A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[W. Tracy Parnell]

First, this information has been available at Parker's website for ages now, so don't pretend it hasn't or that you are unable to follow a link. Second, I am not putting any spin on anything. This is Parker's analysis-he was the one who came up with it and I'll let him defend it (although I believe his explanation is very reasonable) and I'll post any reply he makes here. I have no desire to debate the issue now or in the future since I know for a fact there were not two Oswalds from the scientific and common sense evidence that says so. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Wrote:
Here's a little experiment to try: take the two sets of records to  different people wit no dog in this fight - preferably teachers, but at least people smart enough to interpret basic forms. Do not flag the issues. Do not provide Head's explanation. Give them nothing but the raw data and that there were 180 days in that school year and see what they come up with.

I couldn't understand Greg's reasoning right away, so I decided to deal with what I'm quoting here first, and then go back and try to figure out what Greg is talking about.

I don't have any really bright people around me, but I'm smart enough to "interpret basic forms." If I look at the Beauregard record while keeping in mind a school year consists of 180 days, here is what I see:

1. I see no 180s on the record, but the 12 and 168 for 1954/55 stand out because they add up to180. Since 12 is the number of days absent, 168 must be the number of days present, because together they add up to the total number of school days, 180.
   
   Therefore, the "Re-Ad"  column is used for recording the number of days present.
    
2. Looking at the same "total" row for school year 1953/54, I see 5 days absent and 179 days present. I add the numbers and get 184 for the total number of school days.
   
   Therefore, there were 180 school days in the 1954/55 school year, but 184 school days in the 1953/54 school year.

I don't know what Greg expects me to learn from that other than what I concluded. I don't understand why he says that the "Re-Ad" number can represent either the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period. It is obviously the latter.

Of course, the two numbers will be equal if there are zero absences, because the student will have attended every school day available. But the fact will remain that the Re-Ad column represents the number of days attended, not the number of days available to attend.

 

Now I will go back and try to figure out Greg's reasoning.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jim wrote:

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

------------------------

Greg replied:

Which is it? It is the former. It can in most cases also be the latter.

If Oswald had attended Beauregard for the entire school year, then Head would be correct when he said, "this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year." But since we know he was not in attendance at Beauregard for the entire school year, it is only the first part of Head's statement that applies - that is that it represents "(when added to days absent) the total listing of school days for a given school year." So we have 12 + 168 = the magic figure of 180 with some of that total transferring over from the PS 44 records.

 

Above is Greg's reasoning regarding the meaning of the "Re-Ad" column in the Beauregard school record. He presents a long list of problems he (supposedly) resolves as a result of his reasoning. (I don't quote them here.) I will try to understand Greg's reasoning sentence-by-sentence. I will use the following "abbreviations" in doing so:

DAYS TOTAL

DAYS PRESENT

DAYS ABSENT

DAYS TOTAL = DAYS PRESENT + DAYS ABSENT

 

Quote

If Oswald had attended Beauregard for the entire school year, then Head would be correct when he said, "this abbreviation ["Re-Ad"] indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year."

In the case of Oswald attending the entire year, Greg is saying that:

• "Re-Ad" means DAYS PRESENT
• DAYS PRESENT for 1953/54 would be 179 and for 1954/55 would be 168.

Next sentence:

Quote

But since we know he was not in attendance at Beauregard for the entire school year, it is only the first part of Head's statement that applies - that is that it ["Re-Ad"] represents "(when added to days absent) the total listing of school days for a given school year."

For some reason, according to Greg, the meaning of "Re-Ad" is different if Oswald didn't attend  the entire year. At least it looks that way. He says:

"["Re-Ad"] represents "(when added to days absent) the total listing of school days for a given school year."

In other words:

Re-Ad + DAYS ABSENT = DAYS TOTAL

Doing simple algebra, we get:  Re-Ad = DAYS PRESENT.

So in the case of Oswald not attending the entire year, Greg is saying that:

• "Re-Ad" means DAYS PRESENT
• DAYS PRESENT for 1953/54 would be 179 and for 1954/55 would be 168.

Hmmm... That is precisely what Greg said before. So he says the same thing whether Oswald attended the entire year or not.

Well that's good... at least Greg is consistent. So what Greg is saying is just this:

The "Re-Ad" column represents the DAYS PRESENT. Period.

(Why didn't he just say that??)

Final sentence:

Quote

So we have 12 + 168 = the magic figure of 180 with some of that total transferring over from the PS 44 records.

And if you add the 12 DAYS ABSENT to the 168 DAYS PRESENT, you get the 180 DAYS TOTAL. So the school didn't violate state regulations.

And so we see that Greg believes precisely what Jim and the rest of the H&L crowd believes. That the "Re-Ad" column represents the DAYS PRESENT.

What are we arguing about?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Without any evidence whatsoever, Mr. Parker claims that the 89 days in the top “Re-Ad” column of the Beauregard cumulative record includes days Oswald attended PS 44 in New York City. But there are no forwarded records from PS 44 in Oswald’s Beauregard file.  The only mention of PS 44 is in a record that indicates he previously attended “PS #44-Byron Junior High" in New York.

He hasn't said that yet, has he?

Regardless, that would make no sense. Why transfer the hours from PS 44 to Beauregard but not the classes? And how did Oswald complete a full course in Science in New Orleans after completing several full courses in NYC? And how did Oswald complete TWO Phys Ed classes, one in New Orleans and one in NYC?

This is nothing but muddled thinking.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

(although I believe his explanation is very reasonable)

Oh really? I dare you to explain the muddled part in your own words. (Because I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.)

(This is not a dig.... I don't understand it either.)

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh really? I dare you to explain the muddled part in your own words. (Because I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.)

(This is not a dig.... I don't understand it either.)

 

His explanation is that you guys are misinterpreting the school records in order to make the H&L theory work. But we know from other scientific and common sense evidence that there were not 2 Oswalds so the records are being misread or are incorrect. They are not "proof" of H&L. And that is probably all I am going to say on the matter since I don't like beating a dead horse.

[Jim Hargrove]

About the only thing intelligible in Mr. Parker’s “explanation” is that he wants us to believe that  the  89 days in the top “Re-Ad” column of the Beauregard cumulative record includes days Oswald attended PS 44 in New York City. But there are no forwarded records from PS 44 in Harvey Oswald’s Beauregard file.  The only mention of PS 44 is in a record that indicates he previously attended “PS #44-Byron Junior High" in New York.

But, as I mentioned earlier, there is no “Byron Junior High” in New York and, according to the New York Historical Society, there never was.  Again, since there are PS 44s in four or five of the five New York City boroughs, how would Beauregard have received information from an incorrectly identified school? John wrote: “Perhaps a false name for the school was provided so that Beauregard school personnel would be unable to obtain Oswald's New York school transcripts by mail.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Parker want us to believe that somehow, without knowing the correct name of the school, Beauregard included on its cumulative records days of attendance by Oswald in the non-existent “Byron Junior High.”  Mr. Parker calls this “Common sense prevailing with records transferring so no disadvantage accrues.”

No disadvantage?

Mr. Parker fails to point out that in the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York “Lee Harvey Oswald” obtained generally poor, but nevertheless passing grades in Language Arts (English), Mathematics, Social Studies, Health, Phys Ed, and Music.  So if the Beauregard cumulative record really reflected the days spent at the New York City school, it was a TREMENDOUS DISADVANTAGE to Oswald that his New York coursework was not counted.  All that was included in the fall 1953 semester Oswald had at Beauregard was “general science” (which he didn’t even take in New York in the fall 1953 semester) and phys ed. As Myra DaRouse noted on being shown the Beauregard record, Harvey Oswald was obviously a part time student in the fall ‘53 semester at Beauregard. LEE Oswald was a full-time student at PS 44 taking entirely different subjects (except for phys ed).

[Michael Cross]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

His explanation is that you guys are misinterpreting the school records in order to make the H&L theory work. 

Asserting that without offering specifics as to the PROPER interpretation is either intellectual laziness or purposeful disinformation.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 I dare you to explain the muddled part [of Greg's explanation] in your own words. Because I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.

(This is not a dig.... I don't understand it either.)

His explanation is that you guys are misinterpreting the school records in order to make the H&L theory work. But we know from other scientific and common sense evidence that there were not 2 Oswalds so the records are being misread or are incorrect. They are not "proof" of H&L. And that is probably all I am going to say on the matter since I don't like beating a dead horse.

Just as I suspected, you don't really understand Greg's muddled argument. You probably don't even know what I'm talking about. You should be ashamed for saying you agree with something you don't even understand, IMO.

What you really agree with is Greg's opinion that John is wrong, and you blame it on some pie-in-the-sky supposed misinterpretation.

Oh well, at least you're willing to post Greg's comments here. That's pretty decent of you. Thanks.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

His explanation is that you guys are misinterpreting the school records in order to make the H&L theory work. 

Asserting that without offering specifics as to the PROPER interpretation is either intellectual laziness or purposeful disinformation.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But we know from other scientific and common sense evidence that there were not 2 Oswalds

IOW - we know the shots came from the TSBD 6th floor window so there could not be shots from anywhere else...

Your assumption of proof remains tightly in place so Parker doesn't have to trash years of work since H&L is antithesis to his presentation.

Your argument is like Oswald not being at Odio's cause the FBI says he was in Mexico....  so it's not possible.

Tautological arguments are useless here Tracy...  "it isn't because it can't be"  

Pathetic. 

They're poor arguments even for you Tracy... 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

.... (although I believe [Greg's] explanation is very reasonable) ....
 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 I dare you to explain the muddled part [of Greg's explanation] in your own words. Because I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.

(This is not a dig.... I don't understand it either.)

His explanation is that you guys are misinterpreting the school records in order to make the H&L theory work.

Just as I suspected, you don't really understand Greg's muddled argument.

 

 

It really burns my bacon when somebody has no idea what another person is saying and yet gives him high-fives for "doin' a great job."

And it's not just the LNers doing it.  

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[David Josephs]

What's to misrepresent?

FBI says 200 days of school from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54
School record shows 200 days of school from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54

Oswald, in May 1952 was 5'4" & 115lbs.

The accounting of weekdays below shows only 123 possible school days for that child - or any child - to attend in that period.

Youth House is also missing entirely...

Nothing shown below is misrepresented... they are the actual FBI offered records and they were created after the fact to jive with the FBI reports.

The FBI got it very wrong and changed a record that would never reflect that information that way...  there are not over 120 school days from March 1953 until June 1953...

Sorry Tracy...  it seems you and yours are the ones misrepresenting the original evidence and the ease of using addition to prove how wrong it is...

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Cross said:

Asserting that without offering specifics as to the PROPER interpretation is either intellectual laziness or purposeful disinformation.

I'll agree that it is laziness to a certain degree since I do get tired of wasting my time here and I have spent years on this. It is up to the H&L gang to prove their case. Unfortunately for them, scientific evidence refutes it. As for the school records, it is simple. They want you to believe that the record shows an Oswald attending for a full year when we know that didn't happen. For this they rely on the statements of Mr. Head and his explanation of the records. Greg Parker has provided another explanation and will debate the H&L gang if and when he feels like it. In any case contrary to what they say, the school record thing does not prove the existence of two Oswalds. It is an anomaly in the record of which there are many as would be expected in the real world.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just as I suspected, you don't really understand Greg's muddled argument. You probably don't even know what I'm talking about. You should be ashamed for saying you agree with something you don't even understand, IMO.

What you really agree with is Greg's opinion that John is wrong, and you blame it on some pie-in-the-sky supposed misinterpretation.

Oh well, at least you're willing to post Greg's comments here. That's pretty decent of you. Thanks.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right and I don't understand the records. It doesn't make any difference what they say because we have hard scientific fact and common sense to tell us there were not 2 Oswalds. Only those that want to promote a certain viewpoint will ignore the evidence and latch on to something like this to claim it as "proof" of 2 Oswalds. The same way you cite all the eyewitnesses as more "proof."

Why don't you try this. Make a spreadsheet of ALL of the witnesses who thought they saw an Oswald. What you would find if you did it honestly is that you have "proof" of not two Oswalds but perhaps dozens because the descriptions would vary greatly. Will you then say there were a dozen Oswalds? What you guys fail to acknowledge is that witnesses are wrong and in any group of documents, especially one as large as you are dealing with here, there will be errors made and anomalies will occur. Those are undeniable facts.