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

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

A couple years ago I collected enough material that it would have been possible for me to calculate the percentage of kids who got [a mastoidectomy]. 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. )

 

Here's the material I collected for the calculation:  [Actually, I do make a calculation below.]

 

Green bars represent the first ear infection. Yellow bars represent all infections (i.e. including repeats). Half of one-year-olds get the ear infection. In every other age group, 20% to 33% get the infection. There are so many infections that it seems like EVERY child must get at least one infection. But I suspect that some kids get a lot of repeat infections and others get none. (My ten-year-old has never had an ear infection.)  But at a minimum, 50% of all kids get the infection.

 

Hearing in Children, Sixth Edition, p186, 187 - Jerry L. Northern, Marion P. Downs

Quoting from pages 186-187:

"Until the 1940s, acute mastoiditis was a complication of acute otitis media in 25% to 50% of cases. With the advent of antibiotics such as penicillin, the incidence of acute mastoiditis has been lowered considerably."

 

The following has a graph showing how the incidence of mastoidectomies in Copenhagen decreased as different antibiotics were introduced. See Figure 242.

Simple (Cortical) Mastoidectomy Ento Key

Just below the graph is this text:

"In the pre-sulphonamide era, 1–5% of patients suffering from acute suppurative otitis media required a mastoidectomy. The percentage is dependent upon the virulence of the organism, and different figures were seen in different epidemics."

From this statement, the plot, and the above information on the percentage of kids who get ear infections, I can compute the incidence of mastoidectomies in Copenhagen in 1946. I don't have time right now to explain my calculations, but here they are:

(58/236) x 5% = 1.2%     (The numbers in the fraction are from the graph, 5% from the text, quoted above.)

Therefore 1.2% is the percentage of kids with an ear infection who had the mastoidectomy

The percentage of kids who had an ear infection, as shown above, is somewhere between 50% and 100%. Let's pick the middle of those two, 75%.

75% x 1.2% = 0.9%

Therefore 0.9% is the percentage of 1946 Copenhagen kids who had the mastoidectomy surgery. That is equivalent to 1 in 111 kids. This shows that my previous, quick calculation of 1 in 40 is a reasonable figure. But I would have to replicate that calculation to be sure I didn't make a mistake. It was a much more involved calculation and I have no intention of spending time on it. Maybe in the future.

 

Other Useful Material

 

Incidence and clinical presentation of acute otitis media

Epidemiology of Intratemporal Complications of Otitis Media

A brief history of mastoidectomy 1

A brief history of mastoidectomy 2

 

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(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.

Sandy, 

Sorry I couldn't figure out how to quote the full sense of things above, but it's easy enough to go back a page and see what's going on.  In the meantime....

What’s so telling here is that Mr. Bojczuk insists on blaming Jack White, Frank Kudlaty, John Armstrong, and me for the obvious fact that one of the LHOs attended Stripling School, in direct contradiction to the Official Story®. It hardly the fault of Jack White, Frank Kudlaty, John Armstrong or me that this evidence is so obvious. Here is a summary of it again: 

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

--2017 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article

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.

When confronted with this evidence, it is hardly surprising that Mr. Bojczuk only wants to talk about how Jack White entertained some silly theories.  Jack White had nothing to do with these reports, and it is time for Mr. Bojczuk to stop pretending he did.  Perhaps he will now start blaming Frank Kudlaty, or John Armstrong, or me.

Just as we learned from Frank Kudlaty, the FBI confiscated original school records (see the NYC case below). As any honest attorney will agree, it is far easier to alter b&w copies of documents than it is originals.  That’s why courts give substantial preferences to original documents vs copies.

It should surprise no one that the FBI confiscated and then destroyed all the original documentation of Oswald’s school records.  As ARRB staffer Joe Freeman discovered, “all the school and employment records I looked at in the Warren Commission Exhibit files at Archives II were copies, not originals.”

There is a quite detailed description of how NYC Judge Florence Kelley tried to keep the FBI from confiscating LHO’s original school records, how she eventually had to turn them over, how the Warren Commission asked the FBI to provide them, and how the originals disappeared, apparently while in the custody of FBI SA John Malone. Even NYC Mayor Robert Wagner in 1964 questioned what happened to the original records. The full description, with documents, is HERE.

It’s time for the H&L critics to stop whining about Jack White, Frank Kudlaty, John Armstrong and me and consider the clear evidence that one Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School. Don't hold your breath!

Edited June 20, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

the list I wrote (above) is indeed Greg Parker's line of reasoning regarding Kudlaty ... 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.

The list Sandy came up with does contain an example of circular reasoning. But it is a misrepresentation of what Greg wrote. Greg's argument does not, as Sandy claims, begin with the assumption that there was only one Oswald. It does not contain any circular reasoning.

Sandy has Greg's premise and conclusion the wrong way round. Look at Sandy's point 4: "Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records." Sandy's "therefore" refers to his assumption in point 3: "Since there was only one Oswald." But that isn't what Greg claimed. That assumption is Sandy's, not Greg's.

Greg pointed out reasons to doubt that Kudlaty was correct. The implied conclusion, that Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers, followed from, and did not precede, his demonstration that there were good reasons to doubt that Kudlaty was correct.

It isn't that difficult to understand, surely? If Sandy genuinely can't grasp the point, and needs to examine it further, he can find it explained here:

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim
- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy

If, after further examination, Sandy still thinks he can see evidence of circular reasoning, he should quote here the relevant passages in Greg's posts, so that we can see exactly what he's going on about.

Better still, Sandy should discuss the matter with Greg himself, if he's brave enough. Once he's done that (and I'd pay good money to see it), he should contact that elusive investigative journalist and let us know exactly what the journalist thinks of the evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

Here is a more accurate version of Sandy's numbered list, with Sandy's circular reasoning removed:

1 - If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling.
2 - There are, however, good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong.
3 - If Kudlaty was wrong, a good deal of the evidence placing Oswald at Stripling vanishes.
4 - If Oswald was not at Stripling, yet another piece of evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory turns to dust.
5 - With the disappearance of yet another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, there is even less reason to doubt the default setting: that there was only one Oswald and that he wasn't part of a top-secret long-term doppelganger project that was partly thought up by some crazy guy who believed that the moon landings were faked.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy made the same mistake in another post:

Quote

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.

No, that's not the only reason to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about handing over copies of Oswald's school records to the FBI. I gave Sandy several reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong. The "[assumption] that there was only one Oswald" was not one of them. These are the reasons I gave:

1 - Kudlaty 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.

2 - Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons:

2 (a) - the records are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself;

2 (b) - 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 appears for some reason to have deleted);

2 (c) - it appears that he never tried to reclaim the missing documents (something genuinely impartial researchers would have asked him about closely, and something White and Armstrong of course didn't do);

2 (d) - 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.

None of those points include the assumption that there was only one Oswald, as Sandy suggested.

P.S. Jim Hargrove disagrees with point 2 (a) above. He will find Greg Parker's view explained here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33556

I look forward to reading Jim's discussion of this and other matters with Greg. We all know how keen Jim is to debate this particular topic.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy also writes:

Quote

only John Armstrong believes that only Lee had the mastoidectomy surgery AFAIK. Presumably he has an answer for this inconsistency.

I suppose "inconsistency" is one way of describing the fact that a scientific report flatly contradicted a central element of Armstrong's theory!

But it doesn't look as though Armstrong does have an answer for this "inconsistency". His book was the place to explain the "inconsistency", since he knew about it when he wrote his book. He deliberately neglected to tell his readers about the "inconsistency", which was a little bit naughty, wasn't it?

Unfortunately, Armstrong has so little faith in his theory that he won't defend it by debating with critics. It would be good to see him join Jim and Sandy in defending his theory on Greg's forum (I assume their applications for membership are  in the pipeline). In the meantime, perhaps someone to whom Armstrong has graciously granted an audience could tell us how he hopes to get over the serious obstacle that the scientists' report poses for his theory. He's had a couple of decades to think of a way out of this problem. Has he come up with anything yet?

The more important question is: who was the Lee Harvey Oswald who underwent the mastoidectomy operation in 1946? There are several candidates:

(a) The one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Until the existence of any doppelgangers can be proved, which, as we have seen, is a very long way off, he's the default candidate.

(b) Imaginary doppelganger A, the American one, who was not buried in Oswald's grave. This is what Armstrong claimed in his book. Unfortunately, the scientific report of Oswald's exhumation proved that Armstrong was wrong about this. The body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy.

(c) Imaginary doppelganger B, the eastern European one, who was buried in the grave. This is what Jim Hargrove claimed a few pages ago. On the plus side, it's good that Jim has bravely gone against established doctrine on this point. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Jim has so far been unable to provide any justification for his speculative claim. Also unfortunately, this interpretation would involve a serious reconstruction of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's speculative biographies, since, according to Scripture, imaginary eastern European doppelganger B wasn't supposed to have been selected for the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme until several years after the mastoidectomy operation took place, and so wouldn't have been using the name of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

(d) Imaginary doppelgangers A and B. This seems to be Sandy's preferred option. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, Sandy too has so far been unable to provide any justification for his speculative claim. Items of evidence that are currently missing include: documents showing imaginary doppelganger B's entry into the USA; and documents showing the date of doppelganger B's operation, and the hospital in which it was performed.

(e) A creature from outer space. This is probably the candidate Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White would have chosen. The problem with this option is that any documents concerning the creature's mastoidectomy operation would be written in Klingon or something. But at least it's a credible alternative to the two imaginary doppelgangers.

By the way, it's good to see Sandy mentioning "Jack White's crazy beliefs", twice. At least he agrees with me about White's sanity!

While we're on the subject of Armstrong's problems with the mastoidectomy, has Jim managed to think of a plausible reason for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect in his book? He was behaving like a slippery snake-oil salesman, wasn't he, Jim? Come on! You can admit it!

And let's not forget the other question Jim keeps forgetting to answer, the "document or two" relating to the mastoidectomy which Jim claimed had been "altered" by the FBI. Which documents, exactly, did the FBI alter, Jim? And what reasons can you give to show that they were altered?

Edited June 21, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy writes:

Quote

Sometimes we conclude that the FBI had to have altered a document because it contradicts other evidence that we feel is more compelling.

You may feel that way, but you're still obliged to explain why each alleged instance of alteration might have occurred. What you can't do is simply snap your fingers and declare that documents have been altered, as Jim did when he claimed that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy.

Jim made a claim for which he has produced absolutely no evidence, just to get out of having to admit that Armstrong deliberately misled his readers. Not only has Jim not produced any evidence that these documents were altered, despite repeated requests, but he can't even tell us which documents he was talking about. It looks as though he made the whole thing up.

Just because the FBI and other official agencies altered some evidence, you can't assume that any other given piece of evidence has been altered. You still have to justify your claim with regard to the piece of evidence in question, and explain why you think it was altered (sadly, "it contradicts Scripture" won't do).

Quote

As for me, I just assume that both Oswalds had the surgery and nobody altered anything.

The second assumption is justified. But the phrase "both Oswalds" contains an assumption that isn't justified. The onus is on 'Harvey and Lee' believers to prove that there were two Oswalds; it isn't on critics to prove that there weren't. Until a case can be made that convinces a large number of reasonable people, there's no justification for treating the doppelgangers as anything other than hypothetical (or, as I would prefer to put it, imaginary).

Critical examination of 'Harvey and Lee' talking points reveals a remarkable tendency for them to possess perfectly ordinary alternative explanations, as we have seen with topics such as the 13-inch head, the missing tooth (which, according to Jim, was game, set and match for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory!), and most recently the Stripling school records (see here and here).

Once you take away the talking points that have perfectly ordinary explanations, what's left? Not much, that's what. For anyone who's interested, here are some of the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points that have perfectly ordinary explanations:

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations

- http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee

Now, a reminder of those questions that Jim has been refusing to answer:

(a) Which documents, exactly, did the FBI alter regarding Oswald's mastoidectomy? And what evidence do you have that they were altered, apart from the fact that they apparently contradict Scripture?

(b) Do you have an explanation for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect that doesn't make him look like a snake-oil salesman?

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The list Sandy came up with does contain an example of circular reasoning. But it is a misrepresentation of what Greg wrote. Greg's argument does not, as Sandy claims, begin with the assumption that there was only one Oswald. It does not contain any circular reasoning.

Sandy has Greg's premise and conclusion the wrong way round. Look at Sandy's point 4: "Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records." Sandy's "therefore" refers to his assumption in point 3: "Since there was only one Oswald." But that isn't what Greg claimed. That assumption is Sandy's, not Greg's.

... and blah, blah, blah.

This is a perfect example of why Mr. Bojczuk always post links to other websites instead of presenting evidence here.  That way, he can argue endlessly about what is on the other site instead of examining actual evidence, which he hopes to avoid.

NOTHING IN THE LINKS MR. BOJCZUK PROVIDES DEBUNK ANYTHING IN HARVEY AND LEE, AND MR. BOJCZUK KNOW THAT.  If there were legitimate counterarguments, he would certainly trumpet them here, instead of hiding behind a flurry of links.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

2 - Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons:

2 (a) - the records are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself;

What utter nonsense.  We have already explained that in 1963 Fort Worth 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.  That was after the assassination of JFK.

Again, we challenge Mr. Bojczuk to do some (gasp!) actual research and prove us wrong.  Instead, of course, he just makes whatever unfounded argument occurs to him and hopes it goes unchallenged.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

2 (b) - 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 appears for some reason to have deleted);

Clearly, neither Mr. Bojczuk nor Mr. Parker ever bothered to travel to the National Archives to view JFK assassination documents.  Had either done so, it would have been clear that even in 1964, with the resources the FBI and WC had at their command, photocopies were not made of documents. Instead, photostatic machines were used, devices that reproduced documents or artwork via photographic methods which ultimately produced positive or negative prints on photographic paper. 

Photocopy technology was not in general use when the Warren Commission was collecting documents, and it had certainly not worked its way into public schools, most of which were still using a crude duplication procedure on a device called a mimeograph machine, which required the preparation of stencils.

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

2 (c) - it appears that he never tried to reclaim the missing documents (something genuinely impartial researchers would have asked him about closely, and something White and Armstrong of course didn't do);

2 (d) - 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.

How can you be so utterly ignorant of this case?  Within hours of the assassination, FBI agents showed up and collected/confiscated documents at dozens of schools and offices, including, for example, Crescent Firearms, Kleins Sporting Goods,  Oswald schools and employers, etc.

[Jim Hargrove]

Isn’t it amazing that Mr. Bojczuk bloviates again and again about everything that is wrong with me, and John A., and Jack White, and Frank Kudlay but he never, ever, discusses the actual evidence about Stripling School!  Why is that?

As long as he continues to ignore it,  I’ll have to keep posting it.

 Here is a summary of it again: 

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

--2017 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article

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.

We can expect lots more from Mr. Bojczuk about how terrible I am, but will we EVER see him discuss the evidence above?  This evidence has nothing to do with me, or Jack White, of Frank Kudlaty, or John Armstrong.  And it won't go away, which is why Mr. Bojczuk won't discuss it.

[Sandy Larsen]

I've repeatedly said that Greg Parker's arguments don't debunk the H&L evidence, and in this particular case the Stripling School evidence, nor the conclusion that there were two Oswalds. Because that is what Tracy and Greg's boys often claim he has done. And Greg seems to agree.

Here again is the line of reasoning Greg had to have used to debunk the two-Oswald theory:

 

Quote

Sandy said:

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.

 

To refute this, Jeremy "moved the goalpost," which is another logical fallacy. His line of reasoning for Greg doesn't debunk the two-Oswald theory. Which is what I have been saying all along. Let's look again at the line-of-reasoning Jeremy wrote for Greg:

 

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

1 - If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling.
2 - There are, however, good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong.
3 - If Kudlaty was wrong, a good deal of the evidence placing Oswald at Stripling vanishes.
4 - If Oswald was not at Stripling, yet another piece of evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory turns to dust.
5 - With the disappearance of yet another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, there is even less reason to doubt the default setting: that there was only one Oswald and that he wasn't part of a top-secret long-term doppelganger project that was partly thought up by some crazy guy who believed that the moon landings were faked.

 

Look specifically at #3,  which says that "if Kudlaty was wrong." If Kudlaty was wrong about Stripling then there is no reason to conclude there were two Oswalds. Well everyone agrees with that. But what evidence is there that Kudlaty was wrong?

Line #2 says, "There are, however, good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong." Even here it doesn't claim Kudlaty was wrong, only that there are reasons to suppose so.

So apparently what Greg has done is to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong.*  Which, my friends, is an opinion.

A conclusion based on an opinion is only an opinion. And that is what I have been saying all along, that Greg doesn't debunk the two-Oswald theory, but rather gives his opinion on it. As I said, to actually debunk the theory one has to resort to circular logic.

 

*Jeremy listed Greg's "reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong" in his post here.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy writes:

Quote

Sometimes we conclude that the FBI had to have altered a document because it contradicts other evidence that we feel is more compelling.

You may feel that way, but you're still obliged to explain why each alleged instance of alteration might have occurred.

 

I agree.

 

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

As for me, I just assume that both Oswalds had the surgery and nobody altered anything.

The second assumption is justified. But the phrase "both Oswalds" contains an assumption that isn't justified.

 

It IS justified that there might have been two Oswalds. Because there is a lot of evidence pointing to two Oswalds.

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've repeatedly said that Greg Parker's arguments don't debunk the H&L evidence, and in this particular case the Stripling School evidence, nor the conclusion that there were two Oswalds. Because that is what Tracy and Greg's boys often claim he has done. And Greg seems to agree.

Here again is the line of reasoning Greg had to have used to debunk the two-Oswald theory:

Quote

 

Sandy said:

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.

 

To refute this, Jeremy "moved the goalpost," which is another logical fallacy. His line of reasoning for Greg doesn't debunk the two-Oswald theory. Which is what I have been saying all along. Let's look again at the line-of-reasoning Jeremy wrote for Greg:

  13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Look specifically at #3,  which says that "if Kudlaty was wrong." If Kudlaty was wrong about Stripling then there is no reason to conclude there were two Oswalds. Well everyone agrees with that. But what evidence is there that Kudlaty was wrong?1 - If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling.
2 - There are, however, good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong.
3 - If Kudlaty was wrong, a good deal of the evidence placing Oswald at Stripling vanishes.
4 - If Oswald was not at Stripling, yet another piece of evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory turns to dust.
5 - With the disappearance of yet another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, there is even less reason to doubt the default setting: that there was only one Oswald and that he wasn't part of a top-secret long-term doppelganger project that was partly thought up by some crazy guy who believed that the moon landings were faked.

Look specifically at #3,  which says that "if Kudlaty was wrong." If Kudlaty was wrong about Stripling then there is no reason to conclude there were two Oswalds. Well everyone agrees with that. But what evidence is there that Kudlaty was wrong?

Line #2 says, "There are, however, good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong." Even here it doesn't claim Kudlaty was wrong, only that there are reasons to suppose so.

So apparently what Greg has done is to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong.*  Which, my friends, is an opinion.

A conclusion based on an opinion is only an opinion. And that is what I have been saying all along, that Greg doesn't debunk the two-Oswald theory, but rather gives his opinion on it. As I said, to actually debunk the theory one has to resort to circular logic.

*Jeremy listed Greg's "reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong" in his post here.

Sandy,

I've got to disagree with you about your point in red above.  The evidence for LHO attending Stripling School is hardly based only on Frank Kudlaty's statements about the FBI agents.  There is much more than that, and Mr. Bojczuk continues to ignore it, and so I'm going to keep posting it.

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.”

Most recently there is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 that states about LHO: "Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.”

None of the above has anything to do with Jack White, or John Armstrong, or Frank Kudlaty, or me, but Mr. Bojczuk continues to ignore that.  Why?

What John Armstrong DID do was track down a half dozen or more Stripling School witnesses, which he describes in detail in Harvey and Lee, and he even conducted detailed video interviews with two of them.  Fran Schubert actually witnesses LHO at Stripling, and Frank Kudlaty, of course, was the assistant principal at Stripling School who, in 1963, met the FBI agents there.

click here for 1997 interview with Fran Schubert

click here for 1997 interview with Frank Kudlaty

Mr. Kudlaty had a substantial career. After his service at Stripling, he went on to become Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas. He also served on the board of directors of the Salvation Army for 27 years.  Mr. Bojczuk concludes, without evidence, that he was simply lying to us.  Listen to him speak in the interview linked above and make your own decision.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Robert Oswald told the WC that LHO "would be" attended Stripling. And he was right-he would have if he had not moved to NYC. Robert merely forgot about this. But he said it, so in the H&L world that makes it a fact. But it doesn't. The 1959 and 1962 newspaper articles are using Robert as a source and nothing else so we are right back at Robert's faulty recollection. The article that was published two days after the assassination was likely just quoting from the previous articles and also had no other source.

18 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What John Armstrong DID

What he did was to find individuals and coach them to say what he wanted. All of the evidence for Stripling comes back to Robert's faulty remembrance.

Edited June 21, 2020 by W. Tracy Parnell