The H&L "two schools at the same time" mystery

[Bernie Laverick]

8 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

What??????? I thought this was resolved. 

Like it or no, he has as much right as you do to be here.  

Let's just recap here a bit. I wrote to Michael and I regrettably threw in a cheap jibe about his writing skills. Naturally he wasn't very pleased, and threw a nasty jibe back at me. I realised that it was me that started the childishness so I took a step back and apologised. Michael immediately responded with gratitude and a promise to reset our relationship a fresh. So far so good. Some other posters even congratulated our maturity.

As Michael has always insinuated that I come on here deliberately to "disrupt" and be "awkward", given our newfound friendly status, I thought now was a good time to explain why I was really here. I made an exhaustive list of areas I believe to be either incredulous or questions that haven't been answered despite been asked many many times. That's the whole point of being involved in a forum where multiple ideas are vying for dominance. The tone was totally non confrontational. Just a clinical set of gaping gaps that render, in my opinion, the theory null and void.

I didn't expect Michael to answer or address them, that wasn't why I posted them. I  just wanted those who attack H&L detractors to at least accept that there are many legitimate questions to be answered, even Michael himself says he has a few issues with it. Why he doesn't raise those issues but rather chooses to attack those that do is, to me, inexplicable behaviour.

I ended my post thus..."So Michael, it is not pig headedness on my part and I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate."

His response was..."I wish you would just go away!"  And that was after informing me of his research that showed I have written 400 posts in six years on H&L (that's about one per week!!)and so therefore I must be an obsessive...Jim Sandy and David Josephs knock that number up in a few days!!! This is more about tribal loyalty than evaluating evidence. 

What is fascinating is to see the 'career' researchers, the full time professional book selling ones, who for expedient reasons love to keep their feet in all camps. They don't support, but they do like to cheerlead. They don't perform, but they do like to clap and boo... It's business!

I don't envy your Job Kathy, I really don't. You should get paid danger money.

Best regards, Bernie

[Dan Doyle]

9 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Kathy:

This thread has degraded to name calling and derogatory comments.  With all due respect, the posters in question add very little (imho) as far as useful information or insights (pro/con).  Its simply constant (almost obsessive) obstruction and ridicule of Armstrong's work and book.  Something was obviously fishy with the Oswald identities and family story ... so, why the virulent and persistent attack?   I occasionally come back to this thread, to see if I can learn anything new ... but all I ever see is silly name-calling and type-casting (i.e. "Team Hardly ... CT Community") and ad hominem attacks.  No substance, or convincing rebuttal.  Jim, Sandy and Michael try to explain the anomalies and challenges; but, its like saying the sky is blue, and getting a response: "how do you know;  how can you say that; what proof do you have? Have you gone mad?" 

I get the impression that -- if they persist (and succeed) -- then no one will participate and we will all go away.  What does that tell you?  

Gene  

totally agree. 

[Michael Walton]

12 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Jim, Sandy and Michael try to explain the anomalies and challenges; but, its like saying the sky is blue, and getting a response: "how do you know;  how can you say that; what proof do you have? Have you gone mad?" 

Really Gene? This all goes both ways. The folks who post rebuttals to this theory have posted solid rebuttals  and we too are attacked for being "ignorant" and worst by the same people  you list above. As a matter of fact it got so bad that one unnamed  member here was  throwing all kinds of venom on MY PROFILE PAGE. When I  reported it this member was "banned" from the forum.

Guess what? Shockingly this member is now back. And if you  don't  believe me - which seems to be the modus operandi  here on EF - send me a PM and I'll  be glad to share the venom.

And seriously have you  EVER questioned the mere impossibility that two men who supposedly look alike, and whose mothers supposedly look alike, knew all the people that Bernie listed and out of a near impossible  odds that none of these  people EVER bumped into each other? IMO I  probaby have better odds of winning  the lottery than I  do of that EVER happening.

And here's  the  funniest  thing of all. I  KNOW President Kennedy  was murdered as a result of a conspiracy. Like Bill Simpich and other researchers I  have a great deal of respect  for but since joining  this forum that number has dwindled, there's  no doubt in my mind that a conspiracy  murdered him and Oswald  took the fall for it, then was hushed up himself  on 11/24.

[Paul Trejo]

34 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

...The folks who post rebuttals to this theory have posted solid rebuttals  and we too are attacked for being "ignorant" and worst by the same people  you list above. As a matter of fact it got so bad that one unnamed  member here was  throwing all kinds of venom on MY PROFILE PAGE. When I  reported it this member was "banned" from the forum.

Guess what? Shockingly this member is now back. And if you  don't  believe me - which seems to be the modus operandi  here on EF - send me a PM and I'll  be glad to share the venom.

And seriously have you  EVER questioned the mere impossibility that two men who supposedly look alike, and whose mothers supposedly look alike, knew all the people that Bernie listed and out of a near impossible  odds that none of these  people EVER bumped into each other? IMO I  probaby have better odds of winning  the lottery than I  do of that EVER happening.

And here's  the  funniest  thing of all. I  KNOW President Kennedy  was murdered as a result of a conspiracy. Like Bill Simpich and other researchers I  have a great deal of respect  for but since joining  this forum that number has dwindled, there's  no doubt in my mind that a conspiracy  murdered him and Oswald  took the fall for it, then was hushed up himself  on 11/24.

Michael,

I sympathize with this entirely.  In my opinion, the H&L Team is guilty of the most relentless insulting and bad manners on our Forum.   They may say they are being defensive -- I deny that.  They are openly aggressive -- most typical of Hollywood types competing for a million dollar writing contract. 

In fact, that hypothesis is the only one that makes sense to me, given the aggression that we see on every H&L thread here. 

Now that the JFK Records Act ending on 10/26/2017 has released all US Government records held back on the JFK Assassination (all 38,000 pages of it), many groups are apparently taking bets to see which one will make it to the finish line, pending the analysis of these records by thousands of experts worldwide.

The guesswork is about to end.  The TRUTH comes nearer and nearer every day.   Whoever holds the winning ticket will win the PRIZE.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited January 5, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Andrew Prutsok]

16 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Michael, in view of our reset relationship and withdrawal of hostilities maybe now would be a good time to give a brief reason why I think it is important to debunk and where possible disprove any theory we fear may be acting as a hindrance to further enlightenment. We quite happily come on here and tussle with LNs, not because it's fun, but because we believe that their narrative needs to be robustly countered. There is nothing wrong with that surely? Same with fringe theories that look seductive at first glance but fall to dust on closer inspection.

For example, I'm suspicious that there are gigantic gaping gaps in the story, like what became of 'Lee' after Nov 22nd 1963?

What became of his doppelganger mother?

Why was 'Lee' allowed, given this ultra top secret plot, to go out and buy trucks under his own name while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

How do we explain 'Lee's' known mastoid scar being found on 'Harvey' too?

When did it become apparent that the two unrelated boys looked almost identical? (So much so that much evidence for H&L is from witness testimony who say he looked like the man shot by Ruby)

Why are the H&L supporters confident that there isn't anything left to find about this story?

How can a plot that is so tightly sewn up with, according to Jim, nearly all evidence removed, destroyed, manipulated or tidied up, how could it include so many people in the know?

Why hasn't any H&L supporter seen fit to try and contact relatives or associates of the dozens of people who knew of H&L?

Why do they refuse to take this further than the JFK chat forums and not reach out to respectable alternative media, or anti establishment investigative journalists like John Pilger?

What new piece of information has emerged since the release of H&L that corroborates it in any way? This is the killer for me....

Wouldn't there be someone, somewhere, who went to school with 'Lee', or played in the same block, (someone OTHER than those named in the book) wouldn't they be even slightly interested in the JFK story? We come on here looking for answers, how strange that not one of the people who must have known 'Lee' has subsequently taken an interest in the JFK assassination and stumbled on this story. A story that they would be able to corroborate, thus boosting the credibility of H&L. As yet...no one! Think about it. How many must have known and interacted with the MO doppelganger. Of course, they wouldn't know she was the 'doppelganger' unless they subsequently developed an interest in the JFK story, which some of them would... surely? We have, why wouldn't they? Is it likely that everyone who know either 'Lee' or MO, that not one of them would eventually do some of their own digging and, just like us, more than likely find themselves on here. To which they would then go "EUREKA"! Twenty years after the publication and we are still waiting for just one person to come forward. 

I'm suspicious that twenty years after the creation of a 1,000 page book with such excruciating detail that not one single jot of it has subsequently been seen to be wrong by those who promote it. How likely is it that such an intricate work doesn't contain even one single error (other than typos etc...)? I've asked many times where they think JA my have erred but get no answer. I ask if it's likely that EVERY witness sighting of a an 'inconvenient' Oswald is without a shadow of a doubt correct and thus confirms H&L? And that NONE are mistaken...?

You may choose to accept Jim's explanations Michael, and you may think that the above doesn't detract from the theory, and that is your right. But I hope you would accept it is also my right to keep on pushing those questions. It isn't bloody-mindedness and it isn't trolling. I simply don't believe that H&L holds any water and it tires me that it seems to permeate every angle of the JFK assassination but without telling us anything about what may have happened. I think that is a legitimate position to take. I would rather the atmosphere was more cordial. But EVERYONE who criticises H&L no matter how friendly WILL end up being abused, bullied and insulted. That some of us return fire is to our detriment, but the nastiness always originates from those aggressively pushing this diversion, because that's what I believe it is.

So Michael, it is not pig headedness on my part and I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate.

Best regards, Bernie

Are you really suggesting "someone would have talked?"

[Jim Hargrove]

On 1/2/2018 at 5:37 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I took Armstrong's claim of LHO at Stripling seriously and looked into it some time ago but there is nowhere in the chronology for it to have happened. Unless of course, you postulate 2 Oswalds and the evidence does not support that.

And, of course, evidence that DOES support two Oswalds is to be discarded because... uh...  hmmm....

I've been looking for weeks for that second Fort Worth newspaper article that said "Lee Harvey Oswald" attended Stripling School, and I just found it. This is from the June 8, 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  Read the last paragraph.

 

This, of course, is on top of all the other evidence that Oswald attended Stripling.

Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty in 1963 met FBI agent at the school and gave them “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” Stripling records. Those records also all disappeared. Mr. Kudlaty's YouTube interview is here.

In 1959 a Fort Worth newspaper also said that LHO attended Stripling.  See that article here.

Robert Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that his “brother” attended Stripling.

Harvey Oswald’s classmate Fran Schubert said she attended Stripling with Oswald and watched him walk home from Stripling to his house at 2220 Thomas Place. See Fran's YouTube interview with John here.

In the 1990s, Stripling School principal Ricardo Galindo told John that it was “common knowledge” that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended Stripling.  Not one “researcher” here has made an effort to contact Galindo to see if he is still alive and if he would repeat his claim.

John also spoke to local student Bobby Pitts, who remembered that Oswald attended Stripling with his younger brother and that he (Bobby) remembered seeing (Harvey) Oswald standing on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place, directly across the street from Stripling.  John also spoke with former Stripling student Doug Gann, who attended ninth grade at Stripling with Harvey and remembered that he live “across the street from the basketball courts and one or two houses to the left,” which exactly describes 2220 Thomas Place, where “Marguerite Oswald” lived at the time of the assassination of JFK.  H&L critics have not one bit of interest in any of these witnesses.  They just want to describe them as liars.

H&L critics have no explanation why a Forth Worth Star-Telegram article from November 2017 would indicate that Oswald’s “teachers and classmates remember him at Stripling, though there is no official record.”  Read the article here.

The H&L critics are forced to say that all the witnesses above are lying or just wrong, because the critics know that, according to the official timeline of the Warren Commission, "Lee Harvey Oswald" could not have attended Stripling School. Either all this evidence is invented, or there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds.

[Bernie Laverick]

2 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Are you really suggesting "someone would have talked?"

Well according to the H&L gang the people of Bolton Ford talked. Didn't they? So did Frank Kudlaty at Stripling,  according to them, he talked too. In fact many others they ascribe to seeing 'Lee' while 'Harvey was in Russia...also talked! A huge part of the 'evidence' for H&L comes from people...er, talking!

So why have no more since come forward and...talked?

.

[Bernie Laverick]

I'm suspicious that twenty years after the creation of a 1,000 page book with such excruciating detail that not one single jot of it has subsequently been seen to be wrong by those who promote it. How likely is it that such an intricate work doesn't contain even one single error (other than typos etc...)? I've asked many times where they think JA my have erred but get no answer. I ask if it's likely that EVERY witness sighting of a an 'inconvenient' Oswald is without a shadow of a doubt correct and thus confirms H&L? And that NONE are mistaken...?

Any takers?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

This is from the June 8, 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  Read the last paragraph.

This is from Robert and we already know from his WC testimony that he believed LHO attended Stripling. But Robert had left for the service in July, 1952 and was not around to witness LHO's alleged attendance. He simply thought he went there, but Robert forgot that LHO and Marguerite had moved to NYC. If they had not done so, LHO certainly would have attended Stripling but he did not. So, two mistaken statements from the same witness do not have greater weight.

 

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

H&L critics have no explanation why a Forth Worth Star-Telegram article from November 2017 would indicate that Oswald’s “teachers and classmates remember him at Stripling, though there is no official record.”

I certainly do-they have heard the various reports and that is why they wrote it. As they point out, there is no record, no photographs, nothing besides witness statements to indicate LHO's attendance. And many of the statements were obtained by Armstrong 40 years after the fact.

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Robert forgot that LHO and Marguerite had moved to NYC.

I don’t think so, Tracy.  Robert knew full well that his brother had gone to New York.  On page 63 of his book LEE, Robert wrote:  "Lee entered the 8th grade at P.S. 44 on Columbus Avenue at 76th St."  He could not have taken that information from the Warren Commission, because that school is not listed in the Warren Volumes.

The school at Columbus Ave. and 76th St., by the way, is O'Shea Junior High School, PS 44 in Manhattan.  Isn’t it remarkable that LHO's brother puts LHO at Public School 44 in Manhattan at about the same time as the Warren Commission has an LHO at Public School 44 in the Bronx?  What a coincidence!!!  And what a great way to merge the identity of two kids, at two NYC schools both identified PS 44.  Another amazing coincidence, I guess.  Is this John's fault also?   

PS 44 in Manhattan:

 

PS 44 in the Bronx:

At any rate, New York City is pretty irrelevant to the Stripling evidence.  We're talking about Sept. 1954, when both Oswalds were long gone from NYC.

By the way, do you have evidence that last year’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram article stating that teachers and students at Stripling School remembered Lee Harvey Oswald attending it was all because John talked to people?

Edited January 5, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

By the way, do you have evidence that last year’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram article stating that teachers and students at Stripling School remembered Lee Harvey Oswald attending it was all because John talked to people?

I didn't say it was all because of him, there are reports unrelated to his work if I remember correctly (besides Robert). But if they had any other evidence besides anecdotal reports I am sure they would have mentioned it. You mention Robert's book and I don't believe he says LHO attending Stripling in that. By that time, he realized his mistake. Bottom line is anyone can say an event happened but without other evidence (yearbook photos etc.) to back it up it is not a fact.

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But Robert had left for the service in July, 1952 and was not around to witness LHO's alleged attendance. He simply thought he went there, but Robert forgot that LHO and Marguerite had moved to NYC.

Mr. JENNER. Well, I really did not want to refer to that at the moment.
Do you remember any of the places at which you took snapshots of Lee during this 10-day leave? 
Mr. OSWALD. The Bronx Zoo I believe was about the only time I can recall taking any pictures of him. 
Mr. JENNER. I am at liberty to advise you, Mr. Oswald, that when your mother testified before the Commission she did produce a number of photographs, snapshots, and otherwise, among which was a snapshot of your brother, Lee, taken at the New York Zoo--that she testified was taken at the New York Zoo.
Is that the incident in which you took the photograph of your brother Lee, as far as you know? 
Mr. OSWALD. You say the New York Zoo, sir. As far as I know there is just one zoo up there referred to as the Bronx Zoo. I do recall, and I still have the picture that I took of Lee at the Bronx Zoo. I certainly feel that perhaps either I sent copies of it to mother, or to Lee after I had the film developed. 
Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, may I go off the record a moment?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record. 
Mr. JENNER. For the purpose of the record, I have before me the February 21, 1964, issue of Life magazine, on pp. 68--A, 68--B, and 70 of which there appear a number of photographs. I think it would be well if we gave this spread page an exhibit number. And since it really consists of two separate pages--the next exhibit numbers are what? 
Mr. LIEBELER. 281 and 282. 
Mr. JENNER. We will mark 68-B as 281 and page 69 as 282.
(The material referred to was marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 281 and 282, respectively, for identification.) 
Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Jenner--the only thing you are offering to the Commission at this time as I understand it are the pictures that appeal on those two pages and not the text. 
Mr. JENNER. That's correct, sir.
Directing your attention to page 69, identified as Commission Exhibit 282, there is a picture of a young boy and the background looks like it might be taken in a zoo. You mentioned that you had taken a snapshot of your brother on this 10-day leave.
Could you examine that and see if you can identify that as being the snapshot you took? 
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I do so identify that picture. That was taken at the Bronx Zoo--a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald, taken during my 10-day leave in New York City in 1953, approximately July or August of 1953. 

[Jim Hargrove]

From Harvey and Lee....

In June 1962, when Harvey Oswald was returning to the United States from
Russia, an article appeared in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Once again Robert Oswald
told reporters that his brother attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington
Heights High School."33

Robert Oswald stated publicly, on three separate occasions over a 5-year period,
that his brother attended Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. The Commission could
only ignore Robert Oswald's references to Stripling. They reported that after complet­-
ing the 6th grade in 1952, Lee Harvey Oswald attended junior high in New York and
New Orleans, and did not return to Fort Worth until the summer of 1956.

Could Robert have been mistaken?

Robert Oswald joined the Marines in July 1952 and was not living in Fort Worth
during the fall when his brother was supposed to attend junior high. I considered the pos­-
sibility that Robert assumed that his brother entered Stripling after finishing elementary
school, because this was the same school he (Robert) attended in the fall of 1948. But
if Lee Oswald and his mother had remained in Fort Worth in the fall of 1952, Lee would
have transferred to nearby Monnig Junior High, not Stripling.

On August 21, 1948, prior to the beginning of school, Marguerite sold her house
and drove with Lee in her 1948 Dodge to New York City. Two months later Robert
Oswald visited his mother and brother in New York, shortly after Lee entered the 7th
grade.34 Robert again visited Lee and Marguerite in New York in the summer of 1953,
when Lee was between the 7th and 8th grades at PS #44.35 Robert's visits to New York
make it nearly impossible to believe that he could have assumed his younger brother
attended Stripling in the 7th grade.

After Robert was discharged from the Marines, in July 1955, he briefly resided
with Lee and Marguerite at their apartment on Exchange Place in New Orleans. Lee had
recently graduated from the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High and, according to
Robert, was working for an export firm. If anyone knew where Lee Harvey Oswald at­-
tended all of his junior high school years, it was Robert Oswald. So why would Robert tell
reporters in 1959 and 1962, and tell the Warren Commission in 1964, that his "brother" had
attended Stripling? Because Robert was telling the Commission about his limited knowledge of
Harvey Oswald's background.

--from Harvey and Lee, pp. 95-96, Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong.  All rights reserved.

[Michael Walton]

Regarding the article JH posted above with the bad touch up photo, I'm mentioning again that photo here. Yes it's a horrible job but it does NOT mean it was done for sinister reasons.  I posted about the mechanics and "art" of touch ups on the other thread here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=363519

and here...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=364317

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

On 1/4/2018 at 9:18 PM, Gene Kelly said:

Jim, Sandy and Michael try to explain the anomalies and challenges; but, its like saying the sky is blue, and getting a response: "how do you know;  how can you say that; what proof do you have? Have you gone mad?" 

Really Gene? This all goes both ways. The folks who post rebuttals to this theory have posted solid rebuttals ....

Like what?

I've seen some "opinion rebuttals" but can't think of any rebuttal that people would think of as being "solid." (Your post directly above this one is a good example of an "opinion rebuttal.")

The topic of this thread is Oswald's attendance simultaneously at two schools, during the fall semester of 1953. What solid rebuttal is there for that?

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Sandy Larsen