious that you have not read Harvey and Lee or even a single article on the harveyandlee.net site. You are entitled to your opinion. But, sadly, opinions are all that you are capable of writing on this thread that is dedicated to exploring actual evidence. James

David, Very nice work in providing the background about the three schools. In the writing above, you have accomplished three things: (1) You have placed the Stripling discussion in context with three instances of Oswald dropping out of school and moving to a new location; (2) You are examining the totality of the evidence deriving from Marguerite in her own words as told to a reporter; and (3) You are synthesizing a trail of discrete pieces of evidence to see where it leads. And I know that you could provide unlimited imagery to document with primary evidence each and every one of your assertions. This is the kind of research/investigatory method that others should be following. It is obvious that the critics on this thread have not read Harvey and Lee or any of the outstanding articles on harveyandlee.net.

Jeremy, You continue to misrepresent what I have written about Bobby Pitts, and I have continued to answer all of your questions. Once again: Bobby Pitts resided next door to Oswald on Thomas Place in Forth Worth in a location directly across from Stripling Junior High School. Pitts' recall is important for two reasons: (1) he explicitly recalled Oswald living at 2220 Thomas Place and (2) the timeframe was during the academic year 1954-55. Pitts' testimony becomes important when placed alongside that of Fran Schubert because we have corroborating memories of Oswald residing at 2220 Thomas Place in the year 1954-55. Fran's memories build on Pitts' testimony because she was an actual student at Stripling in 1954-55. She recalled (a) Oswald on the playground; (b) Oswald walking in the halls between classes; and (c) Oswald crossing the street to return to his home. Other eyewitnesses corroborate more of these details, the most important of which is Vice-Principal Frank Kudlaty, who recalls on camera surrendering the school records to the FBI, which indicated that Oswald was enrolled at Stripling in the academic year 1954-55. The main point that I explained in detail to Mark was the importance of examining the totality of the evidence. Taken alone, Bobby Pitts' testimony does not seem significant. Its importance becomes apparent when examined in conjunction with other eyewitness testimony. Please stop distorting what I have written, and please refrain from the ad hominem attacks on this forum. When you write a statement like the one quoted above, you need to back it up with facts. Of course, you are unable to so because readers like Denny Zartman are following this thread and are clearly seeing the difference between evidence-based research and your writing of screeds. On multiple occasions, you have been asked to explain why the Warren Commission bypassed the topic of where Oswald attended school during the years 1954-56. Here is the key passage from the Warren Report: "Oswald inability of lack of desire to enter into meaningful relationships with other people continued during this period in New Orleans (1954-56). It probably contributed greatly to the general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment, a dissatisfaction which seemed to find expression at this particular point in his intense desire to join the Marines and get away from his surroundings and his mother." (384-85) The goal of this section of the report was to provide a detailed biographical profile of Oswald. The Commission's thesis above is that the years 1954-56 were critical in leading a malcontent teenager to drop out of school. So, why is it that the Commission studiously avoids mentioning the schools Oswald attended during this period? We are answering all of your questions. Why can't you answer ours?

John, Thanks for your post. I haven't spent much time in studying either the height or the eye color of Oswald. But the young man who enlisted in the Marines on October 24, 1956 was identified as having Hazel eyes. This is definitely Harvey Oswald. The Marine enlistment certificate must be distinguished from the “APPLICATION FOR ENLISTMENT AND INDIVIDUAL DATA CARD” that is in possession of the Chidgey family. I'm presently in the process of attempting to locate that document because it lists the addresses in which Oswald lived after age twelve that are written in his own hand. James

Jim, Many thanks for posting this interview. I felt that Stone responded very astutely to the edgy questions posed by the interviewer. The documentary sounds exciting, and Stone provided a good teaser, especially in his point about what we know today about Oswald: "The last thing is the C.I.A. connection to Oswald. This is also far from settled fact. We have a stronger case, not only for post-Russia but also for pre-Russia. In other words, he was working with the C.I.A. before he went and when he came back." Thanks! James

Fascinating! Any chance the application is online? Have you tried searching for it? If not, I'll try to find the time. Jim, Yes, this is a fascinating document! I have been unable to locate a copy online. I have written to the reporter who mentioned it in his 2013 article. He is an award-winning journalist in Texas. I will keep you posted if I learn anything new. James

Jeremy, When you engage in name-calling like the expression "paranoid fantasists" for those of us writing about the two Oswalds, then it is important to challenge your tract writing. Here is some pertinent background information: (1) John Armstrong began to share his research into the two Oswalds in the late 1990s. This was a kind of golden age of conferences on the JFK assassination, as they were occurring all over the nation in the decade following the release of Oliver Stone's film JFK. In his conference presentations, John received standing ovations for the research he was presenting. Several transcripts of the conference presentations appear on harveyandlee.net. (2) Harvey and Lee was published in 2003. It is a massive volume of nearly a thousand pages and requires multiple readings to digest. It is essential for the reader to work closely to the CD that includes images and documents. 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. The reviews of the book on Amazon speak for themselves as testimonials for those who recognize how this book has changed the way we think about Oswald and the JFK assassination. (3) On harveyandlee.net, John has published a series of essays on specialized topics covered in his book. Those essays have been acknowledged by multiple researchers as landmark investigatory studies in the JFK assassination. (4) On the Education Forum, Jim Hargrove has started threads on the two Oswalds that have attracted tens of thousands of views. Those who are interested in this topic do not take your screeds seriously because they have a transparent, biased agenda due to your limited and ill-informed perspectives on the life of Oswald. I first came to know about John Armstrong's research from reading several of his essays in the outstanding journal The Fourth Decade in the 1990s. I am not a proselytizer, and I am not interested in promoting John's work. I am only a student of the JFK case who is able to recognize a pioneering work of research when I see one and to avail myself of the invaluable archive of primary sources accessible through the Baylor University Library thanks to John Armstrong.

Jim and David, There is published in the Warren Commission Hearings the Marine enlistment certificate for Oswald, which lists his height at 5' 8". The enlistment date was October 24, 1956. The certificate is Commission Exhibit 635 on p. 289 of Volume XVII of the Hearings and Exhibits. It goes without saying that the difference between 5' 8" and 5' 11" is a substantial one for official Marine records. There was an interesting article published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 23, 2013, wherein another document, the Marine application form signed by Oswald, was discussed. At the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, Marine 1st Sgt. John G. Chidgey was head of recruiting for the Marines in the Fort Worth office. According to the article, Sgt. Chidgey went to the basement of the Federal Courthouse in Fort Worth and pulled out the “APPLICATION FOR ENLISTMENT AND INDIVIDUAL DATA CARD” for Oswald, dated October 24, 1956. As reported in the article, the application form confirms the height of the applicant as 5' 8". But another fascinating part of the application was the listing of the addresses where Oswald had resided after the age of twelve. This topic is germane to our ongoing discussion about Stripling Junior High School. If one of the addresses listed on the application form is 2220 Thomas Place in Fort Worth in 1954-55, then we have more corroborating evidence that Oswald attended Stripling. Sgt. Chidgey kept the application form in his personal possession, passing it on to this son, John T. Chidgey, an attorney in Houston, who died in 2019. If the document has remained in the Chidgey family, it is an important historical record. The newspaper article may be accessed at this site: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3837441.html Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3837441.html#storylink=cpy

Jeremy, No matter what degree of prolixity you adopt in your repetitive posts, you always come around to the same talking point: an eyewitness is "unreliable." 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. You and your cohorts have been asked a question about why the Warren Report avoided identifying the schools during the period of 1954-56, and we are still awaiting your reply.

To the Attention of: Jeremy Bojczuk Mark Stevens W. Tracy Parnell Robert Charles-Dunne 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. The reason why this question is important is that Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles insisted on a lengthy biographical overview of Oswald as part of the 888-page final report. Here is the pertinent information that the Commission included about this portion of Oswald's life: "Oswald's inability or lack of desire to enter into meaningful relationships with other people continued during this period in New Orleans (1954-56). It probably contributed greatly to the general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment, a dissatisfaction which seemed to find expression at this particular point in his intense desire to join the Marines and get away from his surroundings and his mother." (384-85) In this passage, the report locates Oswald's 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. After identifying Oswald's whereabouts in 1954-56, the Warren Report narrative neatly passes on to Oswald enlisting and serving in the Marines, bypassing the precise time frame we are discussing in this thread. Researcher Walt Brown wrote an excellent book called The Warren Omission, in which he demonstrates how the factual information omitted by the Commission should alert us to a pattern of deception and the flawed nature of the report. The omission of coverage of Oswald's education in 1954-55 is one of those omissions, which is why Bojczuk, Stevens, Parnell, and Charles-Dunne have been working overtime to obscure the truth about the facts pointing to Oswald having attended Stripling Junior High School in the academic year 1954-55.

Jim, Everything you wrote above is spot on. And, by the way, why can't Charles-Dunne and the other naysayers even make a stab at answering the question raised by David Josephs: Why did the WCR steer clear of the 54-55 school year? ANSWER: Charles-Dunn, Stevens, et al. haven't studied the evidence, and it's more fun for them to engage in harassment, as opposed to a civilized discussion.

Jim, This was a superb recap of the newspaper evidence. You've really taken Charles-Dunne to school on this one and everything else for that matter. Charles-Dunne is the one making unfounded assumptions. When we make assumptions, they are based on a body of evidence. James

Jim, Yes, Robert Oswald is important for (a) what he stated prior to the assassination, (b) his Warren Commission testimony, and (c) for what he intentionally omitted in his book. I also believe that the newspaper accounts you have posted are important reminders that Oswald's attendance at Stripling was in the memories of eyewitnesses. 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. James

Jeremy, Bobby Pitts' recollection is important because it corroborates Fran Schubert's recall of the academic year 1954-55 as the time when Lee Harvey Oswald was attending Stripling Junior High School. The fact that we have six eyewitnesses recalling a nondescript kid living across from the school at the time is compelling evidence. Pitts was not a student at Stripling at the time, but his testimony identifies Oswald as residing in a duplex across the street from the school, and the specific time frame was the 1954-55 school year. If a young boy is residing in that close proximity to the school, it is a fair assumption that he is enrolled at that institution. The flaw in the approach that you and your cohorts are taking to this topic is that you are attempting to discredit all of the eyewitnesses individually because he or she was not physically present with Oswald in a classroom at the school. In the JFK case, the evidence is so tainted that we have to rely on eyewitness testimony, and we have to rely on circumstantial evidence, in order to draw reasonable conclusions. This is true for any facet of the case, including ballistics, medical evidence at Parkland, medical evidence at Bethesda, and photographic and film evidence. We are all attempting to assemble a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces. What is most important is the totality of the evidence. When the Stripling matter is examined as a whole, the two most important eyewitnesses are Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert. The other eyewitnesses corroborate portions of the recall of a school administrator who surrendered the school records to the FBI and a student who recalls Oswald's physical presence at the school in 1954-55. It is remarkable that we have as many as six eyewitnesses who have some recollection of Oswald attending the school and residing in the vicinity in 1954-55. Because you and the others have failed to discredit the eyewitnesses or to demonstrate why their testimony is inaccurate, I stand by what I have written about Stripling.

In my letter of complaint to the administration of this forum, I noted that respondents like Robert Charles-Dunne inevitably resort to ad hominem name-calling once they have failed to refute the evidence. Here again, Charles-Dunne comes around to referring to me and Sandy Larson as "self-proclaimed publicists." What on earth does that statement mean??? There is no mystique about the question under discussion: did Oswald attend Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, or did he not? The question is answered by careful scrutiny of the evidence, which as been provided over and over on this thread by Jim Hargrove. The evidence overwhelmingly points to Oswald having attended the school and even resided across the street from the school. The administrator is now monitoring this thread, and I will continue to inform him of the ad hominem attacks in contravention of the site's ground rules.

To Whom It May Concern: I have filed a complaint letter to administrator about the following users: Jeremy Bojczuk Mark Stevens W. Tracy Parnell Robert Charles-Dunne • The rules clearly stipulate that threads should not devolve into chaos. The writers above intentionally want this thread to be chaotic which is why they repeat ridiculous questions that do not even merit replies. • I posted a commentary in response to a post by Mark Stevens, and, in reply, Stevens implied that I was lying. This is in contravention of the forum ground rules. • Forum members are not entitled to cast "aspersions" on other members. Yet the participants above repeatedly engage in subtle ad hominem attacks. It is small wonder that other members curious about the Harvey & Lee topic are reluctant to participate. • Two of the users above have been posting essentially the same snarky comments about the Harvey and Lee topic on this website's threads for years. • On this forum, I recently had a debate with Bill Simpich. Prior to the debate, Bill and I agreed on what issues we wanted to debate and how the debate would proceed. It turned out that we agreed on some issues and disagreed on others. But the debate unfolded in a professional, civilized manner. The four writers above are not interested in a debate. They seem capable only of disrupting a conversation and engaging in harassment.

Precisely. You have not raised one genuine question about this topic.

Jim, I concur that it is a waste of time to try to respond to the critics on this thread. If there were genuine questions raised or a legitimate interest in debating the Stripling evidence, then I would be eager to participate. Instead, the critics wear their biases on their sleeves and seem incapable of weighing and synthesizing different kinds of evidence. The links the critics provide are to other biased, opinion-based blogs and forums. The questions raised are irrelevant and expose the deficiencies of minds incapable of clear thinking. The last resort of the critics is the use of ad hominem to deflect the conversation away from the evidence. Thanks to you and Sandy, the body of evidence about Stripling has been clearly presented above. The three key pieces of evidence are (1) Frank Kudlaty's recall of surrendering school records to the FBI, documenting that Lee Harvey Oswald (not Robert) attended Stripling; (2) Fran Schubert's confident recall of Oswald attending the school during the academic year 1954-55; and (3) the evidence suggesting that Oswald resided across the street from the school. The ball is in the critics' court to refute those three pieces of evidence, plus a substantial body of secondary evidence. And it will not be sufficient merely to write it all off by suggesting that the witnesses had faulty memories.

Robert, Your commentary is not persuasive. In one stroke, you dismiss legitimate eyewitnesses due to the passing of time and their faulty memories. Then, typically of members on this site, you resort to ad hominem. There is nothing that Sandy wrote that is "condescending." He is only presenting evidence. Your post reads like a screed, as opposed to a well-reasoned argument.

Mark, There has been no debate. Jim, Sandy, and I have provided evidence and articulated conclusions based on the evidence. The others are offering biased opinions and referring readers to other websites, as opposed to subjecting the evidence to close scrutiny. You need to look evidence with greater care and make up your own mind, as opposed to asking us to explain it all to you. 'Nuff said.

Mark, I have studied the same documents as Jim Hargrove and Sandy Larsen, and I have come to the same conclusions as they have. In your critique above, you are not looking carefully enough at what the eyewitnesses stated in recalling the young Oswald (and not Robert) who was in attendance at Stripling. It is clear that we are missing key pieces of documentary evidence, especially in the disappearance of the school records. But that is the case for almost any aspect of the JFK case. In this instance, I believe the evidence supports two essential points: [1] Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School and [2] the time he was enrolled in the school was fall 1954. The inescapable conclusion is that this student was not the same Lee Harvey Oswald concurrently attending school in New Orleans for which we do have documentary evidence. Here is a summary of Stripling that I have written. Please let me know if you believe that I have misread or mistated any of the evidence. Robert Oswald told attorney Albert Jenner that “junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.” Robert was confused about the timeline, apparently forgetting the period his younger brother had spent in the New York public school system and at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans. But other eyewitnesses have established beyond doubt that Robert was correct in identifying one of the schools attended by Harvey Oswald in Fort Worth in junior high school. In fall 1954, Harvey attended part of the ninth grade at Stripling at a time when Lee Oswald was a student at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans. Harvey’s enrollment at Stripling followed his completion of the eighth grade at Beauregard in New Orleans the previous spring, where he was remembered by his homeroom teacher Myra DaRouse. If the Warren Commission had carefully followed through in interviewing the Stripling students, Robert Oswald’s testimony could have potentially exposed the two Oswald boys who were attending two different schools in two different cities in fall 1954. 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. 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. Shortly after the assassination, Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlati was instructed by his supervisor, Weldon Lucas, to meet with two FBI agents, who requested the academic records for Oswald. Kudlati dutifully surrendered the transcripts after perusing them himself. The records collected by the FBI agents disappeared and were never seen by the Warren Commission or the American public. In the aftermath of the assassination, the FBI should have been investigating the murder of the thirty-fifth president of the United States. Instead, the valuable time of the FBI agents was being spent in rounding up Oswald’s employment and school records, which, at face value, had no bearing on either the guilt or innocence of a suspect who had been shot to death on live television. But it had everything to do with concealing for posterity the identities of the two Oswald boys. A testimonial on behalf of Kudlaty comes from historian James DiEugenio, who writes the following in the second edition of his book Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case: Kudlaty’s credentials are beyond reproach. After leaving Stripling, he became Superintendent of Schools in Waco, Texas. He stayed there until his retirement in 1987. When the State Department selected a group of school administrators to advise the Chinese government on education, he was one of those chosen to attend….One of the most disturbing aspects of Kudlaty’s testimony is that the FBI had to have known Oswald attended Stripling ten years previous. Or else how could they have called Weldon Lucas the morning after the assassination. [3] Robert Oswald also attended Stripling, but there was no way that he could have been confused with his much younger brother, given the brothers’ age difference and the fact that multiple witnesses attending the school in fall 1954 remembered Harvey Oswald long after Robert had graduated. NOTES: [1] Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 1, 299. [2] Baylor University, Taped Interviews by John Armstrong Related to Lee Harvey Oswald, Francetta Schubert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVxa1B2wJjA&t=30s [3] James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case, second edition (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2012), 124.

John, Many thanks for your post. I just want to clarify that I do not believe that Oswald was sent to help the Russians shoot down the U-2. But I do believe that the timing of the apparent defection in 1959 was intended to disrupt efforts in diplomacy during the period of the thaw. The matter of the U-2 is a complex one. It is possible that Powers' aircraft was sabotaged with the intent for the plane to crash, and the Soviets may not have even shot it down. Here is Fletcher Prouty's analysis: "When the plane did not restart, Powers was forced to let it continue to spiral toward the earth, and then at a safer altitude either bail out...or continue down to the ground. Actually some of the early pictures of the U-2 showed an aircraft that was relatively undamaged, when one considers that it was hit by a rocket in the air and then crashed into the ground." (L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Political Review, 1973), 376. Oswald may have had no knowledge of Francis Gary Powers or his fateful U-2 flight that occurred on May 1, 1960. But his handlers may well have been using him as a pawn in the same way they used Powers. In earlier posts, Bill has discussed the shabby way that Oswald was treated by his superiors, and I agree that the treatment was abysmal. But if Fletcher Prouty is correct, then Powers wasn't treated any better if the intent was to sabotage his aircraft in the likelihood that he would either die in the crash or take a suicide capsule.

The true measurements on the "yardstick" become apparent by placing the Oswald sojourn carefully in its historical context. The fact that a United States Marine would attempt to defect to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was a major event. At this time of the "thaw," there were delicate negotiations for détente in the Paris summit scheduled for the following May. Fletcher Prouty has made the case that the U-2 spy plane debacle was an intentional act of sabotage designed by Richard Bissell of CIA in order to scuttle the peace talks. The Oswald defection served the same purpose at a time when Eisenhower was genuinely seeking rapprochement. When examined in this historical context, the Oswald project was a significant event, and Oswald was a significant asset. There is an inherent limitation to focusing exclusively on the documents, Bill. We must examine the totality of the evidence as the basis for our accurate yardstick.