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

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oh, goodie.  Someone is actually stating right here the silly argument made on Mr. Parker’s site.  That way, we can judge the quality of Mr. Parker's argument for ourselves.  Let’s take a look at the EVIDENCE, shall we?

The 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list LHO’s height as 5’11”. That’s two inches taller than the Oswald measured on the slab in the Dallas Morgue, and none of these measurements are self-reported.

 

Oops! Jeremy fell into the trap of actually addressing H&L evidence rather than spouting off his usual paragraph after paragraph of unfounded blanket criticisms! LOL

And, as usual, Jim responded with hard evidence.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

David,

Can you free up a little space in your personal message box? I have something to send you.

 

[John Butler]

22 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Uh, Tracy....   then why would they bother taking a photo against a height scale?  Despite how FUBAR it is...

You want a crack at explaining this?

David,

Here's something for those fellows to decry.  It's a direct consequence of the head size difference:

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You're being funny, right Robert... cause nobody that ignorant.

Dr. Norwood, could you add this to your list of complaints to the moderators please?

[David Josephs]

People in glass houses.... should stop walking full speed into walls....  cause nobody that ignorant.
(take it personally at your own risk... I'm just sayin')

March 23, 1953 thru Jan 12, 1954....  how many school days ?

One of the simplest, if not THE simplest question to answer....  just count the days he could have gone to school M-F....  we'll take away vacations and Youth House after.... 

===

When you and the rest finally figure out how to count these days.... maybe you can actually get a seat at the table and be considered more than just an interruption...

Nothing wrong in 1954 here, move along, move along...  nothing to see here.... CIA/FBI in America in the 50's...  no cause for alarm... 

     

 

   (thinking of you Tommy G)

[Mark Stevens]

This is one of the most impossible threads I've been a part of in my 25 years on discussion boards/forums. 

I was foolishly going to chime in regarding the head size, I figured what would be the point though? 

Instead of actually addressing my statements, the H&L group would just claim "what about the school records." 

If one foolishly attempts to discuss the records the reply is "explain the witnesses then." 

If one foolishly attempts to discuss the witnesses the reply is "what about the 13 inch head." 

If one foolishly attempts to discuss that the reply is "well explain the dental records then." 

At no point is any real attempt at discussion made. It is just a vicious cycle of redirecting the flow of discussion. 

For this reason, I've decided to end my participation in this particular thread. I have some information I hope to present in the next week, maybe that thread can stay on topic. 

[David Josephs]

9 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

I was foolishly going to chime in regarding the head size, I figured what would be the point though?

You sound like an intelligent, thinking person who considers the data and renders an opinion....

I don't have skin in the game whether H&L floats your boat or not.... can't MAKE people see, they need to get it or not....
I know that there are so many more hurdles for your arguments to address the duplicity of Lee Harvey, your mind would spin.... 

This one hurdle presents itself as quite an anomaly.  For the man's head to be that large he must have been farther away from the wall, distorting his true height... or a new background is put in.... (most people in the investigation see the crappy copies)

The man on the left in the previous side by side image is virtually against the wall, while on the right we really have no idea....

Here's a much better image as well....  why do you think his head is so far out of proportion?. and would you say these are the same men?

DJ  

  

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/14/2020 at 5:10 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

How many of them verified that it was “common knowledge” LHO attended Stripling?

 

15 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

(d) Stop with this latest distraction and face up to the problems with the Stripling witnesses, or rather the lack of witnesses.

So... are you two asking me to post the Stripling School evidence yet again?   Have you found a published retraction from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the FIVE ARTICLES it printed saying LHO attended Stripling?  

Show me a published retraction, boys!  That would be big news.  But, of course, there is no retraction.  All five articles stand.

Otherwise, YOU STILL HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRADICT THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT LHO ATTENDED STRIPLING!

[Jim Hargrove]

OK boys, back by popular demand, here is the Overwhelming Evidence that 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.

Quote

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.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

On 7/14/2020 at 6:10 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

So, Galindo led to a further 41 former Stripling teachers, all of whom a thorough John Armstrong tracked down and quizzed....  

Excellent.

How many of them verified that it was “common knowledge” LHO attended Stripling?

 

Anyone?

Bueller?

Spicoli?

Anyone?

[Sandy Larsen]

39 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

On 7/14/2020 at 4:10 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

So, Galindo led to a further 41 former Stripling teachers, all of whom a thorough John Armstrong tracked down and quizzed....  

Excellent.

How many of them verified that it was “common knowledge” LHO attended Stripling?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Spicoli?

Anyone?

 

It appears to me that only Galindo used the expression "common knowledge" in describing who at Stripling knew that LHO had attended the school.

The author of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 wrote that "Teachers and classmates remember [LHO] as attending Stripling..."

If you want more than that, I think you'll have to do the digging yourself.

Both of these statements are consistent with all the other evidence we have of LHO attending Stripling.

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Right.

So, Jim bringing up a list of 41 teachers is supposed to lend credence to Galindo’s claim.  But if zero of those 41 teachers verified Galindo’s assertion, what’s the point in bringing it up?

41 means nothing if they weren’t contacted or didn’t recall any such thing.

These are the ways in which you hamstring yourselves.  Meaningless numbers designed to add weight to a claim that only demonstrate the very falsity of the claim.

Really.  You’ve got to be kidding.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Right.

So, Jim bringing up a list of 41 teachers is supposed to lend credence to Galindo’s claim.  But if zero of those 41 teachers verified Galindo’s assertion, what’s the point in bringing it up?

 

I found the post where Jim mentioned the 41 teachers. It's right here. Jim didn't make any claims or conclusions whatsoever regarding the list of 41 and only mentioned them in passing because you had demanded how John Armstrong should have questioned them , and in reply Jim told you only what John's goal was for the list.

Had you treated Jim with respect, he might have been willing to contact John to get clarification on the responses he got from the teachers he was able to contact. Or maybe find that information in John's notes. But as it stands now, the only information you're liable to get is what is published in John's book.

 

Quote

41 means nothing if they weren’t contacted or didn’t recall any such thing.

 

Though Jim isn't obligated to say anything about the 41, I'll tell you what John wrote in his book about contacting them:

After many hours of long distance telephone calls, I managed to contact a surprising number of former Stripling teachers, although many were deceased. One man I spoke with was Mark Summers, a former gym teacher, who began his 10-year tenure at Stripling in September 1950, one year after Robert Oswald graduated from the school (1949). Mr. Summers said that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a student in his gym class for a short time, but remembered little about him.

NOTE: Mr. Summers could not have mistakenly remembered Robert Oswald in his class, because Robert graduated from Stripling the year before he began teaching.

As I continued to locate and talk with former Stripling teachers, many suggested that I call "Frank Kudlaty," the former assistant principal at Stripling. I telephoned Mr. Kudlaty, introduced myself as a JFK researcher, and asked if he knew whether or not "Lee Harvey Oswald" had attended Stripling. Without hesitation Frank said, "Yes, he attended Stripling." Somewhat surprised I asked, "How do you know that." Frank replied, "Because I gave his Stripling records to the FBI."

 

Quote

These are the ways in which you hamstring yourselves.  Meaningless numbers designed to add weight to a claim that only demonstrate the very falsity of the claim.

 

You falsely accuse Jim of this because you are careless with your words. You are careless with your words because you are not serious in your inquiry. You're not serious in your inquiry because your mind is closed.

Fine. Now why don't you go away and waste somebody else's time.

 

Quote

Really.  You’ve got to be kidding.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Here's something for those fellows to decry.  It's a direct consequence of the head size difference

In response to one of Mr Butler's earlier masterful attempts at photographic analysis, another member wrote:

Quote

Are you completely mad or just pretending?

There is no head-size difference. It's just one more ridiculous piece of nonsense put forward by 'Harvey and Lee' believers:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

The 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list LHO’s height as 5’11”.

Yes, we know that the 5' 11" height appears in official documents. Here is the question Jim is avoiding: what evidence do you have that Oswald was measured against a height chart? Where's the photograph of Oswald standing in front of a height chart, like the one that was taken when he entered the Marines?

You've been given a plausible reason to explain why no such photograph exists, and why the height is inaccurate. Exact heights would have been of no interest to the Marines when the subject was about to leave the service.

Where's the photograph? Let me guess ... it was destroyed! The bad guys destroyed the photograph to protect the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme! They couldn't risk any information getting out that might give away the plot!

Which leads us back to the other point I made, which Jim has yet to answer. If his preposterous theory is true, we have the official records of one doppelganger entering the Marines and official records of the other doppelganger leaving the Marines. Why would the authorities give away the plot by publishing the partial records of both doppelgangers?

Of course, what we actually have are the records of one real-life person, the historical Lee Harvey Oswald, entering and leaving the Marines.

Jim was also asked to deal with the problems with the Stripling witnesses. This time, his tactic for avoiding the question was to demand:

Quote

Have you found a published retraction from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the FIVE ARTICLES it printed saying LHO attended Stripling?

Why should we expect to find a published retraction?

The point is that a perfectly plausible reason has been put forward to explain those articles. Robert Oswald's incorrect assumption about his brother attending Stripling found its way into the first article, and the following articles simply repeated the claim.

Now, how about dealing with the problems with the Stripling witnesses?

- You could start by answering the questions Mark Stevens asked in this post, about the witnesses who supposedly "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423175.

- Then you could answer the question Robert Charles-Dunne asked in this post, and produce evidence for the claim that it was "common knowledge" that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=423639.