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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Thanks for posting that link, Tracy. Stan did such a good job, I'll have to start thinking about my Oscar acceptance speech. Now, where did I put my bow tie?

Sandy writes:

<blockquote>If you want to see hard evidence that there were two Oswald's (not mere photos or sightings) I suggest you study Oswald's school records for his fall semester of 8th grade. He attended both Public School 44 in NYC and Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans simultaneously that semester. Of course, it was really the two Oswalds attending the two schools.</blockquote>

Greg Parker has offered to debate Sandy on this point:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records#20913

Will Sandy be brave enough to take up the offer?

Greg has also offered to debate James Norwood:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1573-invitation-to-dr-norwood

If James ever pokes his head above the parapet again, I'd be interested to see if he too is brave enough to take up Greg's offer. I'd also be interested to see if he responds to an earlier post of mine, in which I asked him to produce the evidence which led him to state that I have a "belief in the Warren Report" and "a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". If he can't produce any such evidence, I hope he will have the decency to apologise.

[Jim Hargrove]

Hey, Mr. Bojczuk, if Sandy is too busy to debate Mr. Parker about the PS 44/Beauregard school records, I’d be happy to do so!!  It never ceases to amaze me that Lee Harvey Oswald could attend school simultaneously in NYC and New Orleans in the fall 1953 semester.

I’ll get the ball rolling right now so Mr. Parker can respond RIGHT HERE on a neutral forum.  He is still a member here, as I see his name listed on the “WHO’S ONLINE” list at the bottom of the main JFK page all the time.  So, without further delay, here’s a summary and a debate challenge I issued to Greg Parker or ANYONE ELSE way back last August!

[Jim Hargrove]

On 8/24/2017 at 8:28 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

As I predicted, Mr. Bojczuk just gives us another link to Greg Parker (now doubled to two links!) and has nothing to say on his own about the conflicting school records.  In other words, he refuses to debate the subject on the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum.  What a surprise!

Let me go through this again, this time taking a longer look at the Beauregard records.

First, here's the PS44 records from New York City, summarized as follows:

In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44 in New York City. 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.

Now let’s see how the PS 44 and Beauregard records conflict with each other.

I’m reposting below 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!

Would anyone like to debate this right here?  Or will you just point this way or that way or anywhere but here?

We're STILL looking for someone to debate this issue right here on the JFK Debate Forum.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hey, Mr. Bojczuk, if Sandy is too busy to debate Mr. Parker about the PS 44/Beauregard school records, I’d be happy to do so!!  It never ceases to amaze me that Lee Harvey Oswald could attend school simultaneously in NYC and New Orleans in the fall 1953 semester.

I’ll get the ball rolling right now so Mr. Parker can respond RIGHT HERE on a neutral forum.  He is still a member here, as I see his name listed on the “WHO’S ONLINE” list at the bottom of the main JFK page all the time.  So, without further delay, here’s a summary and a debate challenge I issued to Greg Parker or ANYONE ELSE way back last August!

Parker is no longer allowed to post here-only read messages. The offer was to debate on his forum.

EDIT: BTW, there is nothing to debate. Your claims are based on your interpretation of the school records. Other explanations, which lead most reasonable people to a different conclusion, have been provided to you.

Edited October 2, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

EDIT: BTW, there is nothing to debate. Your claims are based on your interpretation of the school records. Other explanations, which lead most reasonable people to a different conclusion, have been provided to you.

No they haven't.  All I ever see are links to Mr. Parker's private forum.  This is the JFK DEBATE forum.  Let's see some actual debate on this issue from your side.  Mr. Parker's so-called "explanations" are irrelevant to my information above.  If you think otherwise, post the evidence here, please.

[David Josephs]

15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have wondered as well because it is difficult to believe Jim or David or any of the H&L followers really believe there were two Oswalds. In the case of Armstrong, I feel it was a "vehicle" for his research, in other words, you have to have a new theory in order to publish a book.

This just shows how little you know about H&L, John Armstrong and the entire process involved.

Instead of talking out of the side of your @$$  Mr. P, maybe learn something first... then butcher it in your posts...

Your and GP's only response to McBride is "He's wrong"...   While the rest of us dive deeper, you and yours proclaim victory, do your little dance and forget that you're missing 99% of the evidence.

You can rant about the "riots" ... but you simply cannot fathom the connection between proving H&L false and GP's published work...  if JA is correct, GP is S.O.L.   Therefore, the non-stop minion attacks.

The last thing John needed to do was publish a book - which he did at his expense... or offer the results of 10 years of Archive visits...

Your repetitive vitriolic posts demeaning the work of the man is tiresome at best...  learn to count Tracy.  Learn what "CONSPIRACY" looks like

....

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

No they haven't.  All I ever see are links to Mr. Parker's private forum.  This is the JFK DEBATE forum.  Let's see some actual debate on this issue from your side.  Mr. Parker's so-called "explanations" are irrelevant to my information above.  If you think otherwise, post the evidence here, please.

I have posted links to the information and for some reason you pretend that it doesn't exist. You may disagree with what he says, but it is an alternate explanation and it does exist. But we have been through this before. So, why don't you go over to his forum and debate him if you are so eager to debate? I debate here all the time and while there are a few good people that help me out, it is certainly unfriendly territory for the most part.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Your and GP's only response to McBride is "He's wrong"... 

Yes, I have seen that letter from McBride and heard all the arguments. He has been thoroughly debunked by myself, Greg Parker and David Lifton. For a summary see:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Parnell,

If you would like to pretend that the New York/New Orleans simultaneous schooling has been debunked, or the Taiwan/Japan simultaneous USMC stationings has been debunked, or the Palmer McBride timeline has been debunked, or anything else in H&L has been debunked, please stop hiding behind remote servers and place your arguments here so all of us can agree exactly what you are claiming and so I can then tear it apart.

Why are you afraid to debate anything here?

No doubt you'll just provide another link to some other remote server and claim that all the answers are there.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell,

If you would like to pretend that the New York/New Orleans simultaneous schooling has been debunked, or the Taiwan/Japan simultaneous USMC stationings has been debunked, or the Palmer McBride timeline has been debunked, or anything else in H&L has been debunked, please stop hiding behind remote servers and place your arguments here so all of us can agree exactly what you are claiming and so I can then tear it apart.

Why are you afraid to debate anything here?

No doubt you'll just provide another link to some other remote server and claim that all the answers are there.

I'm not claiming that the school records issue or Japan have been debunked. It would be impossible to do that currently other than to point to the scientific evidence that shows only one Oswald. However, alternate explanations have been provided repeatedly. Palmer McBride has been debunked. He was an undoubtedly sincere man who simply misremembered events and became the basis for the H&L theory. But anyone can read my article at the link provided and decide.

EDIT: BTW, my advice is to find an acceptable venue, whether it is an Internet site or in person, and setup a debate with Greg Parker. He is anxious to debate and I think he could do a great job. You have to move out of your comfort zone sometimes.

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I'm not claiming that the school records issue or Japan have been debunked. It would be impossible to do that currently other than to point to the scientific evidence that shows only one Oswald.

That's a very honest admission and a dramatic change for you, Tracy. You often said in the past that Greg Parker had debunked both issues. Thank you for your honesty!

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Palmer McBride has been debunked.

No he hasn't.  The only real evidence you offer is the so-called LHO 1956 tax return.  Oswald’s 1956 tax return is remarkable in that it failed to include income from his then current employer, the United States Marine Corps.  It didn’t contain that information because the Department of the Navy didn’t release Oswald’s military pay records until September 15, 1964, well after the document you rely on was forged by the FBI. We can start discussing this tomorrow or Wednesday.



[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Greg Parker has offered to debate Sandy on this point:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records#20913

Will Sandy be brave enough to take up the offer?

Jeremy,

The last time we discussed the school records, Tracy posted links to Greg's arguments. I read each one and found each to be either weak or unbelievable. I also read all of his arguments regarding the VD treatment. He did have a few reasonable arguments for that.

I would have preferred debating him at that time because the details were all fresh in my mind. But if others here like Jim are willing to help, I'll debate him. But not on his website. We can debate here, and you can paste Greg's arguments here.

I won't debate on Greg's website for three reasons. First, because regardless of how strong my arguments are and how weak Greg's are, his minions will blindly high-five their leader over there. Just like all the anti-H&L member here who blindly high-five over ANY anti-H&L argument, regardless of it's validity. I've repeatedly asked these cowards to explain to me what the argument was, and none have taken me up on it because they frankly don't even understand the argument. It makes me wonder if they even read the arguments. Who knows.

Second, EVERYBODY over there is anti-H&L. We have members on both sides here.

And third, Greg's website gets relatively little traffic.

 

EDIT:  I see now that Jim has already started the debate, above. Hopefully Greg will reply and Jeremy will post his reply here.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On 8/24/2017 at 7:28 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

As I predicted, Mr. Bojczuk just gives us another link to Greg Parker (now doubled to two links!) and has nothing to say on his own about the conflicting school records.  In other words, he refuses to debate the subject on the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum.  What a surprise!

Let me go through this again, this time taking a longer look at the Beauregard records.

First, here's the PS44 records from New York City, summarized as follows:

In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44 in New York City. 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.

Now let’s see how the PS 44 and Beauregard records conflict with each other.

I’m reposting below 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!

Would anyone like to debate this right here?  Or will you just point this way or that way or anywhere but here?

 

 

Jim,

Clearly the number in the Re-Ad column has to represent the actual number of days attended, for the reason you gave. But even if Tracy were right, that it represents the number of available school days, would that bolster his (or Greg's) argument in any significant way? I can't see that it would.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

From Greg Parker's site:

 

Sandy Larsen wrote: Jim,

Clearly the number in the Re-Ad column has to represent the actual number of days attended, for the reason you gave. Bu even if Tracy were right, that it represents the number of available school days, would that bolster his (or Greg's) argument in any way? I can't see that it would.

 

Jim Hargrove wrote :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?

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

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.

With this, you get...
-The numbers adding up.

-Common sense prevailing with records transferring so no disadvantage  accrues.
-Head's statement untangled and applied correctly

With H & L disregarding part of Head's statement, you get
-The numbers not adding up.
-NO records transferring, with consequent disadvantage to the student.
-Head's statement applied as if Oswald had been at Beauregard the whole school year.
-No explanation for the start date on the record.
-No explanation as to why the FBI missed what they claim is the obvious interpretation and therefore allowing the cat out of the bag.
-No explanation as to why only John Armstrong could see the "duel" records, and why now, only those who "believe" in his theory can see it.

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.

Edited October 3, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

Thank you for FINALLY posting information you say debunks the PS 44 / Beauregard conflict, Tracy.  When he quotes me on his website, Mr. Parker conveniently leaves out my entire analysis of Head’s statements.  I’ll put that at the end.

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.

But there is no “Byron Junior High” in New York and, according to the New York Historical Society, there never was.  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.”

Here is the information Mr. Parker left out of my post when he quoted me:

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!