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

[Michael Walton]

14 hours ago, David Josephs said:

The FBI forged the boy's school records by changing the cumulative PERM record.  All the information from each school is sent to a central location where PERM records are kept...  

David - they didn't always forge everything including these records. These records go back 10 whole years before the murder.  Why in the world would they ever want to forge 10-year-old records?!  It doesn't make sense because it has no real bearing on the JFK murder. If the government was trying to paint the Oswald arrested in Dallas on 11/22 as the sole assassin by trumping up his history - that he was a wife beater showing he had a violent streak or was in MC planning his grand escape to either Cuba or Russia after he kills Kennedy - then, yes, I can see that happening just like I can see them fudging the rifle order purchase.

The FBI's main goal after 11/22 was to pin the blame on Oswald.  That's all. Creating a whole Oswald clone story by making it appear that he had a super-secret government-sponsored clone goes completely goes AGAINST their intended aims because if they tried to make it look like Oswald was involved in some secret clone operation, then that actually PROVES conspiracy or will raise a lot of red flags in the official narrative of what happened.

Remember what Katzenbach wrote? That was the government's marching orders right there - blame (the now dead) Oswald and show he had no confederates, that he acted alone.

Taking these incomplete records of his school history and turning it into the HL fantasy story is actually beneath you as a serious researcher after the good work you did on the MC story. Not everything about this case has been faked nor forged and for you to believe the crazy HL story really throws that MC story you wrote into serious question of whether you can plausibly and reasonably analyze the case. It'd be like John Newman - after all of the good work he's done - suddenly doing an about-face and saying Kennedy was murdered by little green men hiding in Jackie's pink suit.

It would also be like Pat Speer - another researcher who I respect and tries to keep it real and doesn't venture into the "batxxxx crazy" wing of researchers you find on this forum - would suddenly say that the Zapruder film was actually produced on a Hollywood studio backlot.

To be honest, it's really shocking that you're so into this crazy HL story after writing your well-documented MC story. I guess it just goes to show that even good researchers can let craziness get the better of them.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Walton spends so much time trying to heap scorn on the evidence for Harvey and Lee and everyone who recognizes those facts that he doesn’t have time to understand even the most basic aspects of the evidence.  Mr. Walton seems to understand that “a super-secret government-sponsored clone” as he puts it, “would make it look like Oswald was involved in some secret clone operation, then that actually PROVES conspiracy or will raise a lot of red flags in the official narrative of what happened.”

Indeed!  What Mr. Walton clearly doesn’t understand is that the FBI tried hard to make the evidence for two Oswalds disappear.  This evidence actually goes back more than ten years before the assassination.  This is why, for example, Hoover had to combine the school records for two boys going by the same name and try to make it appear that only one boy existed. That is why the Stripling school records all disappeared, despite all the people who said Oswald attended it.

And the FBI made mistakes.  The NYC school records do not jibe with the truancy case and, of course, they clearly show that one young boy attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans.  Despite the size and power of his FBI, Hoover was not able to cover all his bases, and the material he neglected to bury or alter is what we have left to figure out what happened in this case, and to figure out the true biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Mr. Walton clearly is not interested in understanding even the most basic elements of the Harvey and Lee evidence, and his lack of understanding is clearly shown in his post above.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

49 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That is why the Stripling school records all disappeared, despite all the people who said Oswald attended it.

The only evidence that the Stripling records "disappeared" is from Frank Kudlaty. He was speaking 30 + years after the fact and as I have pointed out many times, Armstrong has a way of getting witnesses to "remember" amazing facts that help the H&L cause. If Kudlaty was so concerned that the FBI had confiscated records why didn't he speak out at the time and/or demand a receipt? This is just another witness statement that has little credibility without supporting evidence. Yet the H&L people repeat this as a "fact."

[Michael Walton]

Jim - no scorn here.  Ask yourself - does this whole fairy tale really exist? Ten whole years before the assassination? David Josephs is now claiming that the FBI faked his school records for crying aloud!  When will the silliness all end? And I guess you believe Josephs too - that you, too, actually believe this nonsense, in addition to all of the other nonsense piled into one big pile?

I mean, I never seen you post on other threads - this HL caper seems to be the only one you speak of.  What about everything else on here?  Are you that carried away with Armstrong's story (or are you in fact John A?) that your sole aim is to keep this story alive for god knows what reason?

[Bernie Laverick]

Wasn't Jack White the one who put Armstrong and Kudlaty together?

And wasn't Jack White, when challenged on Kudlaty's reliability, the one who revealed that he had known him for "over 50 years" and could "personally vouch for his credibility"?

So we have a researcher who is hooked on H&L, Jack White, offering up personal friends like Frank Kudlaty, to tell the 'story' of some missing school records...

Jack realised his schoolboy blunder and then tried to tell us that it was his wife who knew Kudlaty and that he had only ever met him 3 or 4 times in 50 years. Why that meant he could vouch for his credibility I really don't know. Clearly White did know Kudlaty and their connection is at the heart of this particular piece of H&L deception. It stinks!! 

Scratch the surface of this 'theory' and it's just a pond of wriggling lies...

Oh dear, it's all falling to pieces isn't it?

 

 

 

[Bernie Laverick]

5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Jim - no scorn here.  Ask yourself - does this whole fairy tale really exist? Ten whole years before the assassination? David Josephs is now claiming that the FBI faked his school records for crying aloud!  When will the silliness all end? And I guess you believe Josephs too - that you, too, actually believe this nonsense, in addition to all of the other nonsense piled into one big pile?

I mean, I never seen you post on other threads - this HL caper seems to be the only one you speak of.  What about everything else on here?  Are you that carried away with Armstrong's story (or are you in fact John A?) that your sole aim is to keep this story alive for god knows what reason?

Michael, I don't believe for one minute that Jim believes any of this nonsense. I don't think Armstrong does either. It's not about H&L, it's about maintaining the official view that LHO shot Kennedy. H&L doesn't add to the investigation as to who carried out the assassination, it is an exotic sideshow designed to divert attention and bog down good researchers. 

We are often accused of being naïve, that we don't understand the lengths the CIA would go to achieve its agenda, that we can't comprehend the dark, very dark, methods being used, that they will try everything they can to cover up past misdeeds. But they are wrong. I'd even go as far as to say that as part of the ongoing deception, the CIA would certainly be capable of cooking up something like H&L, given their vast resources, precisely in order to split assassination researchers and create a narrative so wacky, it could even make the national media. That is its design and purpose. 

Imagine if Hargrove was asked to do an interview on the assassination of JFK on a mainstream broadcasting network, what would he talk about? Seriously, what? The Stripling school records? The two Oswalds' identical mastoid operations? The height 'discrepancies'? What the **** has all that got to do with the assassination of JFK? Can you imagine the response?

Credit where credit is due, H&L is the most sophisticated LN web yet weaved. DVP says it loud and proud, but these guys hide behind an elaborate saga, unified by their tortuous 'bible', and  aggressively push it on every topic, desperately trying to offer a more exciting 'scent' to follow. But it leads nowhere! That is the point. And that is why people like me take great delight in exposing their deception.

It's just too easy.

 

 

[Michael Walton]

So now I'm really confused.  Way up above, Josephs says:

The FBI forged the boy's school records by changing the cumulative PERM record.  All the information from each school is sent to a central location where PERM records are kept... 

Then Hargrove (or John A) says:

Indeed!  What Mr. Walton clearly doesn’t understand is that the FBI tried hard to make the evidence for two Oswalds disappear. 

So now the running narrative here is - one researcher and supporter of HL says the FBI had to forge the boy's records to prove there was a clone and then the next HL researcher says the same FBI, after forging the records, also tried to make the evidence disappear.

So were they forging disappearing school records...

...or were they disappearing forged school records?

Then John Hargrove goes on to say:

This evidence actually goes back more than ten years before the assassination.  This is why, for example, Hoover had to combine the school records for two boys going by the same name and try to make it appear that only one boy existed.

So now it goes back even earlier...to what? To when the Hungarian kid and Oswald were in diapers? And now he has Hoover - who I am definitely not a fan of - switching and faking the records?

If the original unfaked records proved that there were two Oswalds, why not just make the records disappear?  That way, it will keep the narrative tidy, that LHO acted alone and had nothing to do with the government in any way (which is what they wanted the official narrative to be)?

What's really sad about this is not Hargrove, who seems to only post on here about HL, but once again Josephs.  I mean this guy wrote a good story on Oswald not being in MC. I do believe he is correct with that narrative because if we are to believe that LHO was merely a pawn in all of this, that he was being manipulated and eventually steered into the TSBD so he could be blamed for the murder, there really was no reason for him to go down to MC. And there really is no photographic proof that he was in fact down there.  We all know that the photos that they tried to pass on as LHO down there were not him and Hoover said as much. And we do have the ultimate proof that he was steered into the book building to take the fall when he blurted out after being arrested, "I'm nothing but a patsy" as he was whisked away by the cops.

So Josephs's MC story was a good one. It was even published on the Kennedys and King site for crying out loud!  But, at least for me, it really puts a lot of doubt in my mind when this same person who wrote about MC also says that yes, HL really happened and oh by the way, the FBI forged 10 year old school records to prove there were two LHO's. He says all of this when he seems to forget that the whole goal was to make the US born LHO look like he was a crazed nut assassin acting alone with no help and no clone running around. Just your average run-of-the-mill Marxist mad man who decided to buy a rifle one day and blow the president's head off.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy attempts to give the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy some credibility by throwing Einstein's name around:

<blockquote>Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity by fitting together pieces of evidence that seemed contradictory. (Sort of like school records indicating that a student attended two schools simultaneously.) Meanwhile, Einstein's contemporaries made excuses for the evidence, hoping to make it fit their preconceived notions. (Sort of like Armstrong's detractors.)

The other scientists got nowhere. In contrast, Einstein developed a theory where all the evidence fit together nicely, without his having to resort to excuse making. (Sort of like what John Armstrong did with the Oswald evidence.) He did this because he had an mind opened to new new and unusual possibilities.

Einstein's finished theory sounded preposterous and was rejected by most. (Sort of like Armstrong's theory, which sounds far fetched to most people.) But Einstein stuck with his guns because he knew that the evidence -- and not the excuses -- would win the day.

Eventually Einstein was vindicated and his theory proven correct. I am confident that Armstrong will be vindicated too.</blockquote>

I think this is what Sandy meant to write:

Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity by fitting together pieces of evidence that seemed contradictory. (Sort of like finding a common-sense explanation for anomalies in Oswald's school records, one which doesn't require the ridiculous conclusion that he attended two schools simultaneously.) Meanwhile, Einstein's contemporaries made excuses for the evidence, hoping to make it fit their preconceived notions. (Sort of like Armstrong's followers.)

The other scientists got nowhere. In contrast, Einstein developed a theory where all the evidence fit together nicely, without his having to resort to excuse making. (Sort of like the exact opposite of what John Armstrong did with the Oswald evidence.) He did this because he had an mind opened to new new and unusual possibilities.

Einstein's finished theory sounded preposterous and was rejected by most. (Sort of like Armstrong's theory, which sounds to most people like something deposited in a steaming pile by a farmyard animal, and, unlike Einstein's theory, was conclusively refuted two decades before it was published, by the evidence of a mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave, which shows the theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false.) But Einstein stuck with his guns because he knew that the evidence -- and not the excuses -- would win the day.

Eventually Einstein was vindicated and his theory proven correct. I am confident that even if humans are still around in five billion years' time when the sun becomes a red giant and makes the earth uninhabitable, Armstrong's theory doesn't have the slightest chance of being proven correct.

Counterparts of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' proponents, such as creationists, astrologers, homeopaths and other peddlars of pseudoscientific twaddle, often use the example of Gallileo's persecution to show that their twaddle might eventually be vindicated, so I suppose that by using Einstein, Sandy is at least displaying some originality, though not much logic. I'm looking forward to finding out what the working methods of Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, William Shakespeare and Ludwig van Beethoven can tell us about the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Bernie Laverick makes a good point:

<blockquote>the CIA would certainly be capable of cooking up something like H&L, given their vast resources, precisely in order to split assassination researchers and create a narrative so wacky, it could even make the national media. That is its design and purpose.</blockquote>

If you were in charge of operations to discredit those who question the official verdict on the JFK assassination, what is the first thing you would do? Mark Lane and other early critics had agents digging into their personal lives and their political affiliations. These days, though, you won't get far accusing someone of being a communist sympathiser. What you need to do is to portray your opponents as unhinged, moon-landings-crazy fantasists.

It has often struck me that when a serious challenge to the official line is generated, something similar, but obviously unhinged, appears close behind:

- It became clear that President Kennedy's autopsy was manipulated, and that at least one shot probably came from in front. What do we get? The claim that JFK's body was snatched and altered to disguise the fact that all the shots came from in front, despite the fact that Governor Connally was hit from behind.

- It became clear that some of the evidence in the case had been manipulated by the law enforcement agencies. What do we get? The claim that the Zapruder film was altered to make it compatible with the lone-nut theory, despite the fact that the film as we know it actually contradicts the lone-nut theory.

- It became clear that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and perhaps elsewhere. What do we get? The truly lunatic claim that there was a duplicate Oswald running around from the age of 12, with a duplicate mother also named Marguerite, all based on flimsy eyewitness evidence, flimsy subjective interpretation of clerical errors, and flimsy subjective interpretation of photographs, despite the fact that the whole thing was flatly contradicted by the exhumation of Oswald's body a couple of decades before the theory was even published.

- It became clear that Oswald was probably filmed standing on the steps of the book depository during the assassination. What do we get? Perhaps the nuttiest claim of all: an attempt to conflate the Prayer Man evidence with the long-dismissed allegation that James Altgens' photograph showed Oswald on the steps, and the claim that in order to prevent suspicion that Oswald was standing on the steps, his face was replaced with that of someone who looked so much like him that it generated the claim that Oswald was standing on the steps.

These extreme conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the essential evidence and arguments that contradict the lone-nut theory. The problem is that these theories are liable to replace the essential evidence and arguments in the minds of casual observers. Imagine the reaction of, for example, a member of the general public who is interested in finding out more about the assassination, when he or she stumbles across these theories. Or the reaction of an open-minded journalist who is tempted to persuade his or her editor to give the subject some objective coverage for a change. Their reactions will be the same. So that's what all those JFK assassination enthusiasts believe! They really are a bunch of raving lunatics! Obviously Oswald did it after all.

I'm not convinced, though, that any of these extreme conspiracy theories were generated in the murky bowels of CIA headquarters. One of the problems with the fact that none of the official investigations into the assassination has produced a conclusion that is widely accepted is that the subject is open to any old idiotic interpretation. There are plenty of ... (I'll have to choose the word carefully) eccentrics around who are more than capable of inventing this sort of nonsense without assistance. And you only have to look at this thread to see that there are people so gullible that they will find any reason to persuade themselves that a far-fetched, internally contradictory theory is preferable to a common-sense interpretation of the evidence.

Nonsense such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is not just wrong but actually harmful, and ought to be opposed for both reasons.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 9/1/2017 at 6:28 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Bojczuk cherry picks his quotes and doesn't even bother to read the full transcript of the Garrison's interview with Fred Sewell.  In it, Mr. Sewell makes abundantly clear that the can't remember for sure whether "Oswald" or "Lee Oswald" was written on the bid, although he did "remember the men." It should be noted that the FBI took Oswald's bid form immediately after it was located at Bolton Ford. Here's the relevant excerpt, emphasis added:

JG: Do you ever recollect he said LEE OSWALD.

FS: I think LEE OSWALD, and I think OSCAR wrote it down. Or
that may be - it's been six years I may be wrong. If you
have that paper you know. I can't remember that long. But
I remember the men. So then when the President was assas-
inated and the name came out, OSCAR come in either the nex
morning or the morning after and and said, "Say Fred, do
you remember those two guys who was in here from Cuba
trying to get some buses cheap?" and I said,"Yes". He sai
"I think that one of those men was the one who killed the
President." I said, "Aw your kidding" and he said "We've
got a piece of paper around here somewhere with a bid on
it." He went and hauled that piece of paper out and the
OSCAR called the F.B.I.

JG: Did it have "OSWALD" on it or "LEE OSWALD"? Do you
remember looking at it?

FS: I can't remember that. It's been six years but I know
that the man who identified himself as OSWALD was in the
office and made that remark. Now, I do know that.

Mr. Bojczuk ignores the specificity of the information provided above by Fred Sewell and goes on, as usual, to explain how awful I am.  Mr. Bojczuk then writes the following remarkable sentence: "Fred Sewell's recollection was faulty, and there is no reason to conclude that the man who visited the Bolton Ford dealership used the name 'Lee Oswald'."

Mr. Bojczuk probably wrote those words with a straight face, even though he wasn't at the Bolton Ford dealership and Fred Sewell was.  Mr. Bojczuk chooses his words carefully, but does he REALLY believe that LEE OSWALD wasn't at the Bolton Ford dealership?  To do so, of course, he must pretend he doesn't know that officers of the "Friends of Democratic Cuba" organization written on the bid included none other than Guy Banister and Oswald's former employer Gerard Tugague.  Gerard Tugague employed Oswald in late 1955 and early 1956 at the 300 Sanlin Building in New Orleans.

 

 

Mr. Bojczuk desperately wants us to believe that it was some other "Oswald" at Bolton Ford, but he knows that the FBI knew better.  It clearly understood that the "SUBJECT: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" had been to the Bolton Ford dealership seeking trucks for Cuba, and the issue was alarming enough to end an airtel directly to J. Edgar Hoover himself.

 

As always, Mr. Bojczuk concludes his post with links to other sites, saying the truth about the Bolton Ford incident is there.  But the truth isn't there. The truth about the Bolton Ford incident is here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Misc/Bolton.html

Still waiting for Mr. Bojczuk's reply.  Why does he ignore that fact that the Friends of Democratic Cuba's officers included none other than "Lee Harvey Oswald's" former employer and his New Orleans working partner Guy Banister (former head of the FBI Chicago office)?  Why does he ignore the obvious fact that the Bolton Ford incident was such threat to the Official Story about LHO that Hoover himself was directly advised of the situation in the airtel above?

And why does Mr. Bojczuk provide a link to a site that is intended to hide the significance of the incident rather than one that clearly exposes it?

Here is where readers can read the truth about the Bolton Ford incident:

http://harveyandlee.net/Misc/Bolton.html

[Michael Walton]

47 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Still waiting for Mr. Bojczuk's reply.  Why does he ignore that fact that the Friends of Democratic Cuba's officers included none other than "Lee Harvey Oswald's" former employer and his New Orleans working partner Guy Banister (former head of the FBI Chicago office)?  Why does he ignore the obvious fact that the Bolton Ford incident was such threat to the Official Story about LHO that Hoover himself was directly advised of the situation in the airtel above?

Jim - we're also waiting for your reply.  Can you clarify why one of your supporters is saying the school records were forged and you're saying that these same records were made to disappear? I mean think about it.  It doesn't make a one iota of sense. If the records were NOT forged - the opposite of what Josephs is claiming and they STILL showed there were two little Oswalds running around - then yes, your claim that they were trying to make the records disappear would make some semblance of sense.

But if the records DID NOT show or CANNOT prove that there were two Oswalds and they needed to be forged to show that there WERE two Oswalds, what would be the point of doing this when the government wanted to show all along that Oswald was nothing but a crazed lone gun man?

But you cannot have it both ways so it's important that you clarify this.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

You're asking me to clarify why the existing 1953-54 school records published by the Warren Commission comprise impossible contradictions?  You're kidding, right?

When YOU try to explain the conflicting 1953/54 school records, which clearly show "LHO" attended school simultaneously in NYC and New Orleans during the 1953-54 semester, you guys just consistently punt, claiming Greg Parker has all the answers. But you won't put those answers here.  Why?  Because you know that DJ, or Sandy, or I could just tear those so-called answers apart.

Whether the existing documents are legitimate or were fabricated by the FBI is hardly the point.  If they were fabricated, the FBI clearly made a mistake, probably because the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.  Why would they have fabricated the documents?  As always, in so many other situations, to hide the fact that two young men were going by the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" and, in this case, attending two schools simultaneously more than 13 hundred miles apart.  It would have been an error, get it?  If the documents are real, the issue is even simpler.  I think the school records were altered significantly by the FBI, but imperfectly.  They made mistakes.  It isn't easy making a whole human being disappear. 

Here are the facts shown by the school records published in the Warren volumes.... 

NYC/New Orleans School Records....

In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44. After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected Oswald's original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year.  Here is the cumulative PS 44 record from the New York City School system:

 

Below are the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it.  Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.

 

 

 

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

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?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

Stripling School Records Disappear...

A similar problem came up for the FBI when it looked at "Lee Harvey Oswald's" very next fall semester (starting in 1954).  Although Beauregard records (see above) clearly showed he was attending school there, newspaper accounts, teachers, students and administrators, even Robert Oswald, all said Lee Oswald actually attended Stripling School in Fort Worth. 

 

 

John interviewed a number of people who knew Lee Oswald attended Stripling.  Here are his YouTube interviews with two of them:

 

 

 

 

The H&L critics active on this forum clearly don't give a damn about any of this evidence.  They just want it to go away, but it won't.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Nobody cares if the H&L "evidence" goes away or not. This information has been out there for  years now. The H&L critics are simply providing alternatives to the discredited theory. We already know from an informal poll done here what the majority of the members at this conspiracy-oriented forum think. The majority say they appreciate the research efforts by Armstrong but don't believe the theory. I have other interests to keep me occupied, but I will continue to monitor this forum (as I am sure will others) to make sure the H&L supporters have an opposing voice.

[Bernie Laverick]

Taken from the link Jim provided above...

"By the way, you'd better put my name down there because I'm the man handling the money." When Deslatte asked, "What's your name?" the man replied, "Lee Oswald.”

Laughable! This perfectly manicured plot involving the most mind boggling intricacy suddenly falls apart when the doppelganger OPENLY goes out to buy trucks and insists on using his own name!!

“Sewell described Lee Oswald as, "5-foot-6 or 5-foot-7, thin, about 140 pounds, and thought he needed a meal and a haircut.”

Is this the same strapping and muscular 5’ 11” Lee? Or is there a trippelganger who is neither ‘Harvey’ nor ‘Lee’? The above sounds more like Lee Harvey Oswald, (‘Harvey’ to you) but it couldn’t have been, because he was in Russia. So what do you actually have?

Sewell went on to say that the Oswald he saw at the Bolton dealership “appears to be the same man” he saw on television after the President was shot.

Ah, so ‘they’ did look similar after all! They will object of course and tell us that USA based doppelganger ‘Lee’ was big and muscular and defector ‘Harvey’ was small and weedy. So how did the small and weedy one turn up at Bolton Ford when he was supposed to be in Russia?

If the man Sewell saw was no bigger than 5’ 7” then clearly that couldn’t have been ‘Lee’, Harvey’s official doppelganger. Common sense also negates the notion that ‘Lee’s’ handlers would have allowed him to go and buy some trucks using his own name (!!) while his double is in Russia.

In other conversations they are telling us the absolute necessity of keeping him in a “safe house” during ‘Harvey’s’ defection so as to not blow his cover. This is the reason, they say, that they can’t provide any details of where ‘Lee’ was living during this period because he was strictly kept under wraps...

Except to go out buying trucks, thus destroying years and years of meticulous planning.

How delusional do you have to be to accept this childish nonsense?

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Laverick, like all the people here trying to make the Bolton Ford incident go away, likes to deal in only a little bit of the evidence, hardly all of it.

Mr. Laverick does not want his readers to know that both “Friends of Democratic Cuba” and “Oswald” were written on the same Bolton Ford bid.  And he does not want his readers to know that among the officers of “Friends of Democratic Cuba” were none other than W. Guy Banister, who famously interacted with Lee HARVEY Oswald in New Orleans in 1963, and Gerard Tugague, Oswald’s EMPLOYER in 1956.  What a coincidence!  But we are supposed to believe this was some other “Oswald,” say “Matilda Oswald.”  LOL!!!

 

 

 

Attempting to mock the evidence he cannot refute, Mr. Laverick goes on to ask, “How delusional do you have to be to accept this childish nonsense?”  Apparently a lot more childish than Hoover’s FBI, which in December 1963 was so alarmed that “Subject: Lee Harvey Oswald” actually “was trying to get trucks for Cuba” from “Bolton Ford Co.” that an airtel was sent to the FBI director himself  (see below).

Mr. Laverick correctly points out that Sewell described Lee Oswald as 5’6” or 5’7”, but fails to point out that Sewell  also said  “Joseph Moore” was “the shorter of the two” men, which, unless you want to consider “Moore” was under 5’5”, certainly leaves room that Lee Oswald may have actually been several inches taller.  Mr. Sewell was undoubtedly more interested in the size of Oswald’s bank account than his frame.

 

 

Mr. Laverick’s arguments are pitiful!  He can try to use all the mocking words he likes, but the evidence is still here to stay!