Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

On 6/18/2020 at 7:54 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:
On 6/17/2020 at 10:37 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

But there is a lot of other evidence pointing to two Oswalds, too much to call it all clerical errors.

All of the other "evidence" has been accounted for.

 

No it hasn't. It's just other peoples' opinions that mostly uses circular logic by assuming there was only one Oswald in order to conclude that there was only one Oswald.

 

On 6/18/2020 at 7:54 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And you don't seem to understand that among thousands and thousands of records there will be errors, discrepancies and so on.

 

I've seen a number of errors in my record, always simple typos, but not a single thing indicating that there were two of me. Why did that happen so many times in Oswald's case?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 599
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jack "I helped to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' theory" White was also the same person as Jack "my paranoid speculations allow the media to portray even rational critics of the lone-nut theory as a bunch of crackpots" White.

 

Above, Jeremy notes how the media uses Jack White's unfounded speculations to cast aspersions on all conspiracy theorists. What Jeremy doesn't seem to realize is that he's doing the very same thing to cast aspersions on H&L theorists!

Which is stupid. Unless Jeremy thinks it's okay for the MSM to be doing that... too.

Of course, it is wrong for either the MSM or Jeremy to do this because of its "guilt by association" and "poisoning the well" logical fallacies.

Speaking of logical fallacies, I've noticed that Jeremy routinely uses the following fallacies in his anti-H&L rants: Guilt by association, poisoning the well, appeals to motive, appeals to emotion (e.g. appeals to ridicule), appeals to nature, and argumentum ad populum. What Jeremy does very little of is arguing against the H&L evidence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

It's just other peoples' [sic] opinions that mostly uses circular logic by assuming there was only one Oswald in order to conclude that there was only one Oswald.

Ah, the false 'circular reasoning' claim again. Here's Greg Parker's argument about the school records, according to Sandy:

Quote

    1 - If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling.
    2 - But it is known that Oswald attended a different school at that time.
    3 - Since there was only one Oswald, he could not have attended Stripling.
    4 - Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records. Oswald did not attend Stripling.
    5 - And therefore there was only one Oswald.

But that isn't Greg's argument at all. That's a blatant misrepresentation by Sandy. Greg's actual argument goes something like this:

There are several reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about handing over copies of Oswald's school records to the FBI. He made no statements about the matter until White (whom Kudlaty had known, a pertinent fact that went unmentioned) and Armstrong got in touch with him several decades after the assassination. Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons: they are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself; he did not take the elementary precaution of asking for a receipt or making copies of those records (and copiers had been commercially available for four years by this time, contrary to one of Jim's claims, which Jim seems for some reason to have deleted); it appears that he never tried to reclaim the missing documents (a failure which genuinely impartial researchers would have asked him about closely, and something White and Armstrong of course didn't do); and in any case the records would have been obtained not by the FBI but by the local police, acting on behalf of the Attorney General.

I would urge anyone who is interested in the matter to read Greg's account, which goes into more detail and which you can find at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy and https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim, and not rely on Sandy's misrepresentation of it. Similar advice applies to any future claims by Sandy about what Greg or anyone else says: look it up from the original source, and don't trust Sandy's account.

I would also urge anyone who wants to debate this particular point to do so with Greg. Signing up for his forum is free of charge and open to anyone (or almost anyone; see the Mission Statement at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/c1-assassinations ).

Indeed, Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove have each been invited to sign up, but for some reason neither of them has yet worked up the courage to do so, despite expressing a strong interest in debating this point. A fellow 'Harvey and Lee' believer, James Norwood, was brave enough to sign up. Come on, boys! You can do it! One warning: although James Gordon may be happy for the Education Forum to be used as a dumping ground for endless quantities of 'Harvey and Lee' spam, Greg may not be quite so accommodating.

Contrary to Sandy's claim, there's no circular reasoning involved, but there are good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy continues:

Quote

Speaking of logical fallacies, I've noticed that Jeremy routinely uses the following fallacies in his anti-H&L rants ...

Sandy may be having trouble telling the difference between a logical fallacy and a rhetorical device.

Take my references to Jack White's crazy beliefs that the moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center. I'm not making the following logical proposition:

1 - Jack White claimed that the moon landings were faked.
2 - This claim is strongly contradicted by the totality of the relevant evidence.
3 - Therefore his other claim, that Oswald was a pair of doppelgangers and one of them had a 13-inch head and each of the doppelgangers had a doppelganger mother named Marguerite, is also mistaken.

Or whatever it is that Sandy thinks I'm saying. What I'm doing is pointing out to casual readers that Jack White was a 100% tin-foil hat-wearing fruitcake and that they need to bear this in mind when assessing some of the other claims he made, in particular his claim that Oswald was a pair of doppelgangers and one of them had a 13-inch head.

I can understand why Jack White is an embarrassment to 'Harvey and Lee' believers. But it is surely worth bringing to people's attention the fact that a heavily evangelised belief system was partly invented by some guy who was completely off his rocker.

That's especially the case when the belief system in question makes so many claims that might strike rational people as perhaps a little unlikely:

- Two unrelated boys from different parts of the world were selected for a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme, and somehow they turned out to look virtually identical more than a decade later? Hmm.
- Both doppelgangers were arrested in the same building at the same time, and they decided to give the game away by each telling the cops that his name was Oswald, but none of the cops noticed that they had arrested two identical young white men with the same name in the same building at the same time, despite these arrests being central to the biggest news story Dallas had ever seen? Hmm.
- Each doppelganger had a mother named Marguerite, and the two Marguerites looked virtually identical too, apart from their eyebrows? Hmm.
- One of the Oswald doppelgangers and one of the Marguerite doppelgangers vanished into thin air immediately after the assassination, and the followers of this belief system don't find this at all curious and don't bother trying to locate either the missing Oswald doppelganger or the mising Marguerite doppelganger? Hmm.
- And so on. The guy who came up with this stuff thought the moon landings were faked, did he? Hmm.

Quote

What Jeremy does very little of is arguing against the H&L evidence.

I don't spend much time repeating arguments that have been made umpteen times before, arguments which can be found easily by anyone who knows how to follow a link on a web page, as I pointed out in my previous post.

But, in case Sandy hasn't noticed, I have recently been arguing against one particular part of the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system, the claim by John Armstrong that the body in Oswald's grave was that of a doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy. We know that Armstrong's claim was false, because there is solid scientific evidence that the body in the grave had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy.

The imaginary biographies of Armstrong's (and White's) doppelgangers are central to the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system; and central to those imaginary biographies is the question of which doppelganger was allocated Oswald's mastoidectomy. The fact that the body in the grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy showed that the belief system was false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy also writes:

Quote

I've seen a number of errors in my record, always simple typos, but not a single thing indicating that there were two of me. Why did that happen so many times in Oswald's case?

Part of the reason might be that you haven't yet been accused of assassinating a president, thereby attracting moon-landings-crazy cranks who are motivated to delve deeply into old documentary records, and to put unlikely interpretations on ambiguities in those documents, and to interview witnesses several decades after the event when their memories may not be reliable, and to misrepresent their personal connections with those witnesses, and do any of the other things that characterise our intrepid 'Harvey and Lee' detectives, Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White and John "I deliberately withheld information which disproved my theory" Armstrong.

On that last point, does Sandy have a credible explanation for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave? I've asked Jim many times for his view, and he has run away each time. I think we can conclude from Jim's prolonged silence that he admits that Armstrong was being dishonest in deliberately misleading his readers. What's Sandy's explanation for Armstrong's behaviour? Does he agree with Jim that Armstrong was being dishonest? Or if Jim doesn't want people to think that, would he be kind enough to give us an alternative explanation for Armstrong's behaviour?

There's another question Jim has so far been unable to answer, one that Sandy may also be able to help us with. Jim claimed that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy. I've asked Jim several times to provide evidence to justify his claim, but he can't even specify which documents he was talking about, let alone demonstrate what it is about the documents that makes him think they have been altered. Does Sandy know which documents he was talking about? Jim was just making stuff up, wasn't he?

It's an example of the old 'Harvey and Lee' tactic: whenever you come across a piece of evidence that contradicts your theory, simply declare that it's a fake. You can't lose! You're free to spout any old nonsense! It's the same tactic creationists use when they come up against the fossil record. It's a fake! If Sandy is genuinely concerned about logical fallacies, he could start by requiring his fellow believers to provide evidence to support their frequent claims of fakery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s what the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram said about
LHO attending Stripling in a 2017 article.

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

This 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

This 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

Published two days after the assassination of JFK, this Fort Worth Star-Telegram article reported: “He attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School before joining the Marines.”

In his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Robert Oswald said that LHO attended Stripling School.

This May 11, 2002 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicated that “a boy walked to Stripling from a home nearby.  His mother was living in a home behind the school on Thomas Place by 1963, when the world learned the name Lee Harvey Oswald.”

And then, of course, there is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 mentioned at top.

The critics of Harvey and Lee want all this evidence to go away.... Jerry Bojczuk insists it is all a “distraction,” while he and Tracy Parnell attack Jack White, Frank Kudlaty, John Armstrong, and me, indicating in no uncertain terms that we are all lying.

Does Mr. Bojczuk seriously expect us to believe that the evil team of Jack White/Frank Kudlaty/John Armstrong spread malicious stories about Stripling School via Robert Oswald in local newspaper reports from 1959 and 1962?  Does Mr. Bojczuk seriously expect us to believe that the evil team of Jack White/Frank Kudlaty/John Armstrong, just hours after the assassination, faked a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram indicating LHO attended Stripling?  

Despite the Orwellian efforts by the anti-H&L team to erase history, this evidence just doesn’t go away.  Here’s what John Armstrong discovered decades ago, in a report that clearly matches the public record:

I wrote a letter to the principal of W.C. Stripling, Mr. Ricardo Galindo, and asked if there were any records of Oswald's attendance at Stripling.37 Mr. Galindo telephoned and said that while he did not have possession of such records, it was "common knowledge" that Oswald attended Stripling. [H&L. p. 97]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons: they are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself;

From https://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html :

"In 1963 school records from prior years were kept at each school. In the mid-1960s school records from all Ft. Worth schools were transferred to the new Ft. Worth Independent School District where they were organized and stored. Frank told me, "I lived close to the school at that time and arrived at the school before they (the FBI agents) got there. I went into the school and located Oswald's records. In fact I found both Lee Harvey and Robert Oswald's records for Stripling...."

Mr. Bojczuk might try just a modicum of actual research before giving us his unfounded opinions. By all means, try to prove us wrong about the location of Fort Worth school records in 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Speaking of logical fallacies, I've noticed that Jeremy routinely uses the following fallacies in his anti-H&L rants: Guilt by association, poisoning the well, appeals to motive, appeals to emotion (e.g. appeals to ridicule), appeals to nature, and argumentum ad populum. What Jeremy does very little of is arguing against the H&L evidence.

Wow!  Thanks, Sandy.  I had to look up several of those terms to see what they meant, but I always felt that Mr. Bojczuk was using all sorts of rhetorical tricks to avoid talking about the actual evidence.  For example, time and time again he claimed that any evidence for two Oswalds was a "distraction" unless it involved the mastoidectomy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Ah, the false 'circular reasoning' claim again. Here's Greg Parker's argument about the school records, according to Sandy:

Quote

    1 - If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling.
    2 - But it is known that Oswald attended a different school at that time.
    3 - Since there was only one Oswald, he could not have attended Stripling.
    4 - Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records. Oswald did not attend Stripling.
    5 - And therefore there was only one Oswald.

(I've highlighted #4 above to help show how Jeremy is wrong. Which I will do in a moment.)

 

Contrary to what Jeremy claims, the list I wrote (above) is indeed Greg Parker's line of reasoning regarding Kudlaty, who said that Oswald attended Stripling Junior High and from whom the FBI took the School records. And yes it is circular logic on Parker's part since he both assumes (in #3) and concludes (in #5) that there was only one Oswald.

Jeremy claims that what I wrote above is not Greg's thinking at all, and then he paraphrases some things Greg has said about Kudlaty to (supposedly) prove me wrong. Problem is, Jeremy's paraphrase of Greg doesn't contradict what I wrote at all. It merely gives possible reasons for how it is Kudlaty is wrong. ALL of these reasons fall under #4 in Greg's line of reasoning, highlighted in red above. Check it out for yourselves.

 

Quote

But that isn't Greg's argument at all. That's a blatant misrepresentation by Sandy. Greg's actual argument goes something like this:

There are several reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about handing over copies of Oswald's school records to the FBI. He made no statements about the matter until White (whom Kudlaty had known, a pertinent fact that went unmentioned) and Armstrong got in touch with him several decades after the assassination. Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons: they are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself; he did not take the elementary precaution of asking for a receipt or making copies of those records (and copiers had been commercially available for four years by this time, contrary to one of Jim's claims, which Jim seems for some reason to have deleted); it appears that he never tried to reclaim the missing documents (a failure which genuinely impartial researchers would have asked him about closely, and something White and Armstrong of course didn't do); and in any case the records would have been obtained not by the FBI but by the local police, acting on behalf of the Attorney General.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I would urge anyone who is interested in the matter to read Greg's account, which goes into more detail and which you can find at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy and https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim, and not rely on Sandy's misrepresentation of it. Similar advice applies to any future claims by Sandy about what Greg or anyone else says: look it up from the original source, and don't trust Sandy's account.

 

I also urge anyone who is interested to read Greg's account. (Hopefully you have logic skills that exceed those of Jeremy, who couldn't see right away that his representation of Greg Parker's account was merely a subset of my representation.) You will see that Greg offers only opinions, not debunkings. The reason they are not "debunkings" is because he usually falls back on the same circular logic, where he first assumes there was only one Oswald before he concludes there was only one Oswald.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Contrary to Sandy's claim, there's no circular reasoning involved, but there are good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records.

 

The only reason to "suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records" would  be if one assumes that there was only one Oswald.*  Which is fine if you want to do that. But then you can't say that your argument shows that there was only one Oswald, because a conclusion cannot be the same as an assumption. For obvious reasons... circular reasoning.

 

*Because if there were two Oswalds, one of them could easily have attended Stripling. In which case nobody would be supposing that Kudlaty was wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Quote

Speaking of logical fallacies, I've noticed that Jeremy routinely uses the following fallacies in his anti-H&L rants ...

Sandy may be having trouble telling the difference between a logical fallacy and a rhetorical device.

 

You are here arguing that the H&L theory is a bunch of bunk. In doing so, you use references to Jack White's crazy beliefs hoping that this will discredit -- in the minds of the readers -- the H&L theory and its proponents. Doing this is both illogical and unethical. Because Jack White's crazy beliefs have nothing to do with the H&L theory and nothing to do with those here arguing for the theory.

My logical fallacy charges stand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Quote

What Jeremy does very little of is arguing against the H&L evidence.

I don't spend much time repeating arguments that have been made umpteen times before, arguments which can be found easily by anyone who knows how to follow a link on a web page, as I pointed out in my previous post.

But, in case Sandy hasn't noticed, I have recently been arguing against one particular part of the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system, the claim by John Armstrong that the body in Oswald's grave was that of a doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy. We know that Armstrong's claim was false, because there is solid scientific evidence that the body in the grave had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy.

 

As I said, you talk a lot but do very little arguing here. About the mastoidectomy is very little.

You are free to make your point here, of course. But you are arguing with the wrong people... only John Armstrong believes that only Lee had the mastoidectomy surgery AFAIK. Presumably he has an answer for this inconsistency. But he would need to be here to argue in its favor.

You seem to think that all H&L proponents believe the very same things. That is quite a naive take, sort of like thinking that all JFKA conspiracy theorists believe the same thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There's another question Jim has so far been unable to answer, one that Sandy may also be able to help us with. Jim claimed that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy. I've asked Jim several times to provide evidence to justify his claim, but he can't even specify which documents he was talking about, let alone demonstrate what it is about the documents that makes him think they have been altered. Does Sandy know which documents he was talking about? Jim was just making stuff up, wasn't he?

 

Jeez Jeremy, the FBI et. al. altered all kinds of stuff. That is what needed to be done to cover up the real assassination plot. If you don't believe a coverup occurred, then I'd be spinning my wheels trying to convince you of it.

But if you do believe there was a coverup, you should also believe that the FBI et. al. altered documents and other evidence.

As researchers and analysts, any time we see contradicting evidence we need to decide which is more credible... at least tentatively so. We then consider anything that contradicts it to be false. Sometimes we conclude that the FBI had to have altered a document because it contradicts other evidence that we feel is more compelling.

I have no idea if Jim knows of a specific documents the FBI (or CIA?) altered regarding the mastoidectomy, or if he's saying that the FBI must have altered certain documents because they contradict other evidence that he finds more compelling.

As for me, I just assume that both Oswalds had the surgery and nobody altered anything. It was a fairly common surgery at the time because penicillin wasn't widely available yet. Ear infections in children are common and sometimes lead to mastoiditis. Surgery was done even in cases that would have resolved on their own because there was no telling which would resolve, and deafness was a real possibility if it didn't resolve. A couple years ago I collected enough material that it would have been possible for me to calculate the percentage of kids who got the surgery. I did a rough calculation and got a figure of 1 in 40 kids. (I had planned to present a rigorous study and more accurate calculation on the forum, but quit because I was hospitalized for acute respiratory failure. )

So, the odds of both Oswalds having the surgery was about 1 in 40. The odds of them having the surgery on the same side (right or left) was about 1 in 80. That my sound like slim odds. But consider the odds of having school records showing that you attended two schools simultaneously. Or the odds of a dentist erroneously noting that you had a (failed) dental prosthesis. And on and on. The odds of those things happening are much, much slimmer than 1 in 80. More like 1 in 10,000 I'd say.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2020 at 5:02 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To clear up any confusion:

Jack "the moon landings were faked" White and Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White were not a pair of imaginary doppelgangers, as you might think, but were in fact the same real-life person: Jack "I helped to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' theory" White.

Yes, let's clear up any confusion.  Jack White is not a loon.  Nor is he a member of the "tinfoil hat" group.

I just had a look at some of Jack's research on the Twin Towers.  This is the first time I have looked at his analysis.  I did so briefly and spotted a couple of things that he talked about:

1.  WTC No, 6 looks like it blew up prior to any planes crashing into the main buildings.

2.  A photo of the Pentagon plane crash has light coming in from two directions.  Photo editors are not artists.  They don't seem to pay much attention to getting the correct light and shadows in their editing.

If these are true then there is a serious difference in reality at the WTC and Pentagon plane incidents.

That's jus like Jeremy mentioning "Mass Hysteria".  That thread deals with a serious disagreement with the official story on the reality of Dealey Plaza at 12:30 PM on the 22nd.  There were different realities in Dealey Plaza with "magicians' pulling the strings.  I am currently working on a second part to Mass Hysteria in Dealey Plaza by counting the people visible in the various films and photos.  To the point, there is no way to count the number of people in Dealey Plaza around the TSBD because the various films and photos show different numbers of people in various places around the TSBD.

OBTW, if Jeremy and others don't quit their character assassination of Jack White, I may ask the editors to intervene and stress the rules of the forum to those who violate the rules.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...