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

[Mark Stevens]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mark Stevens wasn't asking reasonable questions. He asked things like what does Jim think "common knowledge" means. And he was making statements about the witnesses and then asking Jim to comment.

I'm sure that Jim would answer reasonable questions.

Who will you accept the question from? In what form will you accept it to be reasonable? 

What I'm saying is it is common knowledge that Galindo has to explain his statement, or at the least you do if you continue to prop it up.

Will you accept the Federal Rules of Evidence and what they have to say regarding common knowledge?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_201

 

Quote

Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

 

See that part about reasonable dispute and sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned?

Considering the source, I believe we can reasonably question his accuracy. Years had passed since he started and the events occurred. Teachers and students came and went. It is reasonable to question what he based the statement on.

Will you accept what Wikipedia has to say regarding common knowledge?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

Quote

Common knowledge is knowledge that is known by everyone or nearly everyone, usually with reference to the community in which the term is used. Common knowledge need not concern one specific subject, e.g., science or history. Rather, common knowledge can be about a broad range of subjects, such as science, literature, history, and entertainment. Often, common knowledge does not need to be cited.

Note how in this example, they mention that something that is known by "nearly everyone" and how often evidence does not need to be cited for common knowledge. This is typically because it is "common" knowledge. I do not need citations if I claim it is common knowledge what time the sun rises. It is "common knowledge."

What about MIT? Will you accept what they state regarding integrity in writing and common knowledge?

https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/what-common-knowledg

 

Quote

What is Common Knowledge?

You may have heard people say that you do not have to cite your source when the information you include is “common knowledge.” But what is common knowledge?

Broadly speaking, common knowledge refers to information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up. This includes:

• Information that most people know, such as that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that Barack Obama was the first American of mixed race to be elected president.
• Information shared by a cultural or national group, such as the names of famous heroes or events in the nation’s history that are remembered and celebrated.
• Knowledge shared by members of a certain field, such as the fact that the necessary condition for diffraction of radiation of wavelength from a crystalline solid is given by Bragg’s law.
• However, what may be common knowledge in one culture, nation, academic discipline or peer group may not be common knowledge in another.

 

•  

See that pesky thing again? Information most people know?

Quote

How do I determine if the information I am using is common knowledge?

To help you decide whether information can be considered common knowledge, ask yourself:

• Who is my audience?

• What can I assume they already know?

• Will I be asked where I obtained my information?

 

•  

See that last question? "Will I be asked where I obtained my information?"

• Quote

  • The best advice is: When in doubt, cite your source.

No MIT, that is unreasonable.

What about a legal textbook? Will you accept what they say regarding common knowledge?

https://books.google.com/books?id=7pP0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144

Quote

All states have statutes or court rules that authorize the use of a judicial notice doctrine. Many state statutes that permit this use are similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201...

I think I mentioned that rule.

Quote

If the parties to criminal and civil trials had to prove every fact of common knowledge and define every term they use, trials would be unreasonably long. Court calendars would back up, and delays in getting a case to trial would increase considerably.

To avoid unnecessary delays, courts have developed the commonsense doctrine to judicial notice. This notice relieves parties in criminal and civil trials from the duty of introducing witnesses, documents, and other evidence to prove uncontroverted facts.

Again, uncontroverted facts can be considered common knowledge and not require evidence. 

Here is how it is defined by the Supreme Court of California, cited on the page the above quote is from.

Quote

This court is compelled to take judicial notice only of facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute(Evid. Code, 451). If there is any doubt whatever either as to the fact itself or as it its being a matter of common knowledge, evidence should be required.

They kinda echo old unreasonable MIT, when in doubt cite your sources.

 

 

• 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

  I want to make a few clarification to what Jeremy wrote and quoted. I will do so by highlighting in this color and inserting text using [square brackets].

  [Having given it more thought, I should have said that what Galindo said should not be used as evidence of what people at the school thought shortly after the assassination. But his statements could be used as evidence of what people at the school thought during the period when he was principle.]

With all I've posted above in mind. Can you please explain how I and all those sources are unreasonable in "demanding" what I have "demanded" and what these sources have explained to be required? Can you explain how it is in fact not required to provide evidence or to "explain what common knowledge means", and how I and these sources are in fact wrong?

Are you instead conceding that some of what Armstrong did was at best shoddy research and investigation but in spite of that you will continue to use and promote it?

Again, it's clear that my request is not unreasonable. Maybe unanswerable. This is different though, and apparently much harder to state. By merely stating it is unanswerable you are then led down a path in which Galindo's statements are nothing more than some passing anecdotal story and another "witness" is gone and you are left with what number of witnesses with direct personal knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald attending Stripling in 1953-54?

Edited July 5, 2020 by Mark Stevens
formatting, grammar

[Mark Stevens]

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Which is exactly what Jim has been doing.

 

 

Cross-examine? No, you don't cross-examine in a debate, you do that in a courtroom.

Maybe your misunderstanding explains the kinds of questions you guys have been asking. For example, in a courtroom you could cross-examine Galindo and ask him what he meant by "common knowledge." And cross-examine John Armstrong and ask him why he didn't keep looking for other Stripling eyewitnesses. Etc., etc.

But no, in a debate each side simply presents an argument and backs it up with evidence.

 

No it's not Sandy.

When we ask Jim to explain the claim he again just posts the claim. When we ask about Schubert's statements he posts them again and accuses us of denying them. When we ask about the claims made regarding Kudlaty he posts the claims again, and accuses us of denying the claims. There is example after example of this behavior on this thread. This is what someone might refer to as common knowledge, especially when people post examples of this being discussed at an entirely different forum.

We do get to cross examine though. I don't believe cross examine only exists in a courtroom. I can cross examine my son over the breakfast table about his whereabouts last night. While I do agree it is an inherently legal term, maybe akin to testimony, but I don't believe it or testimony is something that is regulated to a courtroom.

Whatever the term used though, you understood his intent. We can examine, peek at, sneak a look at, peer at, glance at, review, observe, analyze, and discuss claims and evidence presented. 

[Jim Hargrove]

20 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I’m asking if any attempt was made to contact Robert Oswald while he was still alive, to verify if this was his perfectly natural mistake, or determine his absolute certainty.  But apparently we’re supposed to take this as read because Robert made the same mistake more than once, at least twice.  Well, then it must be true!

I talked with John A. on the phone today and asked him about Robert Oswald.  John said he tried numerous times to talk with Robert but was never successful, and he reminded me of this funny story…..

At one point, John decided he’d try to get through to Robert by getting an introduction from Marina’s daughter Rachel.  Marina and John had met three or four times, and John got Rachel’s phone number, called her, and talked with her for hours.

John finally got around to asking about Robert and Rachel said that she had never in her life spoken to Robert or received any kind of communication from him, nor had her sister June.  Let me say that again….

Neither Rachel nor June had ever communicated in any way with the man who was supposed to be their “Uncle Robert.”   Makes perfect sense!

Perhaps RCD or Mark Stevens would like to do some ACTUAL RESEARCH and call Rachel or June and ask either or both about “Uncle Robert.”

[Jim Hargrove]

To Mark Stevens:

Please explain THIS EVIDENCE published two days after JFK was killed in the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

And THIS EVIDENCE from a year prior to the assassination:

Edited July 5, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I went back and checked Robert's book. Funny thing, there is no mention of Stripling. He has LHO going from Ridgelea to NYC. It looks to me like Robert went over the records and realized that he had made a mistake during his WC testimony and therefore did not write about Stripling. I can't think of any other explanation when he is writing a book that will be his final word.

Actually, Tracy raises a decent point here.  But the answer is simple.

As John A. described on p. 97 of Harvey and Lee, following the assassination it was clear that Robert’s public statements in 1959 and 1962 about LHO attending Stripling School were highly problematic.  To attempt to make the issue go away, Robert told the WC that his brother attended Stripling before moving to NYC, which was not possible.

Had Robert admitted the truth about Stripling in his book, he would have admitted his clear knowledge of the two Oswalds.  I always like to stress that the original Oswald Project was undertaken for entirely patriotic reasons. 

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I talked with John A. on the phone today and asked him about Robert Oswald.  John said he tried numerous times to talk with Robert but was never successful, and he reminded me of this funny story…..

Cool story bro.

Quote

Perhaps RCD or Mark Stevens would like to do some ACTUAL RESEARCH and call Rachel or June and ask either or both about “Uncle Robert.”

What though does that have to do with literally anything we are talking about? What do Rachel and June, or their opinion of "Uncle Robert" have to do with Galindo, Stripling, or even Robert Oswald and his statements about Stripling?

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To Mark Stevens:

Please explain THIS EVIDENCE published two days after JFK was killed in the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

[article removed for size]

And THIS EVIDENCE from a year prior to the assassination:

[article removed for size]

No, at least not right now. As I've stated at least once before, we can talk about literally all of the topics in H&L, some I'm more curious about than others but I genuinely would like to discuss them. I'd like you though to stop diverting from the questions which have already been asked first, then we can move on.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Actually, Tracy raises a decent point here.  But the answer is simple.

As John A. described on p. 97 of Harvey and Lee, following the assassination it was clear that Robert’s public statements in 1959 and 1962 about LHO attending Stripling School were highly problematic.  To attempt to make the issue go away, Robert told the WC that his brother attended Stripling before moving to NYC, which was not possible.

Had Robert admitted the truth about Stripling in his book, he would have admitted his clear knowledge of the two Oswalds.  I always like to stress that the original Oswald Project was undertaken for entirely patriotic reasons. 

Much like I stated above, I have some questions but I'm not going to introduce them just so as not to give you excuse to not answer the ones already presented. I would though like to come back to some items you mention here if we can get past the witnesses and their statements regarding what they know, saw and heard.

[Sandy Larsen]

47 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

Again, it's clear that my request is not unreasonable. Maybe unanswerable.

 

Your question about Galindo's "common knowledge" statement is unreasonable because:

1. You likely already know what "common knowledge" means.

2. If you don't know what it means, you can easily look it up.

3. It would be best to know precisely what Galindo meant by it. But there is no way of determining that.

4. There is no need to get Jim's definition or opinion of what it means. That would be irrelevant.

 

[John Butler]

Jim,

I'm not sure it's a good idea to continue using this newspaper article.  I think you should find the original copy or get it from that newspaper to check what I am going to say.  This article in all probability was retyped sometime in the mid to late 1990's with MS Word.  The software in MS Word about the time of Windows 95 or 97 had a printing error that randomly typed smaller type script such as seen in the newspaper article twice. 

Typesetters in newspapers would not have made this kind of error twice.

I have run across this before at Mary Ferrell with at least one document concerning Vicky Adams.  Most people will not see this and even if they do they won't understand it's significance.

 

 

  

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

Considering the source, I believe we can reasonably question [Galinda's] accuracy. Years had passed since he started and the events occurred. Teachers and students came and went. It is reasonable to question what he based the statement on.

 

Mark,

I want to clarify something I said. First, you certainly can ask anybody any question you want, of course. The question is, does that person need to reply? The answer is no, not if they don't want to. Jim chose not to reply to your question. When I said that your question was unreasonable, I was just explaining why Jim didn't reply. (I'm sure the question was reasonable from your perspective, but it wasn't from ours.)

Having said that, here is what I'd suggest: Rather than questioning Jim, why don't you rebut something he said? What I've quoted above -- your words -- are the beginnings of a rebuttal. You can use it to argue against what Galinda said. Take what you wrote above and add some crucial details, like the year that Galinda became principal. Post it and say "therefore Galinda's 'common knowledge' assessment can't be trusted." Or whatever you want.... whatever your point is.

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Your question about Galindo's "common knowledge" statement is unreasonable because:

1. You likely already know what "common knowledge" means.

2. If you don't know what it means, you can easily look it up.

3. It would be best to know precisely what Galindo meant by it. But there is no way of determining that.

4. There is no need to get Jim's definition or opinion of what it means. That would be irrelevant.

 

I am not asking anyone to explain what common knowledge means. I am asking you to explain how that common knowledge was created. You know, evidence of people who had first hand knowledge of Oswald attending the school. Those people constitute the common knowledge. If you can say, oh...there were X amount of people who knew of Oswald and their names are.... that constitutes evidence of the common knowledge.

Since the commonly accepted chronology of Lee Harvey Oswald's life does not include attendance at this school, I believe it is unreasonable to assume any person to have an understanding that it was "common knowledge" he attended this school without providing sources and citations. Just repeating that Galindo stated it is not evidence.

If I stated it was common knowledge aliens had made a number of posts on this forum and you did not outright dismiss it as ridiculous, you would want some examples who who knows about these aliens and some of what they posted.

Point 3 is my basic point, I agree the anecdotal story is interesting. What is is not though, without evidence which supports these specific claims, is evidence Lee Harvey Oswald attended the school.

It at this point, at best an anecdotal story could support Kudlaty's statements that he gave Oswald's files to the FBI (a basic transaction I at this time believe occurred but do not believe was LHO's records). No one will genuinely portray his statements in this manner though, he will be continued to be referred to as an eyewitness to Lee Harvey Oswald's presence at Stripling and that doesn't paint the integrity of people who knowingly do that in a good light.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mark,

I want to clarify something I said. First, you certainly can ask anybody any question you want, of course. The question is, does that person need to reply? The answer is no, not if they don't want to. Jim chose not to reply to your question. When I said that your question was unreasonable, I was just explaining why Jim didn't reply. (I'm sure the question was reasonable from your perspective, but it wasn't from ours.)

Having said that, here is what I'd suggest: Rather than questioning Jim, why don't you rebut something he said? What I've quoted above -- your words -- are the beginnings of a rebuttal. You can use it to argue against what Galinda said. Take what you wrote above and add some crucial details, like the year that Galinda became principal. Post it and say "therefore Galinda's 'common knowledge' assessment can't be trusted." Or whatever you want.... whatever your point is.

Again, I'm asking questions regarding specific claims you, Hargrove, Norwood, and/or Armstrong have claimed. I'm not just asking philosophical questions about the nature of man and Pascal's wager. Again, I did not come to your home and kick your door in and demand you answer questions. These are specific claims you, Norwood, and Hargrove have posted on this very thread. It is not unreasonable to expect a person to discuss topics they in fact presented on a discussion forum, on that discussion forum. It would be unreasonable to corner you in the grocery store, or track you down on Facebook.

I can't believe I'm saying again, again...but...again, I have tried repeatedly to get you all to engage in serious discussion. I have provided numerous rebuttals to things you said and you all just posted them again, quit because I hurt your feelings, or said you didn't have to answer them and for me to expect you to was unreasonable. I don't understand if you see the irony of your quoted portion above. You tell me you all don't have to answer questions and to give up expecting you to do so, and a better idea is to ask more questions.

I've made specific rebuttals which were replied to with "the critics can't debunk it." Not one detail of what I said was actually addressed other than failing to be witty about common knowledge.

You then tell me to make a rebuttal.

You know this because you've stated you would reply to my comments when you felt up to it. Apparently you feel up enough to demand I make rebuttals, but not respond to rebuttals I've made and you've stated you'd respond to.

I'm the unreasonable one though.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes, in big letters:

Quote

All that matters is EVIDENCE!  Do ANY of you guys ever present EVIDENCE?

As usual, Robert Charles-Dunne sums things up best:

Quote

Those who make a claim are responsible for proving it via corroborative evidence or witnesses.  Those who question the claims are not.  For a group of smart men, you seem to know little about how this process works.  You present evidence, we get to cross-examine.  If that strikes you as unfair, find a new hobby.

Jim seems to think that the question - of whether Oswald was one person or a pair of doppelgangers - will be settled by measuring competing piles of evidence. If I produce a taller pile of evidence than you, I win the debate! That seems to be why he keeps posting the same stuff over and over and over again, and refuses to confront the criticism that has been made of the stuff he posts over and over and over again.

It doesn't work like that. It's all about the quality of the evidence, not the quantity.

The critics, as he likes to call the rest of us, are not under any obligation to produce any evidence at all. Jim and his friends are obliged to prove their case. No-one is obliged to disprove it.

The default state of affairs is that Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. That's because, in the world that most of us are familiar with, each person we know is invariably just one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

Until Jim and his friends make a convincing case to the contrary, the default state of affairs applies: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

So far, Jim and his friends have not done so. They have not come anywhere near making a convincing case, as judged in the court of informed public opinion. How many people in the world possess a serious, informed interest in the JFK assassination? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? And how many of these informed people find the 'Harvey and Lee' theory credible, after two decades or more of promotion by Jim and his friends? Thousands? Hundreds? A couple of dozen?

In the court of informed public opinion, the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not one person but a pair of doppelgangers is a fringe belief. It's sitting at the back of the class alongside the notion that the moon landings were faked, a belief that was of course held by one of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's co-inventors. As Bernie Laverick pointed out some time ago, more people believe that the Queen of England is a lizard than believe in the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

If Jim and his friends want to rescue their belief, they need to expand their repertoire beyond regurgitating the same talking points and trying to get their critics banned. They could start by actually dealing with the points their critics have made.

Again, it's about the quality of the evidence, not the quantity:

- If Jim and his friends claim that six eyewitnesses recalled Oswald attending Stripling, and critics point out serious flaws in this evidence, and Jim and his friends fail to deal with the points raised by the critics, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

- If Jim and his friends claim that the school records can be interpreted to show that Oswald was attending two schools at the same time, and critics point out an alternative, perfectly plausible way of interpreting the school records which doesn't require Oswald to have attended two schools at the same time, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

And so on. It really is up to Jim and his friends to deal with the points their critics make, and not respond by ignoring the criticism, posting the same stuff again and again, and trying to get the critics banned or this thread closed down. Jim and his friends need to confront the criticism. Otherwise, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. And the 'Harvey and Lee' theory will remain a fringe belief.

As Robert points out:

Quote

How is it that you can assert as fact what you cannot demonstrate to be true?  And why do you then complain of the horrible unfairness you suffer here for being asked to offer your proof.

Oh, of course.  Because you have none.

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a trivial typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Let's make it easy for Jim and his friends, by allowing them to deal with one item of criticism at a time. Their responses will allow readers to see clearly whether or not each claim by Jim and his friends has any merit. If, for example, Jim and his friends respond to each item of criticism by running away and hiding, or by trying to get the critics banned or this thread closed down, informed readers will conclude, quite reasonably, that Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

Let's start with the claim made by James Norwood on page 18:

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.

Now let's look at each of the six eyewitnesses in turn. We could start with Bobby Pitts. This is what Mark Stevens had to say about Mr Pitts' apparently clear recollection of Oswald attending Stripling:

Quote

Pitts: eyewitness to "when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee Harvey Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch."

Again, this is the totality of Pitts' knowledge of LHO attending Stripling. This totality is actually him knowing absolutely nothing about LHO attending the school. His knowledge is strictly limited to remembering a boy who resembled LHO standing on the porch of 2260 Thomas Place watching them play. Never mind the fact that according to Armstrong, HLO lived in the rear apartment, and would be unlikely to be sitting on the porch of a house he didn't actually live in. If you live in the rear apartment of a front/rear duplex, there is clear separation of a porch. It would not be shared, the rear tenant would not hang out on the front porch and definitely would not just walk into the front apartment, without some preexisting relationship which allowed this type of behavior.

Up to now, Jim and his friends have not dealt with Mark's analysis, for reasons that should be obvious. As far as the evidence of Bobby Pitts is concerned, Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

Since it was James Norwood who made the claim that "Bobby Pitts ... clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School", perhaps we should ask James to take the lead in defending this particular item of 'Harvey and Lee' evidence. Once he has done this, we can move onto the next of James's six eyewitnesses, and see what James has to say about that witness.

James, how would you respond to Mark's analysis of Bobby Pitts' recollection?

Edited July 6, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a trivial typo

[Jim Hargrove]

Bobby Pitts

In my often presented list of evidence for LHO's attendance at Stripling, I don't even mention Bobby Pitts, not because I don't believe John A's notes and statements about hun, but because John didn't record an interview with him and we don't, therefore, have physical evidence.  It is quite reasonable for Dr. Norwood to bring him up, but why do the H&L critics tend to pick on subjects for which physical evidence is so limited?  I have shown, again and again, substantial physical evidence, including five Fort Worth Star Telegram newspaper stories, that the H&L critics have little to say about.

Why is that?

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

I'm not sure it's a good idea to continue using this newspaper article.  I think you should find the original copy or get it from that newspaper to check what I am going to say.  This article in all probability was retyped sometime in the mid to late 1990's with MS Word.  The software in MS Word about the time of Windows 95 or 97 had a printing error that randomly typed smaller type script such as seen in the newspaper article twice. 

Typesetters in newspapers would not have made this kind of error twice.

I have run across this before at Mary Ferrell with at least one document concerning Vicky Adams.  Most people will not see this and even if they do they won't understand it's significance.  

John,

I downloaded this image myself from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram online archives, which are run under the auspices of a newspapers.com plus account. It is reasonably expensive but, if you give them a credit card number, you can get a free week after which you can cancel without charge.

Why don’t you try that yourself to verify that this story is indeed directly from the FWST?

You can start HERE.
 

[James Norwood]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

James, how would you respond to Mark's analysis of Bobby Pitts' recollection?

Jeremy,

Bobby Pitts' recollection is important because it corroborates Fran Schubert's recall of the academic year 1954-55 as the time when Lee Harvey Oswald was attending Stripling Junior High School.  The fact that we have six eyewitnesses recalling a nondescript kid living across from the school at the time is compelling evidence.  Pitts was not a student at Stripling at the time, but his testimony identifies Oswald as residing in a duplex across the street from the school, and the specific time frame was the 1954-55 school year.  If a young boy is residing in that close proximity to the school, it is a fair assumption that he is enrolled at that institution.

The flaw in the approach that you and your cohorts are taking to this topic is that you are attempting to discredit all of the eyewitnesses individually because he or she was not physically present with Oswald in a classroom at the school.  In the JFK case, the evidence is so tainted that we have to rely on eyewitness testimony, and we have to rely on circumstantial evidence, in order to draw reasonable conclusions.  This is true for any facet of the case, including ballistics, medical evidence at Parkland, medical evidence at Bethesda, and photographic and film evidence. 

We are all attempting to assemble a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.  What is most important is the totality of the evidence.  When the Stripling matter is examined as a whole, the two most important eyewitnesses are Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert.  The other eyewitnesses corroborate portions of the recall of a school administrator who surrendered the school records to the FBI and a student who recalls Oswald's physical presence at the school in 1954-55.

It is remarkable that we have as many as six eyewitnesses who have some recollection of Oswald attending the school and residing in the vicinity in 1954-55.  Because you and the others have failed to discredit the eyewitnesses or to demonstrate why their testimony is inaccurate, I stand by what I have written about Stripling.