EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And that is why I say that statistically the Harvey & Lee theory is a slam dunk. There are so many things pointing to multiple Oswalds that it cannot be reasonably denied.

Then why not take it to an investigative journalist who could then hire a statistician, a dental expert, a DNA expert and any others you need to prove this "slam dunk" theory is a fact? What are you afraid of?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Actually I was referring to the part of your post that I bolded when I said you were making  it up.

But since you bring this thing about Jack White up, let me ask you a question. Is there evidence that Kudlaty made that story up after talking to Jack White? Or are you assuming that to be the case?

This was about Oswald attending Stripling, was it not? Which the WC said he didn't, But Robert testified that he did, Marguerite testified that he did, a teacher said he did, and at least one student said he did. And then Kudlaty said he did. Sure does sound like Oswald went to Stripling.

Is there any evidence that Jack White coached Kudlaty?

I have a hard time believing that Jack White and John Armstrong have this sort of mystical power over people's minds, especially men's. The men I know are pretty head strong. I can't think of any who'd just go along with a story like that.

No there is no "evidence" that Kudlaty made up story. How could there be? You can't go into someone's mind. But there is evidence that Kudlaty and Jack White knew each other and White told him about H&L. You can search for the thread right here on EF where White admitted a prior relationship. As for Armstrong's "power" over people, this simply amounts to the way he handled witnesses. He approached people and befriended them. In one phone  interview I remember he referred to Linda Faircloth as "honey." Contrast this with the journalistic way David Lifton conducted his interview with McBride (partial transcript on my website if you care to read it).

As far as Robert and Stripling, he assumed that LHO had attended the school as he had. And he would have except Robert forgot that LHO moved to NYC just prior to that. Just an honest mistake on Robert's part that has been blown into something it isn't. You guys have to learn that just because someone says something that does not make it a fact. As for the other witnesses, most of them had been gotten to by Armstrong and his leading questions produced his desired result. Those who were honestly mistaken were remembering Robert. Of course, all of this has been explained to you before and you simply refuse to accept it.

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, Greg Parker and others documented Jack White's coaching of Kudlaty. If Kudlaty had independently gone to the authorities (or even to Armstrong) and told a story of confiscated records, it would carry more weight. But he only told his story AFTER talking to Jack White and hearing Armstrong's thesis. Again, search here at EF and find the threads.

Oh, brother.  Claiming that Frank Kudlaty and Jack White dreamed up the entire Stripling School scenario is just the sort of mean-spirited nonsense you would expect from Greg Parker.

He got the year wrong, but Robert Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that his brother attended Stripling.

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

On two separate occasions,  Robert Oswald told a Fort Worth newspaper that his brother attended Stripling.  See one of the articles here.

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 her YouTube interview with John here.

In the 1990s, Stripling School principal Ricardo Galindo told John Armstrong that it was “common knowledge” that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended Stripling.

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. 

John made audio recordings of the Stripling people mentioned above, and we'll be putting together something about them next summer.  In the meantime....

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 fact is, Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty in 1963 met FBI agents at the school and gave them “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” Stripling records.  His YouTube interview is here.

Here's how Frank Kudlaty and John Armstrong REALLY met:

Stripling faculty members

After many hours of long distance telephone calls, I managed to contact a sur­-
prising number of former Stripling teachers, although many were deceased. One man
I spoke with was Mark Summers, a former gym teacher, who began his 10-year tenure
at Stripling in September 1950, one year after Robert Oswald graduated from the school
(1949). Mr. Summers said that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a student in his gym class for
a short time, but remembered little about him.

NOTE: Mr. Summers could not have mistakenly remembered Robert Oswald in his class,
because Robert graduated from Stripling the year before he began teaching.

As I continued to locate and talk with former Stripling teachers, many suggested
that I call "Frank Kudlaty," the former assistant principal at Stripling. I telephoned Mr.
Kudlaty, introduced myself as a JFK researcher, and asked if he knew whether or not
"Lee Harvey Oswald" had attended Stripling. Without hesitation Frank said, "Yes, he
attended Stripling." Somewhat surprised I asked, "How do you know that?" Frank re­-
plied, "Because I gave his Stripling records to the FBI." [Harvey and Lee, p. 98]
 

[Jim Hargrove]

10 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I have not been an active proponent of this theory, but appears to me that there is more evidence supporting Harvey and Lee than evidence that contradicts it. The school records are certainly puzzling and difficult to dismiss as an error.  I had not heard Laura Kittrell's story before, and I found it compelling, thanks @Jim Hargrove

The Hoover memo and the reports of Oswald driving are also strong indicators that at the very least someone was using his identity.

Thanks, Denny.  

Ms. Kittrell gave a thirty-page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas. Her statement was hand carried to the Warren Commission by the Secret Service. But her 30-page statement and subsequent 90-page manuscript in which she discussed her interviews of the two Oswalds, were ultimately ignored and suppressed.

Following the assassination Laura Kittrell telephoned and wrote to the FBI about her meeting with Oswald. The FBI finally got around to interviewing Mrs. Kittrell on June 4, 1965, nearly a year after the Warren Report was published. And then, 30 years later in 1994, the U.S. government finally got around to allowing the American people access to her statement. Here again is the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9 of a ten-page July 18, 1978 memo from the HSCA's Gaeton Fonzi to Blakey.

All these documents, including Ms. Kittrell's 90-page manuscript, are available at the online John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University.

[Jeffrey Reilley]

Just a question, not really all the relevant I guess, but do the folks that take this theory with a grain of salt not believe that Oswald was impersonated in the months leading to the assassination? 

I’m not all that convinced with H&L, but since at least one person seemed to have been impersonating him on multiple occasions, I’m not willing to throw it out either. As well, the government did some rather shady things, probably still does, including but not limited to: drugging unsuspecting citizens(here and abroad)to see outcome, overthrow sovereign nations, lie to their employers, and get cozy with organized crime, so how far out on a limb would the average person be going if they thought these government agencies were capable of the H&L project? I personally don’t think very far. 

I’ve  just been wondering though, for the people that do think that Oswald acted alone, why is it so easy to accept that the government and its agencies have been telling the truth and engaging in honesty when they have been caught time and again not doing so?

Maybe I’m just jaded, who knows, but it is easier and more logical for me to believe that two Oswalds were running around than it is to believe that one dude hopped around the globe with masterful precision as a teen and then bounced around Texas and Louisiana in a summer with the air of hopelessness only to pull off one of the greatest feats in shooting. Immediately after that he realizes he forgot his pistol and gets on the wrong bus in a panic, but only after acting cool as a cucumber to a cop seconds after shooting Kennedy. Then he panics again leaving his home, kills a cop, and finally settles on the cinema. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

48 minutes ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

I’ve  just been wondering though, for the people that do think that Oswald acted alone, why is it so easy to accept that the government and its agencies have been telling the truth and engaging in honesty when they have been caught time and again not doing so?

I am very willing to accept that the government (or its representatives) have committed immoral and even illegal acts. I am less willing to accept a massive conspiracy like H&L especially when I believe the evidence indicates that it did not occur. 

[Jim Hargrove]

18 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, Greg Parker and others documented Jack White's coaching of Kudlaty. If Kudlaty had independently gone to the authorities (or even to Armstrong) and told a story of confiscated records, it would carry more weight. But he only told his story AFTER talking to Jack White and hearing Armstrong's thesis. Again, search here at EF and find the threads.

According to super-sleuths Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell, conspiracy theorists Jack White and Frank Kudlaty concocted the entire Stripling School hoax just to fool the rest of us for years to come.  What is remarkable is that, according to an article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram from 11/24/63, their fiendish plot was already in effect less than 48 hours after the assassination. 

 

 

It was still going strong nearly four decades later, when the 5/11/2002 edition of the same Fort Worth newspaper included an article commemorating the 75th anniversary of Stripling School, noting that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was its best-known student, and making note of the infamous Thomas Place address.

 

Fiendish hoaxsters that they were, the White/Kudlaty team managed to plant an article in the April 2, 1963 Fort Worth Star Telegram claiming that, seven or eight months prior to the assassination of JFK, Frank Kudlaty was indeed the assistant principal of Stripling School.

Is it time to give our super-sleuths the kind of respect they so richly deserve?  I think so!

To hear and see Frank Kudlaty discuss what REALLY happened at Stripling School, click here.

To see and hear Oswald’s classmate Fran Schubert describe how she watched Oswald walk home from Stripling School to 2220 Thomas Place, click here.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

Just a question, not really all the relevant I guess, but do the folks that take this theory with a grain of salt not believe that Oswald was impersonated in the months leading to the assassination? 

No, I do not believe Oswald was being impersonated in any way, shape or form.

In literally EVERY high-profile crime or tragedy, (1) seemingly credible and well-meaning people come out of the woodwork with wild tales and observations that do not fit the narrative of what we know occurred, and (2) seemingly credible but not-so-well-meaning people come out of the woodwork with wild false tales in an attempt to associate themselves with the event, sometimes just for amusement, sometimes for a pathetic grasp at "celebrity," sometimes for hope of financial gain.

People in categories 1 and 2 are the bane of law enforcement and serious historical research, but they are the lifeblood of conspiracy theories.  A high-profile kidnapping will generate HUNDREDS of bogus sightings from Alaska to Maine.  I have seen NOTHING in H&L or elsewhere to convince me that Oswald was being impersonated.

I happen to recently have been reading the testimonies of the Bethesda witnesses, mostly meaning those who were (or at least claim to have been) at the autopsy.  Virtually all of these people seem to be educated, intelligent and superficially credible.  Yet the accounts are so wildly different that, as I said to my wife yesterday, you would think some had attended a football game, some a soccer match, some a baseball game, some an opera and some a Western movie.

It is impossible to reconcile the various accounts into anything like a coherent narrative UNLESS you recognize that some of these people fall into categories 1 and 2.  When you discard the outliers, you can arrive at a reasonably coherent narrative with the inconsistencies that are inevitable anytime you have multiple eyewitnesses.  When you insist on including the outliers - or, worse yet, you make them the central figures in your narrative - you have the makings of a conspiracy theory.

I no longer care anything about any of this silliness - and I do mean SILLINESS - unless someone is going to explain, from the get-go,  how it makes any sense whatsoever in the context of a Presidential assassination planned and carried out by anyone with even a modicum of intelligence, resources and skill.  Whatever one may think of LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Angleton, Army Intelligence, rogue CIA/FBI/Secret Service agents, the DPD, the Mafia, the KGB, et al., they weren't stumbling buffoons and had at least a modicum of intelligence, resources and skill.

Devote an hour of quiet meditation to the issue of how Best Evidence, H&L and many other conspiracy theories would have worked.  Forget the overwhelming minutiae that you now consider "evidence."  Just ask yourself how this would have worked, what possible sense it would have made, in the context of a real-world Presidential assassination planned and carried out by the people who are postulated to have carried it out.  You may have an epiphany.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What is remarkable is that, according to an article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram from 11/24/63, their fiendish plot was already in effect less than 48 hours after the assassination. 

First, I never said or suggested that Frank Kudlaty was not the assistant principal at Stripling-I'm sure that he was. What I am saying is that it is odd that he never said anything about confiscated records until he talked to White and Armstrong. As for the newspaper reporting that LHO was at Stripling, I think we both know where that information came from-the honestly mistaken Robert Oswald. The papers even carried that before the assassination, if I remember correctly. But none of this makes it a fact except in Armstrong's world. There isn't one yearbook photo or one school record to prove his attendance. Just Robert's honestly mistaken assumption and some 40 year old remembrances influenced by Armstrong's nonsense.

[Jim Hargrove]

You’re familiar enough with this evidence to know that isn’t true.  In the 1990s, then Stripling principal Ricardo Galindo told John it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling School.  Less than two years ago the Fort Worth Star Telegram indicated that   “teachers and classmates remember him at Stripling, though there is no official record.”

And before you go into your usual tap dance that people were remembering not LHO but Robert, recall that many of the eyewitnesses to LHO at Stripling, including Fran Schubert and others, weren’t even at the school when Robert attended.

The most shameful thing you and Mr. Parker are doing is to besmirch the name and memory of the late, great Jack White, in my opinion the most important researcher who ever graced the pages of this forum.  Shame on you both!

[Jeffrey Reilley]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

No, I do not believe Oswald was being impersonated in any way, shape or form.

In literally EVERY high-profile crime or tragedy, (1) seemingly credible and well-meaning people come out of the woodwork with wild tales and observations that do not fit the narrative of what we know occurred, and (2) seemingly credible but not-so-well-meaning people come out of the woodwork with wild false tales in an attempt to associate themselves with the event, sometimes just for amusement, sometimes for a pathetic grasp at "celebrity," sometimes for hope of financial gain.

People in categories 1 and 2 are the bane of law enforcement and serious historical research, but they are the lifeblood of conspiracy theories.  A high-profile kidnapping will generate HUNDREDS of bogus sightings from Alaska to Maine.  I have seen NOTHING in H&L or elsewhere to convince me that Oswald was being impersonated.

I happen to recently have been reading the testimonies of the Bethesda witnesses, mostly meaning those who were (or at least claim to have been) at the autopsy.  Virtually all of these people seem to be educated, intelligent and superficially credible.  Yet the accounts are so wildly different that, as I said to my wife yesterday, you would think some had attended a football game, some a soccer match, some a baseball game, some an opera and some a Western movie.

It is impossible to reconcile the various accounts into anything like a coherent narrative UNLESS you recognize that some of these people fall into categories 1 and 2.  When you discard the outliers, you can arrive at a reasonably coherent narrative with the inconsistencies that are inevitable anytime you have multiple eyewitnesses.  When you insist on including the outliers - or, worse yet, you make them the central figures in your narrative - you have the makings of a conspiracy theory.

I no longer care anything about any of this silliness - and I do mean SILLINESS - unless someone is going to explain, from the get-go,  how it makes any sense whatsoever in the context of a Presidential assassination planned and carried out by anyone with even a modicum of intelligence, resources and skill.  Whatever one may think of LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Angleton, Army Intelligence, rogue CIA/FBI/Secret Service agents, the DPD, the Mafia, the KGB, et al., they weren't stumbling buffoons and had at least a modicum of intelligence, resources and skill.

Devote an hour of quiet meditation to the issue of how Best Evidence, H&L and many other conspiracy theories would have worked.  Forget the overwhelming minutiae that you now consider "evidence."  Just ask yourself how this would have worked, what possible sense it would have made, in the context of a real-world Presidential assassination planned and carried out by the people who are postulated to have carried it out.  You may have an epiphany.

So, you don’t believe that anyone impersonated him via phone call or any other means in Mexico City? That is one of the areas that really started to make me think something wasn’t right.

All of the other stories of their being a similar person going around making noise, I could concede as being a mistake, people hoping they got close to infamy, or people just wanting a moment in the light, but the reading of what went on in Mexico City has always been where I just can’t write it off. 

Either way, I fear I am out of line and don’t want to hijack anything by my curiosity. 

[John Butler]

Jim Hargrove says:

"The most shameful thing you and Mr. Parker are doing is to besmirch the name and memory of the late, great Jack White, in my opinion the most important researcher who ever graced the pages of this forum.  Shame on you both!"

I would like to repeat this oh, about 100 or 200 times.  Jack White is one of my heroes in the Kennedy assassination research field.  I just wish I had gotten into this area earlier and could have corresponded with Jack White.  I would have loved to get my hands on his original photo material.  I would like to think I could point out a thing or two to him, but probably not.

A truly great man.

 

[Jeffrey Reilley]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Devote an hour of quiet meditation to the issue of how Best Evidence, H&L and many other conspiracy theories would have worked.  Forget the overwhelming minutiae that you now consider "evidence."  Just ask yourself how this would have worked, what possible sense it would have made, in the context of a real-world Presidential assassination planned and carried out by the people who are postulated to have carried it out.  You may have an epiphany.

One more thing, that’s why I worry about what happened. I did think about things, while not wanting to believe our own officials, agents, citizens or whatever would stoop so low as to commit treason.

They were  behind overthrows in Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Vietnam, and tried to in Cuba, and that’s just off the top of my head as I literally watch paint dry(most inefficient two days of my life). They did kill, or had killed leaders of nations. That is not make believe. That happened. Why am I willing to shrug my shoulders and accept what those same people say is truth when I know all too well killers kill, and they know it’s bad, so why just blindly believe? I do agree there is a sea of minutiae but I believe the truth is somewhere in there.

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You said that if that was a fake Marguerite, surely an old friend of the real Marguerite would have come forward and said that she wasn't the real Marguerite. Which is effectively what the Evans did

No she didn't. And it is a shame that you guys keep pushing this myth. Here is what she said in context:

That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.

So, I think it is you who lacks the objectivity to see that she simply was commenting on how Marguerite's appearance had changed, not that she was a different individual.

 

Tracy,

Mrs. Evans said, "That couldn't be Margie" because she didn't recognize that "old and haggard" woman.

Then she said, "but of course it was" because there the woman was in the national spotlight with everyone saying it was Margie.

What else could Mrs Evans say, that everybody was wrong?? No, Mrs. Evans had to accept that her old friend had changed so much that she was no longer recognizable.

You originally claimed that no acquaintance of Marguerite came forward to say that this woman didn't look like the Marguerite they knew. But that is precisely what Mrs. Evans did.

Nevertheless I do understand your need to interpret her "That couldn't be Margie" statement in another way so you can wave it off as nothing.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Then why not take it to an investigative journalist who could then hire a statistician, a dental expert, a DNA expert and any others you need to prove this "slam dunk" theory is a fact? What are you afraid of?

 

I'm not afraid of anything. I merely don't have the means to do these things. I also understand how many or most experts will deny things if they feel it threatens their careers or will result in their being shunned or mocked.