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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Totality of the evidence

I see that the old "totality of the evidence" notion has cropped up again. David Josephs mentions it but leaves the definition vague. James Norwood explains what the phrase means to him:

Quote

There are simply too many references to Stripling at so many different times that make it impossible to dismiss Oswald's enrollment at that school.  This work in pulling together the details was exactly what I had in mind in writing about the totality of evidence, as opposed to examining each piece in a vacuum.

In other words, it's all about the quantity of evidence ("too many references"), not the quality of that evidence. The more items of evidence you dig out and assemble ("pulling together the details"), the more likely it is that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. The quality of that evidence ("examining each piece in a vacuum") isn't so important.

Quality over quantity

On the contrary, the quality of the evidence is vastly more important than the quantity. It doesn't matter how many items of evidence you have, if all of those items are worthless. If a particular item of evidence has both a doppelganger-at-Stripling explanation and a plausible non-doppelganger explanation, the latter cancels out the former, and that item of evidence goes in the bin.

Whenever there's a plausible non-doppelganger explanation, the default state of affairs continues to apply: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. It's the same principle that every rational person applies to alleged anomalies in the moon landings photographs: if there's a plausible explanation for those anomalies that doesn't involve fakery, we have to treat the moon landings photographs as genuine, because the default state of affairs is that photographs are genuine unless proved otherwise.

Quality control

The first thing to do with the Stripling evidence is to apply a quality-control check by eliminating all the items that have plausible non-doppelganger explanations. Once you've done that, only then can you look at the items that are left, add them up, admire the total, and think about creating some sort of top-secret long-term doppelganger story out of them.

How many items of Stripling evidence would survive this filtering process? We've looked in detail at one such item: James's claim that "Bobby Pitts ... clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." We've seen (here and here and here) that Bobby Pitts certainly didn't "clearly recall" anything of the sort. He recalled someone who may or may not have been Oswald in the general vicinity of the school, which he did not himself attend.

Leaving aside the fact that Pitts' recollection was (... how should I put it so that I don't get reported to teacher?) less than entirely accurately described by James, this particular item of evidence has an obvious alternative explanation: Pitts' memory was unreliable.

Like almost every 'Harvey and Lee' witness, Bobby Pitts was recalling something that may or may not have happened several decades earlier. We have no reason to suppose that Pitts' memory of decades-old events was significantly better than that of the average person. Over the years, people forget some things and unwittingly invent other things. Human memories tend to be much less reliable than 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine requires them to be. Goodbye, Mr Pitts.

Once you've performed a basic quality-control check by filtering out all those items of evidence for a doppelganger at Stripling that have a plausible non-doppelganger explanation, how many items remain? Not very many, that's how many. In fact, somewhat fewer than not very many.

What are the believers to do?

All these plausible explanations cause a bit of a problem for 'Harvey and Lee' believers. What approach should they take? They could copy and paste the same old items of evidence over and over again, of course, and they probably will, but that won't get them over this particular hurdle. Every open-minded reader will have seen through that ploy long ago.

They could produce a solid item of evidence, such as an indisputably authentic photograph of an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling. It would be difficult to come up with a plausible alternative explanation for something like that. But after more than two decades of searching, nothing solid has turned up; all they have is anomalies and old memories. The only way out for the believers is to take each non-doppelganger explanation and demonstrate that it is not plausible. Until they do that, the default state of affairs applies: Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

Absence of evidence: eyewitnesses

There is another aspect to the "totality of the evidence" question: the non-existence of evidence that we might expect to exist. Eyewitnesses, for example, tend to come out of the woodwork whenever there is a big news story. Invariably, a large proportion of claimed sightings of criminal suspects are mistaken.

If an Oswald doppelganger had indeed attended Stripling, we should expect John Armstrong's public prompting to have generated a large number of honest but mistaken recollections from people who had themselves attended the school but who didn't remember the doppelganger, or who remembered Robert Oswald, or who remembered a boy who didn't go by the name of Oswald but looked a bit like the one who did. We might expect some dishonest recollections, too.

If, on the other hand, an Oswald doppelganger had not attended Stripling, we should expect Armstrong's public prompting to generate no more than a few recollections, all of them mistaken.

There were perhaps 300 staff and pupils who might have "clearly recalled" Oswald attending Stripling. Only five have been cited, plus one person who didn't attend the school. Of those six people, two admitted that they didn't actually have any first-hand knowledge, and three of the remaining four, including Bobby Pitts, were so vague as to be useless. Why so few? Why didn't any of the other 290-odd Stripling witnesses come forward? Most of them would have been in their early 50s when Armstrong was poking around; a large majority would still have been alive, wouldn't they? Well, look, a 'Harvey and Lee' believer might say, you're asking people to recall things that happened a long time ago. The Stripling people weren't contacted until 40 years after the event! I mean, you can't expect people to remember stuff accurately after 40 years! The 'Harvey and Lee' believer would be correct.

Absence of evidence: documents

There appear to be no photographs, whether personal snaps or official class photos, of an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling. Nor are there any official documents, such as yearbooks, student directories or report cards, that mention any Oswald other than Robert at Stripling. Fran Tubbs, née Schubert, told John Armstrong that Stripling didn't have yearbooks, which presumably is correct, but she did mention the possibility of finding a student directory that the doppelganger had signed. Another pupil, Doug Hazelwood, who did not remember the doppelganger, also mentioned the possibility of a directory. Amstrong did reproduce part of a directory, but from the wrong year and sans signature.

The presence of Oswald's name in a printed student directory from the correct year would probably settle the matter once and for all, but no-one seems to have located a copy of the relevant directory, or even looked very hard. That lack of effort might, of course, be because the absence of Oswald's name would also settle the matter once and for all, just as the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave settled the matter two decades before Harvey and Lee was published.

And while we're on the subject of not looking very hard, have the 'Harvey and Lee' believers tried locating any other possible witnesses? If not, why not? Greg Parker has generously given them a hand by digging out the names of five who appear to be still alive, and he has dared them to follow up these leads: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33762. Let's see how they get on.

Why choose quantity over quality?

The "totality of the evidence" idea boils down to the quantity of the evidence. If you think the world is run by all-powerful evil overlords who go around setting up top-secret long-term doppelganger schemes, you might be tempted to seize on any item of evidence that seems to support your preconception, no matter how weak that item is. You might well be the sort of person who is more impressed by quantity than quality.

Most people aren't impressed by quantity over quality, and don't think the world is run by all-powerful evil overlords, and don't take the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense seriously.

Why is there so much evidence?

A few pages ago, one 'Harvey and Lee' believer wondered why there would be so many items of evidence if there had been no doppelganger at Stripling. Even if the quality of the evidence is weak, there must be a reason for the quantity, mustn't there? How come there are all these claims about Oswald, when there aren't nearly as many claims about any other random person? There's no smoke without doppelgangers, is there?

The answer should be obvious: Oswald was not some random person. People came up with their unreliable 40-year-old memories of someone they thought was Oswald because Oswald was the guy accused of killing JFK. That's why an anomaly-seeking fantasist like Jack White didn't pick some random person out of the phone book and then go looking for anomalies in that person's holiday snaps or school records. Instead, he went looking for anomalies in the photographs of the moon landings, and in the school records of the guy who was accused of shooting the president. As another 'Harvey and Lee' believer has demonstrated, if you look hard enough at any collection of evidence, you are likely to come up with plenty of what you think are anomalies but which turn out to have plausible, alternative, everyday explanations.

The default state of affairs

Again, if plausible alternative explanations exist, the default state of affairs applies: the moon landings happened, and Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers.

If the 'Harvey and Lee' believers want to be anything other than followers of a fringe belief, they need to stop simply regurgitating 'Harvey and Lee' talking points and then changing the subject every time they get caught out. They need to produce some evidence that doesn't have a plausible alternative explanation.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a trivial typo

[Sandy Larsen]

 

[deleted]

Edited July 11, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I think it's time for yet another massive copy-and-paste of all the 'Harvey and Lee' Stripling stuff. Over to you, Jim!

Thank you for asking, Mr. Bojczuk.  I do think it is important to keep the Stripling evidence in front of people, don’t you agree?  That way, readers can be reminded that you have never debunked any of it, nor has the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ever retracted any of its FIVE ARTICLES indicating LHO attended Stripling School.

Let’s take yet another look at the evidence the H&L critics can’t make go away.

First, of course, is the proof that the two LHOs attended two different schools just one year before the Stripling School attendance.

Because both the FBI and the Warren Commission missed this detail and neglected to cover it up, school records published in the Warren volumes show that both LHOs attended a full fall 1953 school semester in New York City and New Orleans simultaneously.

In the fall semester of 1953, one LHO attended Public School 44 in the Bronx borough of New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.

Also in the fall semester of 1953, the other LHO was present at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 school days.

One year later, one LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans while the other was indeed enrolled in Stripling School in Fort Worth.

It was, and remains, common knowledge among local Stripling School district residents and current and former students and teachers that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School in the 1950s.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram confirmed this simple fact in an article published in 2017 and updated in 2019.

Once again, 

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 above.

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

In this 1997 interview, Stripling Student Fran Schubert watched LHO walk from the school to his house at 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from the school.

And, of course, in a 1997 interview, the assistant principal of Stripling School described how he met two FBI agents at Stripling less than 24 hours after the assassination and gave them the records for LHO.  Mr. Stevens can only say that Frank Kudlaty, who went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, was mistaken (about his entire story of meeting FBI agents hours after the assassination???) or lying.

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, James Norwood said:

To the Attention of:

Jeremy Bojczuk

Mark Stevens

W. Tracy Parnell

Robert Charles-Dunne

 

You have been asked a question about why the Warren Commission skated around the issue of Oswald's education in the academic year 1954, and no response has been forthcoming.

The reason why this question is important is that Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles insisted on a lengthy biographical overview of Oswald as part of the 888-page final report.  Here is the pertinent information that the Commission included about this portion of Oswald's life:

"Oswald's inability or lack of desire to enter into meaningful relationships with other people continued during this period in New Orleans (1954-56).  It probably contributed greatly to the general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment, a dissatisfaction which seemed to find expression at this particular point in his intense desire to join the Marines and get away from his surroundings and his mother." (384-85)

In this passage, the report locates Oswald's in 1954-56 in New Orleans.  But if it turns out that he attended school in Fort Worth during the academic year 1954-55, there is yet another gaping hole in the Warren Commission's biography of Oswald.  After identifying Oswald's whereabouts in 1954-56, the Warren Report narrative neatly passes on to Oswald enlisting and serving in the Marines, bypassing the precise time frame we are discussing in this thread.

Researcher Walt Brown wrote an excellent book called The Warren Omission, in which he demonstrates how the factual information omitted by the Commission should alert us to a pattern of deception and the flawed nature of the report.  The omission of coverage of Oswald's education in 1954-55 is one of those omissions, which is why Bojczuk, Stevens, Parnell, and Charles-Dunne have been working overtime to obscure the truth about the facts pointing to Oswald having attended Stripling Junior High School in the academic year 1954-55.

 

12 hours ago, David Josephs said:

One last tidbit for the fearsome foursome....  y'all act as if this kind of thing didn't happen with virtually all of Oswald's "records"
when we see duplicity everywhere we look.

Below are pages from the Tarrant county permanent school records of all the children who attended school in Tarrant...  they're online where with a little patience and some skill you can find most anything you look for...

Where is Lee (who hated to be called Harvey) and who is 7 year old Nancy Lee Oswald with Lee's Bday plus a day and why do we not see a LEE OSWALD thru 6th grade?

Furthermore, Marge was divorced in MAY 1947 and requested her name revert to Oswald.  Wonder where they got EKDAHL for 48-49...???

It sure would be great if people could do just a little research before challenging what they obviously know so little about...

Thanks James

49-50

50-51

 

51-52

 

With all those posts from Mr. Bojczuk making the above scroll into history, I just wanted to make sure readers didn't miss these posts from Dr. Norwood and Mr. Josephs.  Among other anomalies in the records DJ showed, I'm sure than none of the H&L critics has the slightest curiosity about who  Nancy Lee Oswald might have been.  

[James Norwood]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Leaving aside the fact that Pitts' recollection was (... how should I put it so that I don't get reported to teacher?) less than entirely accurately described by James, this particular item of evidence has an obvious alternative explanation: Pitts' memory was unreliable.

Jeremy,

No matter what degree of prolixity you adopt in your repetitive posts, you always come around to the same talking point:  an eyewitness is "unreliable."  I described Pitts' testimony very precisely and accurately, and you are misrepresenting what I wrote and once again casting aspersions that have no place in this forum.  Your argument will not persuade anyone, and you are in violation of the forum guidelines by stringing out the discussion until the thread devolves into chaos.  Please cease and desist and follow the agreed-upon rules of the Ed Forum.

You and your cohorts have been asked a question about why the Warren Report avoided identifying the schools during the period of 1954-56, and we are still awaiting your reply.

 

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

Your argument will not persuade anyone, and you are in violation of the forum guidelines by stringing out the discussion until the thread devolves into chaos

Standard COINTELPRO techniques for disrupting forums...   google them... it makes an interesting read....

1954, concentrate.... why don’t the records match boys?

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler also writes:

All the films and photographs which show the railroad workers on the bridge are faked now, are they? How were the films and photographs faked? When did this happen? Why would anyone bother? How did the bad guys find the time to fake all of these films and photographs? Weren't they busy enough faking some obscure article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram? Perhaps Mr Butler would kindly fill us in on some of these important details.

This is another feature of 'Harvey and Lee' methodology: claim that documents are faked, but fail to give any reasons beyond "those bad guys faked that other thing, so they must have faked this thing too."

Not to derail this thread, but the above is one of John Butler's favorite talking points. I challenged him to explain how this evidence could have been faked in an earlier thread where he claimed Altgens 6 has been heavily altered, but neither he nor anyone else can do it. Why? Because the film and photo record in this case is self-authenticating.

[David Josephs]

34 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Because the film and photo record in this case is self-authenticating.

Nothing is “self-authenticating” Jon....  especially in the FBI’s grab bag of bs evidence...

How does the zfilm accomplish this Jon?   When we know for a fact it was heavily altered....?

In fact, use whatever image or film u like and please explain SELF AUTHENTICATING....
And then look up what evidence authentication means...

I can’t speak for JB... he and I have had our disagreements over what he sees in photos, films.....

But I have truly never seen or heard something so oxymoronic.... as self/authentication.... in evidence.

Authenticating a photo usually doesn’t require a chain of custody because usually the FBI isn’t trying to frame an innocent man...
In this case Jon, nothing is real or authentic until proven so....  hope that’s not news to you....

In this case.. Zapruder claiming the film’s authenticity in no way authenticates his film...  we must look at chain of possession and the testimony of those who saw it before and after....   And on and on with all the evidence...

then there’s the number of times FBI reports find a certain conclusion from the evidence they offer does not work...

 so that evidence is simply dropped for evidence that works....  case in point... 

Please read this... It shows the FBI confronting a conclusion which doesn’t work... La Frontera....  and showing how improbable it was....   no matter, just replace, rinse and repeat...

Take care
DJ

=====

A photograph of a crime scene would be considered “documentary evidence.”

The ultimate purpose of a “chain of custody” with evidence is to provide “authentication” of that evidence so that it is admissible in court.  The Federal Rules of Evidence state, “the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” (USCS Fed. Rules Evid.  R 901).  This means that the person introducing the evidence must provide sufficient proof that the evidence is what that person claims.  Thus, the chain of custody is typically used to ensure that evidence is not tampered with or altered and that the “identity and integrity” of the evidence remains intact.  This “authenticates” the evidence in court so that it is admissible.

Photographs are typically authenticated by a person who is familiar with the scene that was photographed providing testimony that the image in the photograph “fairly and accurately depicts the scene as it was at the time in question.”  Anyone familiar with the scene can authenticate a photograph and it does not necessarily have to be the photographer.  That being said, the “chain of custody” is not usually part of “authenticating” a photograph, rather, authentication of a photograph leans more towards a person being able to testify that the photograph “fairly and accurately depicts the scene as it was at the time in question.”

[John Butler]

39 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Standard COINTELPRO techniques for disrupting forums

Just went out and read those.  Whoever wrote that nailed it as far as some activity on this forum both past and present.  And, it will continue into the future.  Some folks can not stand for their WC conclusions to be challenged.  They want to keep a false picture of what happened in Dealey Plaza alive.  Example:

38 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Not to derail this thread, but the above is one of John Butler's favorite talking points. I challenged him to explain how this evidence could have been faked in an earlier thread where he claimed Altgens 6 has been heavily altered, but neither he nor anyone else can do it. Why? Because the film and photo record in this case is self-authenticating.

I would say this is bait and switch from the Triple Underpass and the events there.  I have written of these things several times.  If that's not good enough for these fellows then I can't be helpful.  It's something they wouldn't want to hear or believe anyway.

 

[David Josephs]

3 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Whoever wrote that nailed it as far as some activity on this forum both past and present

That would be the FBI John....

[John Butler]

8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I can’t speak for JB... he and I have had our disagreements over what he sees in photos, films.....

But I have truly never seen or heard something so oxymoronic.... as self/authentication.... in evidence.

It's true David and I have had serious arguments over various things.  But, we have gotten over that part because we have so many things in common.  We have agreements on more than those few things we argued over. 

Whenever I get the chance I support David Josephs ideas. 

11 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Authenticating a photo usually doesn’t require a chain of custody because usually the FBI isn’t trying to frame an innocent man...
In this case Jon, nothing is real or authentic until proven so....  hope that’s not news to you....

Harold Weisberg had much the same thinking long ago:

Is it necessary to publish those bits of cointelpro in a 3 part essay on what they are about?  I'll make a copy if some one wants to see that.

[David Josephs]

Thanks John... 

COINTELPRO has been around a while... and the info is easily found....   before the internet, organizations still communicated via newsletter and meetings.... the techniques work regardless of delivery method....

COINTELPRO (syllabic abbreviation derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) (1956–1979, and beyond) is a series of covert and illegal projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations....

[John Butler]

This was the cointelpro techniques I was referring to.  They are well worth reading.  Just to be snarky, see how many of these apply to the arguments of the other fellows in this argument.  Here's a link and a doc I made below.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/

cointelpro techniques.docx

Edited July 11, 2020 by John Butler

[Mark Stevens]

22 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Nice tactic Mark....

But nothing to do with why the FBI included in evidence just about every possible worthless item they could get their hands on and then offer no index while
spreading the information around so haphazardly as to make it virtually impossible to follow....

I'm sorry you do not see the glaring conflicts with the year 1954 and Oswald's life...  As I don't remember seeing an answer, or if I even asked you,

Also not sure how a MOLE HUNT thread gets to Stripling... which is why I may have used info used previously....

I'll take some time now and read back to find your questions...  

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here... simply to point out the evidence from which conclusions are rendered...

What's most sad is someone, anyone, taking the time to question but not the time to research....  this conversation can be picked up on a new thread...
We should leave this thread for its intended purpose....
DJ

Nice tactic?!?!

You asked why an in-depth study was conducted on Oswald and not the other two, I offered rational explanation as to why and you tell me...nice tactic?

You mean actually responding to a person's question? This is a "tactic?" Cointelpro indeed....

2020 is one weird year.

 

[David Josephs]

12 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

Nice tactic?!?!

You asked why an in-depth study was conducted on Oswald and not the other two, I offered rational explanation as to why and you tell me...nice tactic?

You mean actually responding to a person's question? This is a "tactic?" Cointelpro indeed....

2020 is one weird year.

 

So to you it is rational to have conflicting grade, middle & high school records in an effort to explain the killer... but only if he’s killed before trial, etc, etc....

Then why do they conflict so?  You’d think if they were doing what u suggest the info would be Authenticated.... and tell a single story...
(we haven’t even touched on the residences and their conflicts but u ain’t gonna learn what u don’t wanna know.....)

Let’s look at NYC, a simple one, ...how many school days are there from March 23 to mid June.... 20 days per month minus his time at youth house in April/may    Plus 15 absences... 125 days of school in 3.5 mos... nice trick...
 

you think a school administrator would have entered that stupid a number? Nope, FBI did the math using 200 days from March 23 to Jan 7... and mistakenly included summer school in the total...   
It was Dulles who said people don’t read, so few will even bother.... especially since it was not indexed and the same subject reports are scattered over 10 million pages....

There’s so much of which you are unaware yet do you tread softly....   you never answered where u come from on this...

How much have you actually read of the original material... the book, the CD, and especially Baylor’s archive....?
... or is that to troublesome to admit?