Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

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?

 

Bernie,

There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's. I've also had some minor differences of opinion.

But if I were asked right now to list all or most those differences , I couldn't do so. Because most of them are so minor that I don't keep them on my radar screen. It's the big picture that interests me right now.

But there is one thing I do recall. John believes that the adult LEE was the same person as the boy LEE. I have a reason to believe that they were more likely not the same person. And/or there were multiple Oswalds after the defection.

However, John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this. Because of that, you won't see me trying to convince others of my belief. Rather, I just keep my mind open to my belief as I study the surrounding story. That way if I should come across evidence that supports what I believe, I can run it by John to see what he thinks.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Bernie,

There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's. I've also had some minor differences of opinion.

But if I were asked right now to list all or most those differences , I couldn't do so. Because most of them are so minor that I don't keep them on my radar screen. It's the big picture that interests me right now.

But there is one thing I do recall. John believes that the adult LEE was the same person as the boy LEE. I have a reason to believe that they were more likely not the same person. And/or there were multiple Oswalds after the defection.

However, John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this. Because of that, you won't see me trying to convince others of my belief. Rather, I just keep my mind open to my belief as I study the surrounding story. That way if I should come across evidence that supports what I believe, I can run it by John to see what he thinks.

 

Sandy,

"There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's"

That's fine, but why are those doubts never raised in public? 

It's almost like there has to be an agreed and unified position on any of the issues H&L raises before presenting a united front on any public platform. If the promoters of H&L do have any doubts or queries then they are to be raised 'internally' behind closed doors because "John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this"...

And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled!

So would anyone like to share what those differences may be? It could be the school records for all we know. Is it?

Of course you have no obligation to answer that. It is entirely up to you as individuals how you choose to approach these discussions, and if you prefer to stick to the above format, then that is your right.

But here we are facing all kinds of aggressive abuse and finger pointing and having our intentions being questioned etc..., for simply raising OUR doubts and differences in public. Yet those that promote it keep their differences to themselves behind closed doors. If you can all disagree with JA from time to time on aspects of H&L (but privately), then we can all publically disagree for as long as we see fit. 

Why can you have differences with Jim or JA privately about H&L but we are castigated as a "disrupters" "cointelpro" and "vermin" for posting OUR differences on here, a public platform? 

Why are you allowed to question H&L...but we aren't?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The Commission could
only ignore Robert Oswald's references to Stripling.

The commission did not "ignore" Robert's reference to Stripling. They simply chose not to make an issue of it because there was no need to in the grand scheme of things. If necessary, they could have produced evidence that proved Robert was wrong. They could have done the same thing with Palmer McBride. But the commission could not foresee that someone would write a book 40 years later that would use inconsistencies like these to push a conspiracy theory involving two Oswalds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Sandy,

"There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's"

That's fine, but why are those doubts never raised in public? 

 

They WERE raised in public. I've asked David and Jim questions in these H&L threads and sometimes in their response they've said that John thought differently.

I've brought my opinion up a couple times in the past. (The one I mentioned above:  "John believes that the adult LEE was the same person as the boy LEE. I have a reason to believe that they were more likely not the same person. And/or there were multiple Oswalds after the defection.") But in greater detail.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

It's almost like there has to be an agreed and unified position on any of the issues H&L raises before presenting a united front on any public platform. If the promoters of H&L do have any doubts or queries then they are to be raised 'internally' behind closed doors because "John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this"...

 

See what you've done there, Bernie? You've used what I wrote (in bold) to support your belief that we keep our differences hushed. And you did that in spite of the fact that what I wrote (in bold) was regarding an opinion I gave in the very prior paragraph! That wasn't hushed!

As far as running something by John Armstrong... well of course I'm going to do that. I'd be a fool not to. Just like I would run some idea I have about Jim Garrison by Jim DiEugenio before declaring I'd taken a position on it. You always get feedback from experts when you can. (Unless you feel quite sure of yourself.) The expert might point something out you haven't considered.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled!

So would anyone like to share what those differences may be? It could be the school records for all we know. Is it?

 

Check out the last two paragraphs of the following post to see a potential difference of opinion regarding the Beauregard school record:

 

 

I recall that David J. commented that the school records are "bastardized' (I believe that's his description) because the FBI merged and manipulated them. That's his opinion. My opinion is that certainly somebody merged two LHO school records, and it may have been someone working at the school. So we might have a difference of opinion there. I'm not sure because maybe the merging was indeed performed by the FBI.

Anyway, the point is that we can and do have differences of opinion, and we do not try to conceal our differences or secretly  coordinate our beliefs.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Of course you have no obligation to answer that. It is entirely up to you as individuals how you choose to approach these discussions, and if you prefer to stick to the above format, then that is your right.

But here we are facing all kinds of aggressive abuse and finger pointing and having our intentions being questioned etc..., for simply raising OUR doubts and differences in public.

 

 

Bernie, please don't insult our collective intelligence. We ll know that you are here because you have a goal of discrediting John Armstrong, his theory, and those of us who believe his theory.

Or at least you did before now. I suppose it's possible you've changed.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Yet those that promote it keep their differences to themselves behind closed doors. If you can all disagree with JA from time to time on aspects of H&L (but privately), then we can all publically disagree for as long as we see fit. 

Why can you have differences with Jim or JA privately about H&L but we are castigated as a "disrupters" "cointelpro" and "vermin" for posting OUR differences on here, a public platform? 

Why are you allowed to question H&L...but we aren't?

 

It's a waste of everybody's time for anyone to come here (or anywhere) and in every post say that you don't believe the theory.

If you really want to know something -- like one of those items in your list of questions -- why not start a thread dedicated to it? for example, a topic titled "What happened to Lee after the assassination?"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

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.

 

I addressed your off-topic schoolyard invite for off-line gossip and private slur party here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recall that David J. commented that the school records are "bastardized' (I believe that's his description) because the FBI merged and manipulated them. That's his opinion. My opinion is that certainly somebody merged two LHO school records, and it may have been someone working at the school. So we might have a difference of opinion there. I'm not sure because maybe the merging was indeed performed by the FBI.


Which immediately leads to the question, Why did ALL of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" original education and pre-Marines employment records disappear?  The FBI made the effort to confiscate them within hours of the assassination, and so why weren't they kept?

And since we're talking about Harvey and Lee's educational records in this thread, this would be a good place to point to the evidence that the FBI made ALL the original school records for the two boys disappear, some never to be seen again, some replaced by b&w photos, which can easily be manipulated.

Assistant principal Frank Kudlaty said he gave "Lee Harvey Oswald's" Stripling School records to the FBI immediately after the assassination, but those records disappeared entirely.  John says there are no original Beauregard records in the National Archives, only b&w photos of them supplied by the FBI. The ARRB concurred.  An ARRB memo from 1995, reproduced below, says, "Let me state at the start that all the school and employment records I looked at in the Warren Commission Exhibit files at Archives II were copies, not originals."

John also found a documentary trail indicating that all the original NYC records of "Lee Harvey Oswald" disappeared after Judge Florence Kelley, Administrative Judge of the Family Court of the State of New York in 1963, supplied them to the Special Agent in Charge of the New York FBI Office, John Malone.  The Office of NYC Mayor Wagner even contacted the FBI asking what happened to those original records.

It is clear that J. Edgar Hoover felt it was necessary to confiscate all of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" original school and pre-Marine employment records before he had even determined if other members of the U.S. Government were targeted along with JFK.  The reason was clearly to avoid exposure of the Oswald Project.  Perhaps someone here can suggest another reason why all the original evidence disappeared.

NYC1.jpg


NYC2.jpg


NYC3.jpg


NYC4.jpg


NYC5.jpg


ARRB_copies.jpg

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 6, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Bernie Laverick said:

 

And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled!

 

 

How is this any different than any political party anywhere operates? Did you hear any Republicans questioning the merits of the tax bill. Damned few anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...