Was it really just a MOLE HUNT about "Oswald?"

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

2 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The ball is in the critics' court to refute those three pieces of evidence, plus a substantial body of secondary evidence.  And it will not be sufficient merely to write it all off by suggesting that the witnesses had faulty memories.   
 

But in this instance witness memories are all you have.

Do you remember everyone with whom you attended school 40 years ago?

Even if they were only in your school for six weeks?

The Warrenistas in no instance ever extended the accused Oswald the benefit of the doubt, as is required by the presumption of innocence.

The Armstrongistas insist that in every instance the H&L hypothesis be given the benefit of the doubt - a presumption of validity - even when a dispassionate view of the evidence reveals critical weakness.  

Like depending on 40 year old witness memories about a kid who was in their school for 6 weeks, or the calendar equivalent of 30 days of classes.

Possible?  Sure.  

Likely?  

Please.

As for the contention that LHO in Stripling was “common knowledge,” the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.  How many kids and faculty in Stripling?  Two to three hundred?  

If most of those pupils and staff recalled LHO’s presence, that would be “common knowledge.”  Six people out of several hundred isn’t “common.”  It is the precise opposite.

[Jim Hargrove]

5 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

But in this instance witness memories are all you have.

Do you remember everyone with whom you attended school 40 years ago?

Oh, puh-leeze!  I presented this evidence just eight hours ago!  

Here’s what Robert told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the edition of June, 8, 1962, more than a year before JFK was killed and the Warren Commission was organized: “The brother said the younger Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School about a year before he enlisted in the Marines.”

Robert said the same thing in 1959.

Marguerite Oswald indirectly but clearly confirmed Robert Oswald's general timeline for the Stripling School enrollment for LHO:

In a November 15, 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram story entitled “My Values Different, Defector Told Mother,” Marguerite was quoted as saying: "He quit school at 14 …. he quit in the eighth grade ….. but was so set on getting an education, he quit and returned three times."  That, of course, hardly matches the WC record of Classic Oswald®  But it makes perfect sense if we understand that the Russian-speaking Oswald attended, and later quit, Stripling JHS, Warren Easton High School, and Arlington Heights High School.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Prior to your edit, your post included the allegation that the FWST “regularly covered Stripling School.”  Not sure why you deleted that.

But one notes that for a paper that “regularly covered Stripling,” none of its reportage indicates the paper ever asked anyone at Stripling about Oswald’s attendance.  So, its reportage is, shall we say, incomplete.  Not even you can deny that.  If you can prove otherwise, I’d welcome the data.

Moreover, as has already been repeatedly polnted out, Robert Oswald was incorrect when he first advised the media his brother had attended Stripling.  He did not know this first hand to be a fact because he was serving in the Marines at this juncture.  He made a mistake.

Each time there was subsequent coverage (‘59, ‘62, ‘63), the paper relied upon information from its morgue file on LHO, and hence the same initial error was repeated.

Repetition does not render a falsehood true.
                                    
Whether the falsehood is the FWST’s inadvertent one or H&L’s self-serving one.

 

[Mark Stevens]

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Countering the arguments the H&L critics make regarding the Stripling evidence strikes me as a waste of time.  For just one example, in THIS POST Mark Stevens quoted me as saying:

“... on December 27, 1993, John Armstrong wrote to Ricardo Galindo, the then current principal of Stripling School, asking if there were any records for Lee Harvey Oswald's attendance at the school.  Mr. Galindo telephoned John back and said that, although there were no records, it was 'common knowledge' that LHO had attended the school. [Harvey and Lee, p. 97]”

Mr. Stevens responded with this: 

“Again, what exactly constitutes 'common knowledge?' If for instance, 300 students and faculty were at Stripling, daily, and Harvey & Lee proponents have offered, at best, 6 documented witnesses which can attest to Oswald's presence at Stripling; would 2% constitute a population which could be considered 'common knowledge?'"

A “debate” like this seems worthless to me.  Stripling School principal Ricardo Galindo told John Armstrong that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended his school. Demanding a discussion of what “common knowledge” should mean to a linguist or a statistician or a philosopher is absurd.  Mr. Galindo’s statement obviously meant that many people knew about it.  End of a discussion that should have never started.
 

You just do not seem to understand. For a person, any person to make the claim that anything is "common knowledge" it has to be backed by some kind of actual number(s). I in no manner "demanded" you discuss what common knowledge should mean to a linguist, a statistician, or a philosopher. What I did ask you to do was to state, what actual number of people have first hand knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald, someone resembling him, or someone relating to be him which attended Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth Texas for the school year 1953-54. To me it seems rather clear what the question is and what I am "demanding" you discuss. Would you also then state, what actual number (an estimate is also fine) faculty and students included, attended or worked at Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth Texas for the school year 1953-1954 (again, reasonable estimates based on what is known about attendance and employment in other, similar years is fine). If you were to introduce this argument in court a judge would require you to define what "common knowledge" entailed. You would have to explain if it were 9/10 people, or 1/10. The jury could then decide if in fact the knowledge were "common."

The same basic fact behooves you as a claimant. You have to define, to us the jury, what the "common knowledge" entails and allow us, the jury, to decide if in fact this constitutes "common" knowledge. You are not allowed to make the claim without providing evidence to support it. The fact that he said it, does not prove or support the fact that it is actually true. You cannot continue to use the fact that Galindo made a claim as evidence the claim Galindo made was true.

Quote

 

I have said several times now that the only real puzzle in the small mountain of Stripling evidence is this:  Why would Robert Oswald have told the Warren Commission that LHO attended Stripling in 1952, which was obviously an incorrect year?  On closer examination, though, the answer is quite simple.  That probably isn’t what Robert said at all, unless he was coached to be deliberately inaccurate.  This is easy to prove.

Here’s what Robert told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the edition of June, 8, 1962, more than a year before JFK was killed and the Warren Commission was organized:  “The brother said the younger Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School about a year before he enlisted in the Marines.”

LHO’s Marine Corp. enlistment interview was held on October 15, 1956, about 2 years after his attendance at Stripling School.  Robert’s statement to the Fort Worth paper before the assassination of JFK seems to be much closer to the truth than the version the Warren Commission gave us.

Roughly two years after Robert spoke to the Star-Telegram, the Warren Commission alleged that he said LHO attended Stripling School in 1952, not the 54-55 school year as Robert’s earlier newspaper statement clearly suggested.

Understanding all we know now concerning the Warren Commission, would you believe Robert’s earliest known recollection of the time LHO went to Stripling, or what he allegedly told the WC, which was obviously inaccurate?

This later estimate for LHO's Stripling attendance also agrees with Marguerite’s FWST statement.  In a November 15, 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram story entitled “My Values Different, Defector Told Mother,” Marguerite was quoted as saying: "He quit school at 14 …. he quit in the eighth grade ….. but was so set on getting an education, he quit and returned three times."

That, of course, hardly matches the WC education records of Classic Oswald®. But it makes perfect sense if we understand that the Russian-speaking Oswald attended, and later quit, Stripling JHS, Warren Easton High School, and Arlington Heights High School, all soon before joining the Marines, just as Robert Oswald told the FWST BEFORE the Warren Commission convened and hired all those high-priced lawyers to hide the truth about the assassination and the Oswald Project.

The simple fact is that we have evidence from a Stripling School principal and a Stripling assistant principal that LHO attended Stripling, along with clear pre-assassination statements from both Robert Oswald and Marguerite that back up that claim, as well as a YouTube video from a classmate who saw him walk from the school to 2220 Thomas Place, and five articles from the local daily newspaper saying that LHO attended Stripling.  The H&L critics always call the following a "distraction," but we also have clear evidence published in the Warren volumes that shows Classic Oswald attended schools in NYC and New Orleans simultaneously just a year before the Stripling episode.  It all fits a familiar pattern.

None of the H&L critics seem remotely impressed by this evidence, nor do they express the slightest curiosity about questioning whether there is something terribly wrong in the official biography of LHO.   They just make excuses for the evidence and claim everyone is lying or mistaken.  

 

The same "simple fact" as you like to state is true for the newspaper articles. You cannot use the fact that they exist as evidence the claims made in them are true. When a person attempts to discuss the claims of the article, not the fact the articles exist, you cannot use the fact the articles exist as evidence the claims made in them are true.

However many pages ago, I attempted to explain my belief (and a logical one I believe) was to Robert Oswald's statement regarding Stripling to the Warren Commission:

Quote

 

I do believe, based on later testimony from Robert, that he was mistaken about this school.

Robert's initial statement (which I believe is just being taken out of context by H&L supporters at this point):

Quote

Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?
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.
Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.
Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?

A few pages later Robert states:

Quote

Mr. JENNER. During that 3-year period, what contact did you have with the members of your family, and with particular reference, if you can give that first, with your brother Lee his writing you, you writing him?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we were corresponding infrequently, I would say--not very many letters between I and Lee direct when I was in the service, especially the first part of my tour in the service.
In 1952, after traveling from Camp Pendleton, Calif., to Jacksonville, Fla. I did have a 10-day leave. They were in New York City at that time.
Mr. JENNER. This was then some time in 1953, I take it?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir--1952.
Mr. JENNER. 1952?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. This was----
Mr. JENNER. You mean your mother and Lee that is the period of time they were in New York City?
Mr. OSWALD. That's correct.
Mr. JENNER. Living there.
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Did you see them?
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave.
Mr. JENNER. Fix the time.
Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family.
Mr. JENNER. Where did you stay?
Mr. OSWALD. At mother's apartment, with Lee, in the Bronx some place I do not recall the address.
Mr. JENNER. What, if anything, did you learn at that time regarding Lee's attendance or nonattendance in school?
Mr. OSWALD. Nothing on that, sir. This was in the summer time. Lee, of course, was home and not supposed to be in school. And I do not think anything was brought up that I recall about whether or not Lee had been attending school regularly or not.
Mr. McKENZIE. Can we go off the record?
Mr. JENNER. Yes.

 

What I take from this is a huge misunderstanding of what Robert said and also taking those comments out of context.

My take is this:

In 1951-1952 LHO was 12 and attended 6th grade at Ridgelea. (turned 12 in Oct. '51)

In 1952 LHO would have turned 13 and would have entered into the 7th grade at Stripling for the 1952-53 school year had the family continued to reside in Ft. Worth. So while Robert does state "In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then." he is referencing a hypothetical. Oswald did not turn 13 until October of 1952, by that point they were already in NYC. So while LHO was "13 in 1952," it was only for 2.5 months.

My fairly basic understanding of the school records seems to show LHO entering into the 7th grade in 1952, which would have put him at Stripling had they continued to reside in Ft. Worth. Since they moved, he enrolled in a different school, at or before the beginning of the school year.

If you look at Robert's comments in context, his "mistake" becomes clear as do all of comments and what they truly mean as well as the timeline.

 

If you take Robert's statements in context he clearly states that after Ridgelea LHO entered into Stripling. He's not confused about years at all as Jim Hargrove would like you to believe. He know's he is referring to the school year he is talking about, and states this numerous times.

Quote

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.
Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.

To answer your question though, I wouldn't believe either statement Robert Oswald made regarding Stripling. He was not in position to have first hand knowledge, as his clear mistakes show.

7 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Jim,

I concur that it is a waste of time to try to respond to the critics on this thread.  If there were genuine questions raised or a legitimate interest in debating the Stripling evidence, then I would be eager to participate.  Instead, the critics wear their biases on their sleeves and seem incapable of weighing and synthesizing different kinds of evidence.  The links the critics provide are to other biased, opinion-based blogs and forums.  The questions raised are irrelevant and expose the deficiencies of minds incapable of clear thinking.  The last resort of the critics is the use of ad hominem to deflect the conversation away from the evidence.

Thanks to you and Sandy, the body of evidence about Stripling has been clearly presented above.  The three key pieces of evidence are (1) Frank Kudlaty's recall of surrendering school records to the FBI, documenting that Lee Harvey Oswald (not Robert) attended Stripling; (2) Fran Schubert's confident recall of Oswald attending the school during the academic year 1954-55; and (3) the evidence suggesting that Oswald resided across the street from the school.  

The ball is in the critics' court to refute those three pieces of evidence, plus a substantial body of secondary evidence.  And it will not be sufficient merely to write it all off by suggesting that the witnesses had faulty memories.   

  

 

The ball keeps getting passed back to use by the H&L crowd because "it is a waste of time to try to respond to critics on this thread." You mean to tell me I haven't raised one genuine question? Seriously, not one?

You continue to mention the "substantial evidence" but not the actual substance of the "evidence" or what even qualifies the "evidence" as actual evidence. We try to ascertain that, and you tell us it isn't even worthwhile.

I've asked legitimate questions regarding the "witnesses" and what they saw and stated. 

22 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oh, puhleeze!  I presented this evidence just eight hours ago!  

Here’s what Robert told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the edition of June, 8, 1962, more than a year before JFK was killed and the Warren Commission was organized: “The brother said the younger Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School about a year before he enlisted in the Marines.”

Robert said the same thing in 1959.

Three or four more articles from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (the local paper that regularly covered Stripling School) also said LHO attended Stripling.

Again, You cannot use the fact that they exist as evidence the claims made in them are true. When a person attempts to discuss the claims of the article, not the fact the articles exist, you cannot again use the fact the articles exist as evidence the claims made in them are true.

I'm not sure if you know this, but I can find maybe one or two, quite possibly even four, articles I saw about it, but it was also in the newspaper that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of John F. Kennedy. I guess, this whole debate is no longer worthwhile. It was printed in the newspaper, it has to be explicitly true, no matter how many times it is repeated. Questioning the veracity of the statements isn't just not allowed, it's also ludicrous to do so. I mean, gee golly, it's right there in the paper! Four times no less!!!! Even better, it's four different papers. Not just one saying the same thing four times, four different papers!

I guess I should delete my account now, burn all those JFK books this winter instead of wood. Save some heating costs. This worthless debate was solved by the newspapers what, 60 years ago. Silly me.

[James Norwood]

12 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

You mean to tell me I haven't raised one genuine question? Seriously, not one?

Precisely.  You have not raised one genuine question about this topic.

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

Precisely.  You have not raised one genuine question about this topic.

Asking for substance for your substantial evidence is not genuine question? Asking what the unnamed, but "substantial evidence" is, is not a genuine question?

Asking what amount of people (of a specific population) need to know something before it is considered "common" is not genuine? If you presented this ludicrous argument in a court of law you would be all but laughed at (because some people take this seriously). You would have to establish what evidentiary fact your ultimate fact is based on. If the ultimate fact was that it was "common knowledge" you would have to show what evidentiary fact this statement is based on.

What you would ultimately be left stating is that of an estimated population of 300 people, there are literally 3 people who can give even the flimsiest of connection to Oswald attending Stripling for the school year 1953-54, or even 1954-55. Hell even with the questionable "eyewitness" from 1952, and the ones who only place him at a house near the school you are only left with 6 people out of population of 300 who over the course of at least 6 months attended school with LHO of the 300 people, 294 do not remember him at all and 6 do.

Never mind the fact that Schubert claims Lee Harvey Oswald had a group of friends. Is asking why we haven't spoken to or even found these people not a genuine question? Delbert McClinton is mentioned by name as having gone into this house with your LHO. Is asking why no one has asked him what he remembers about that house and who lived there not a genuine question.

When people state:

Quote

 

We can also point to this additional evidence:

"Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.”

 

Is asking what names of teachers and classmates remember, and what years do they remember him from not a genuine question?

I asked why Pitts, who only saw "Oswald" sitting on a porch and never stated he saw Oswald attending Stripling is used as a "eyewitness to Oswald's presence at Stripling." This is also, not genuine?

At this point, any one following along can see the actual pattern.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

The lastest episode of "look over there!" evidence-avoidance by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers began when James Norwood declared that

Quote

a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School.

Mark Stevens did what James had neglected to do: he actually looked critically at the eyewitnesses' statements. Mark explained why none of the six "clearly recalled" what James claimed they "clearly recalled".

Jim Hargrove then performed his usual "look over there!" act. He completely ignored Mark's analysis; he pretended it didn't exist; he congratulated James on upholding 'Harvey and Lee' dogma; and he brought up a different 'Harvey and Lee' talking point to divert attention from the problem of the eyewitnesses' statements.

James, on the other hand, invented spurious reasons to avoid answering Mark's questions:

Quote

If there were genuine questions raised or a legitimate interest in debating the Stripling evidence, then I would be eager to participate. ... The questions raised are irrelevant.

But Mark's questions are entirely relevant to the issue of whether an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, the very issue James himself had raised. Mark explained how the statements of James's "six eyewitnesses" did not support James's claim. If James wants anyone to take seriously his claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, he needs to rescue his now worthless "six eyewitnesses" by countering Mark's analysis of their statements.

Neither Jim nor James has yet felt brave enough to deal with the points Mark made, despite several reasonable requests to do so. Why? What have they got to lose? It's unlikely that they would end up sacrificing potential converts to their belief system; surely everyone still reading this thread has already made their mind up on the 'Harvey and Lee' question. Come on, guys! Everyone makes mistakes! You may as well come clean, admit that Mark was right and you were wrong, and then (and only then) move on to the next 'Harvey and Lee' talking point.

Actually, the believers do have something to lose. James's Stripling witnesses are not anomalies. A sizeable part of the 'Harvey and Lee' edifice is built on exactly the same shaky foundations: vague recollections of something that may or may not have happened several decades earlier.

Once you admit the weakness of one set of vague, decades-old recollections, how do you deny the weakness of all the other vague, decades-old recollections? You'd open the floodgates, and the flimsy 'Harvey and Lee' structure would be swept away. If you know how flimsy that structure is but you can't face admitting it, your best option is to divert attention from the weak eyewitness evidence. Look over there! School records! Bolton Ford! Texas Theater!

If James Norwood and Jim Hargrove truly have faith in their belief system, they should risk opening those floodgates, and follow Robert Charles-Dunne's advice:

Quote

I suggest that your time is likely better spent in responding to the much-asked, never-answered questions posed by Mark Stevens.

Stop running away, James and Jim! Take each of the "six eyewitnesses ... [who] clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling" and explain how their statements justify that conclusion. If you can't do that, just admit that you were wrong.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

The links the critics provide are to other biased, opinion-based blogs and forums.

Here's one such link. A friend of Jim's from down under points out that James is at risk of making himself the subject of ridicule, like his fellow believers:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33708

Just because the 'Harvey and Lee' believers like it so much, here's some interesting reading on the whole Stripling nonsense:

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1624-forwarding-school-records-and-erroneous-recorded-information

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

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1444-the-stripling-bullxxxx-rears-its-ugly-head-again

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1397-armstrong-asks

- https://www.thenewdisease.space/hardlylee-nut

- http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html

- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24524-the-hl-two-schools-at-the-same-time-mystery/

- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24469-new-article-by-john-armstrong/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-366368

[Jim Hargrove]

19 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

But in this instance witness memories are all you have.

As I showed on the previous page, we have three Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles, all published BEFORE the assassination of JFK, indicating, twice directly and once indirectly, that LHO attended Stripling School, as opposed to the official record that you want us to believe.

19 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Do you remember everyone with whom you attended school 40 years ago?

Even if they were only in your school for six weeks?

The Warrenistas in no instance ever extended the accused Oswald the benefit of the doubt, as is required by the presumption of innocence.

The Armstrongistas insist that in every instance the H&L hypothesis be given the benefit of the doubt - a presumption of validity - even when a dispassionate view of the evidence reveals critical weakness.  

Like depending on 40 year old witness memories about a kid who was in their school for 6 weeks, or the calendar equivalent of 30 days of classes.

Possible?  Sure.  

Likely?  

Please.

U.S. News and World Report:

50 Years Later: Where Were You When JFK Was Assassinated?

The author of this article wrote, ‘I was 8 years old on Nov. 22, 1963, and Kennedy’s assassination remains one of my most vivid childhood memories. Anyone who was old enough remembers where they were and what they were doing when they heard the tragic news of the president’s death.”

The article goes on to report the detailed 50-year-old memories of Jimmy Carter, Larry King, singer Grace Slick, baseball pitcher Don Larsen, actor Ryan O’Neal, Michael Dukakis, and others.  Each of these people vividly recalled exactly what they were doing half a century ago when the news of President Kennedy’s assassination was broadcast.

Now you want us to believe that, over a time span of less than half a century, the assistant principal of Stripling School, told by his boss to meet FBI agents at the school just hours after the assassination, would not recall that event?  At the very time news of the assassination and the suspected assassin was drowning out all else U.S. airwaves, it would be “unlikely” that you would recall locating the school records of the accused assassin?  In all probability, you would remember that event vividly, just as everyone else recalled where they were and what they were doing when JFK was shot.

19 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

As for the contention that LHO in Stripling was “common knowledge,” the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.  How many kids and faculty in Stripling?  Two to three hundred?  

If most of those pupils and staff recalled LHO’s presence, that would be “common knowledge.”  Six people out of several hundred isn’t “common.”  It is the precise opposite.

Ricardo Galindo, the principal of Stripling School for the 1993/1994 school year told John A. that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.  Are you sure you are better qualified to voice an opposing opinion?

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Moreover, as has already been repeatedly polnted out, Robert Oswald was incorrect when he first advised the media his brother had attended Stripling.  He did not know this first hand to be a fact because he was serving in the Marines at this juncture.  He made a mistake.

But that’s what you guys always say about every witness you find inconvenient; that each witness was either lying or mistaken.  Robert Oswald was wrong three times (two times BEFORE everything hit the fan after the assassination), that Marguerite was wrong when she said LHO quit and returned to school three times starting in the eighth grade, and that Frank Kudlaty, Ricardo Galindo, and Fran Schubert were all lying or mistaken about LHO’s presence at Stripling.

And, of course in five or six different articles over a period of roughly 60 years, the local newspaper, the Star-Telegram, was wrong again and again about LHO attending Stripling, and the record was NEVER corrected.  And Stripling School was covered regularly by the Star-Telegram.  For example, from the April 2, 1963:

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Nothing of substance. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The lastest episode of "look over there!" evidence-avoidance by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers began when James Norwood declared that

Mark Stevens did what James had neglected to do: he actually looked critically at the eyewitnesses' statements. Mark explained why none of the six "clearly recalled" what James claimed they "clearly recalled".

Jim Hargrove then performed his usual "look over there!" act. He completely ignored Mark's analysis; he pretended it didn't exist; he congratulated James on upholding 'Harvey and Lee' dogma; and he brought up a different 'Harvey and Lee' talking point to divert attention from the problem of the eyewitnesses' statements.

James, on the other hand, invented spurious reasons to avoid answering Mark's questions:

But Mark's questions are entirely relevant to the issue of whether an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, the very issue James himself had raised. Mark explained how the statements of James's "six eyewitnesses" did not support James's claim. If James wants anyone to take seriously his claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, he needs to rescue his now worthless "six eyewitnesses" by countering Mark's analysis of their statements.

Neither Jim nor James has yet felt brave enough to deal with the points Mark made, despite several reasonable requests to do so. Why? What have they got to lose? It's unlikely that they would end up sacrificing potential converts to their belief system; surely everyone still reading this thread has already made their mind up on the 'Harvey and Lee' question. Come on, guys! Everyone makes mistakes! You may as well come clean, admit that Mark was right and you were wrong, and then (and only then) move on to the next 'Harvey and Lee' talking point.

Actually, the believers do have something to lose. James's Stripling witnesses are not anomalies. A sizeable part of the 'Harvey and Lee' edifice is built on exactly the same shaky foundations: vague recollections of something that may or may not have happened several decades earlier.

Once you admit the weakness of one set of vague, decades-old recollections, how do you deny the weakness of all the other vague, decades-old recollections? You'd open the floodgates, and the flimsy 'Harvey and Lee' structure would be swept away. If you know how flimsy that structure is but you can't face admitting it, your best option is to divert attention from the weak eyewitness evidence. Look over there! School records! Bolton Ford! Texas Theater!

If James Norwood and Jim Hargrove truly have faith in their belief system, they should risk opening those floodgates, and follow Robert Charles-Dunne's advice:

Stop running away, James and Jim! Take each of the "six eyewitnesses ... [who] clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling" and explain how their statements justify that conclusion. If you can't do that, just admit that you were wrong.

Jim... 

Again, the fact these articles exist are not evidence the statements within them are true. 

Do you agree many papers state LHO as the sole assassin of JFK? Do you agree that the fact that is in the paper does not make the statement true? 

Do you agree this logic is true for all statements made in a newspaper? 

Stop being afraid. Discuss the witness statements. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Mark Stevens
Context

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

22 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

But in this instance witness memories are all you have.

As I showed on the previous page, we have three Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles, all published BEFORE the assassination of JFK, indicating, twice directly and once indirectly, that LHO attended Stripling School, as opposed to the official record that you want us to believe.

Rather than defend the witnesses of whom you are so proud (but about whom you know so little), you now seek to distinguish between them and “newspaper articles!”  As though there is a difference.  The newspaper pieces also only reflect what a key “witness” - Robert Oswald - said.  

You seem to place great emphasis on the fact that media articles ran prior to the assassination.  Well, they would, wouldn’t they?

After all, LHO defected in ‘59, returned in ‘62, so there are two occasions when media interest was clearly warranted.  And media ran a quote from Robert Oswald that was incorrect.  He was a textbook “false witness.”  Not deliberately so; just the repetition of an incorrect assumption.  You seem to think that if it’s in a newspaper, it must be true.

Yet the entire thrust of H&L is that things written in newspapers and elsewhere are undeniably false.  Why do you consider yourself the arbiter of what is true in reportage and what is false?  Seems more like you will cherry pick what suits the hypothesis, and reject whatever doesn’t.  That’s not honest scholarship, and it’s not even a worthy reply to questions asked in this thread by numerous H&L critics.

I noticed you offered no response to a key point: the FWST repeated what Robert Oswald had said about his brother attending Stripling, but the paper seems not to have ascertained that from anybody working at Stripling.  So the quality of the reportage upon which you rely so much is defectively incomplete.  We see great emphasis placed on what was said by Robert, because zero emphasis was placed on vetting these stories by or with the FWST.

And quite frankly Jim, I’m less anxious to hear about what you want to believe, than I am to hear what you can actually prove.  Which turns out to be significantly less than is on offer in H&L.  Which invariably leads to H&L’s framing of everything as zero-sum binary.

In H&L world, there is a litmus test: if you don’t parrot the nonsense in H&L, then you must want everyone to believe the WC’s flawed version.  But this isn’t a choice between the only two possibilities that exist: 1) a governmental version so lacking it is unworthy of the President it investigated, and 2) a flawed book version filled with fantastic observations based upon an hypothesis that is coming unglued.

There is a third choice, Jim, despite your presenting this as an either/or - The WC was a crock, and so is H&L.  Why does this third option not exist in your universe?  One needn’t be convinced by either book, unless either book is convincing.  And if either of them were, we wouldn’t be here now.

 

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

U.S. News and World Report:

50 Years Later: Where Were You When JFK Was Assassinated?

The author of this article wrote, ‘I was 8 years old on Nov. 22, 1963, and Kennedy’s assassination remains one of my most vivid childhood memories. Anyone who was old enough remembers where they were and what they were doing when they heard the tragic news of the president’s death.”

The article goes on to report the detailed 50-year-old memories of Jimmy Carter, Larry King, singer Grace Slick, baseball pitcher Don Larsen, actor Ryan O’Neal, Michael Dukakis, and others.  Each of these people vividly recalled exactly what they were doing half a century ago when the news of President Kennedy’s assassination was broadcast.

Now you want us to believe that, over a time span of less than half a century, the assistant principal of Stripling School, told by his boss to meet FBI agents at the school just hours after the assassination, would not recall that event?  At the very time news of the assassination and the suspected assassin was drowning out all else U.S. airwaves, it would be “unlikely” that you would recall locating the school records of the accused assassin?  In all probability, you would remember that event vividly, just as everyone else recalled where they were and what they were doing when JFK was shot.

Ricardo Galindo, the principal of Stripling School for the 1993/1994 school year told John A. that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.  Are you sure you are better qualified to voice an opposing opinion?

Oh Lord, give me strength.  Yes, everyone knew where they were when the crime was committed (except Richard Nixon.)  Not sure how that relates to witnesses whose importance stems from nigh on a decade earlier.  Not even sure how it relates to Kudlaty, given that I’ve already agreed he was instructed to hand over documents, Which he did with the only documents they retained: Robert Oswald’s. 

FBI would have been keen on LHO’s records -  their files also contained press clippings from FWST, et al - but Stripling records didn’t exist for LHO because he never attended school there.  

The “missing” LHO records are “missing” because they never existed.  You would have the world believe they were taken to preserve a top secret, but nobody - not FBI, not CIA, not Military Intelligence ..even up to the WC - ever hipped Robert to the fact he should ix-nay the Stripling stuff?  Why was he allowed to freely admit what the Oswald Project sponsors must have wished kept under wraps?  He kept repeating the same non-“fact” over and over -  in '59 and the Commission -  based on an assumption that wasn’t true.

Repetition of a falsehood doesn’t make it true.

If Richard Galindo was not Principal at Stripling in the early to mid-50's - or even there at all, and he was neither - he has no first hand knowledge and is only repeating what he’d been told by long-time faculty.  He is not a witness to anything; only a repeater of gossip that he had no actual verifiable reason to think true except that he’d been told it.  But you're advocating that we should uncritically embrace what amounts to nothing more than hearsay. 

And in the 30 year interim after Kudlaty, and the forty year interim after the original “witnesses”, I’m sure that hearsay story was well-burnished.  Perhaps George Washington also slept there.

If it was such “common knowledge”, I’m sure Galindo had no trouble providing John Armstrong with a list of those who shared this “common knowledge.”  If it was “common,” then many, many people must have know this.  And yet..... we have nothing but a half dozen people cynically used to prop up a fantasy.

Are you sure you want to keep tossing out lame what-ifs and sustain the pummeling you’re taking?  The good ship USS H&L seems to be taking on water.  

"Never mind the quality, feel the width."  

Edited June 30, 2020 by Robert Charles-Dunne
Removal of an inaccuracy. Mine.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

But that’s what you guys always say about every witness you find inconvenient; that each witness was either lying or mistaken.  Robert Oswald was wrong three times (two times BEFORE everything hit the fan after the assassination), that Marguerite was wrong when she said LHO quit and returned to school three times starting in the eighth grade, and that Frank Kudlaty, Ricardo Galindo, and Fran Schubert were all lying or mistaken about LHO’s presence at Stripling.

And, of course in five or six different articles over a period of roughly 60 years, the local newspaper, the Star-Telegram, was wrong again and again about LHO attending Stripling, and the record was NEVER corrected.  And Stripling School was covered regularly by the Star-Telegram.  For example, from the April 2, 1963:

I notice in the Bomb piece, somebody from the FWST seems to have actually spoken to Kudlaty.  Good.

When you can show that the FWST spoke with somebody @ Stripling in a position of authority to corroborate Robert Oswald's contention regarding LHO in Stripling, you'll have something of merit.  Until then, you've got an endlessly repeated error that even the newspaper who ran it didn't bother to check out. GI-GO.

And, can I say that if your intent was to prove the FWST covered the school "regularly," a single story is insufficient?  Who wouldn't expect a newspaper to cover a scary bomb hoax?

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

U.S. News and World Report:

50 Years Later: Where Were You When JFK Was Assassinated?

The author of this article wrote, ‘I was 8 years old on Nov. 22, 1963, and Kennedy’s assassination remains one of my most vivid childhood memories. Anyone who was old enough remembers where they were and what they were doing when they heard the tragic news of the president’s death.”

The article goes on to report the detailed 50-year-old memories of Jimmy Carter, Larry King, singer Grace Slick, baseball pitcher Don Larsen, actor Ryan O’Neal, Michael Dukakis, and others.  Each of these people vividly recalled exactly what they were doing half a century ago when the news of President Kennedy’s assassination was broadcast.

Now you want us to believe that, over a time span of less than half a century, the assistant principal of Stripling School, told by his boss to meet FBI agents at the school just hours after the assassination, would not recall that event?  At the very time news of the assassination and the suspected assassin was drowning out all else U.S. airwaves, it would be “unlikely” that you would recall locating the school records of the accused assassin?  In all probability, you would remember that event vividly, just as everyone else recalled where they were and what they were doing when JFK was shot.

 

26 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Oh Lord, give me strength.  Yes, everyone knew where they were when the crime was committed (except Richard Nixon.)  Not sure how that relates to witnesses whose importance stems from nigh on a decade earlier.  Not even sure how it relates to Kudlaty, given that I’ve already agreed he was instructed to hand over documents, Which he did with the only documents they retained: Robert Oswald’s.  (And when did 30+ years become “less than half a century?”  Do you not read what you write?)

Is it your position, then, that Stripling School assistant principal Frank Kudlaty would not remember for the rest of his life meeting with FBI officials less than 24 hours after the assassination of JFK and handing them the school records of the accused assassin?  You think he would "forget" this 20, 30, 40, or 50 or any number of years after it happened?  I'm an old timer myself and I remember EXACTLY where I was in school when I first learned of the shooting.

I was playing touch football in school, and was playing wide receiver and was near the sidelines.  Being the closest kid, I guess, the teacher called me over and said, "They shot Kennedy."  If only I'd had the wherewithal to ask, "Who, coach, who shot him?"   Despite that missed opportunity, your claim that Frank Kudlaty would not have remembered handing LHO's school records to the FBI after any number of years strains credulity.  There are few moments in life like that for any of us.

FRANK KUDLATY

Frank Kudlaty, assistant principal in 1963 of Stripling JHS in Fort Worth, went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, where he retired in 1986. According to this write-up at legacy.com, Mr. Kudlaty “earned his BA degree from TCU on a basketball scholarship. He earned a Masters of Education from TCU, a Doctorate in Education from NTSU and was a Doctoral Fellow at Yale.”

The write-up goes on to say that, among other responsibilities, Mr Kudlaty was a 15-year volunteer with Meals on Wheels and served on the board of directors of the Salvation Army for 27 years.

Of course, Mr. Parnell simply has no choice but to say this obviously well educated and generous man was lying to us.  According to school documents published by the Warren Commission, there was simply no time for one Lee Harvey Oswald to have attended Stripling School, and so it all had to go away, including the school records Mr. Kudlaty gave the FBI agents, even though it was and remains common knowledge among local residents, including Fran Schubert,  that LHO did attend school there. Nearly a dozen newspaper articles and Robert Oswald’s own sworn testimony support that simple fact.

click here for 1997 interview with Frank Kudlaty

[Mark Stevens]

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

.... 

I see you continue to avoid my questions about topics which can be proven or otherwise established and instead continue to repeat an item which can never be verified, only speculated upon. 

I ask yet again, albeit in a different manner, if one person claims he saw LHO but at least 294 have absolutely no recollection of him, doesn't the preponderance of evidence weigh in favor of the overwhelming majority of people who never saw him? 

Why do you continue to use this one statement and not at least attempt to determine who his "group of friends" were (since they can provide more information than Kudlaty), why has no attempt been made to establish what Delbert McClinton knew (since he is named as being in this group of friends)? 

Would their statements not carry as much weight, if not more so than Kudlaty's? 

Shoddy investigating, at best. Willful denial at worst.