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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Mark Stevens writes:

Quote

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.

I think everyone who has been following this thread will agree with Mark. We're dealing with people who will do anything to get out of admitting that they are wrong.

Whenever someone points out a problem, Jim Hargrove usually responds in one of three ways:

- ignore the criticism and answer a question that wasn't asked;
- ignore the criticism and repeat the very 'Harvey and Lee' talking point that's being criticised;
- ignore the criticism and try to move the discussion onto a different 'Harvey and Lee' talking point.

Then there's the thin-skinned James Norwood, who made the obviously incorrect claim that witnesses such as Bobby Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School", and when challenged about it tried to bluff his way out by claiming that "I described Pitts' testimony very precisely and accurately". He was then challenged about that incorrect claim, and has so far failed to respond. Still, that was only a few days ago, so perhaps he'll be brave enough to answer the question eventually.

As someone said on another forum:

Quote

They will just carry on as if nothing happened. Shame on the mods there for letting this garbage theory pollute their forum.

It's been a disgraceful performance. Don't the 'Harvey and Lee' believers appreciate how their behaviour makes them look?

It doesn't make the Education Forum look good, either. If James Gordon is reading this and is thinking of closing down this thread, I'd ask him to reconsider. As long as this thread is open, the 'Harvey and Lee' believers are at least contained here and not filling the rest of the forum with their long-discredited theory.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a typo

[Denny Zartman]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I think everyone who has been following this thread will agree with Mark.

I'm following this thread and I don't agree with Mark.

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's been a disgraceful performance. Don't the 'Harvey and Lee' believers appreciate how their behaviour makes them look?

It seems to me that two questions should be considered:

1. Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald at some time prior to June 3, 1960?
2. Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in the days and weeks prior to November 22, 1963?

If the answer to number 1 is "No", then how does one explain J. Edgar Hoover's memo of June 3, 1960 where he writes:

Quote

"Since there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11510#relPageId=836

If the answer to number 2 is also "No,", then how does one explain the multiple instances of Oswald possibly being impersonated in Dallas and in Mexico City just prior to the assassination, including the sighting of Oswald at the Dallas Furniture Mart where he was observed driving away?

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m2.htm

If the answers to either/both 1 or 2 are "yes, I do believe Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 and/or in 1963", then in my opinion that person should lay off calling the Harvey and Lee theory nonsense. You may not personally believe that Oswald had an exact double shadowing him since childhood, but clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Denny Zartman

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

 

Thanks, Sandy.  What amazes me about the H&L critics is how seldom they post actual EVIDENCE.  Most of the time, they simply attack the overwhelming evidence we present, then scold us for not getting more evidence, and, almost always, attack us personally.  

EDIT: Thanks to Denny Zartman for his straightforward analysis above.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[James Norwood]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

He was then challenged about that incorrect claim, and has so far failed to respond. Still, that was only a few days ago, so perhaps he'll be brave enough to answer the question eventually.

Jeremy,

You continue to misrepresent what I have written about Bobby Pitts, and I have continued to answer all of your questions.  Once again:  Bobby Pitts resided next door to Oswald on Thomas Place in Forth Worth in a location directly across from Stripling Junior High School.  Pitts' recall is important for two reasons:  (1) he explicitly recalled Oswald living at 2220 Thomas Place and (2) the timeframe was during the academic year 1954-55.

Pitts' testimony becomes important when placed alongside that of Fran Schubert because we have corroborating memories of Oswald residing at 2220 Thomas Place in the year 1954-55.  Fran's memories build on Pitts' testimony because she was an actual student at Stripling in 1954-55.  She recalled (a) Oswald on the playground; (b) Oswald walking in the halls between classes; and (c) Oswald crossing the street to return to his home.  Other eyewitnesses corroborate more of these details, the most important of which is Vice-Principal Frank Kudlaty, who recalls on camera surrendering the school records to the FBI, which indicated that Oswald was enrolled at Stripling in the academic year 1954-55.  The main point that I explained in detail to Mark was the importance of examining the totality of the evidence.  Taken alone, Bobby Pitts' testimony does not seem significant.  Its importance becomes apparent when examined in conjunction with other eyewitness testimony.

Please stop distorting what I have written, and please refrain from the ad hominem attacks on this forum.
 

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I think everyone who has been following this thread will agree with Mark.

When you write a statement like the one quoted above, you need to back it up with facts.  Of course, you are unable to so because readers like Denny Zartman are following this thread and are clearly seeing the difference between evidence-based research and your writing of screeds.

On multiple occasions, you have been asked to explain why the Warren Commission bypassed the topic of where Oswald attended school during the years 1954-56.  Here is the key passage from the Warren Report:

"Oswald inability of 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)

The goal of this section of the report was to provide a detailed biographical profile of Oswald.  The Commission's thesis above is that the years 1954-56 were critical in leading a malcontent teenager to drop out of school.  So, why is it that the Commission studiously avoids mentioning the schools Oswald attended during this period? 

We are answering all of your questions.  Why can't you answer ours?

Edited July 16, 2020 by James Norwood

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

OK boys, back by popular demand, here is the Overwhelming Evidence that LHO attended Stripling School....

Just wondering-isn't there some kind of forum rule against posting the same thing over and over again? Is that your idea of making an argument? Posting the same thing over and over until the other side gives up? These points have been answered a million times and that will be true no matter how many times you repeat them.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

If the answers to either/both 1 or 2 are "yes, I do believe Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 and/or in 1963", then in my opinion that person should lay off calling the Harvey and Lee theory nonsense. You may not personally believe that Oswald had an exact double shadowing him since childhood, but clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.

And here, finally, is an important distinction. Was Oswald impersonated in some form at some point during his lifetime? There is credible evidence to suggest he was, although there is just as much credible evidence indicating some of these witnesses were mistaken. It is absolutely possible to believe Oswald was impersonated on a handful of occasions WITHOUT having to believe in the preposterous and nonsensical notion that there were TWO different versions of him (and TWO of his mothers, let's not forget..) galavanting around the world for a decade.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

Precisely the point.  Jim thought mentioning 41 Stripling teachers would sound as though it added weight to his argument, because it’s bigger than the six witnesses you claim to have - but don’t. Yet it doesn’t add weight, as we have seen.   What do you think you’re accomplishing by being FORCED to admit you’ve been drawing unsustainable conclusions? 

Quote

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.

Hello?  All you HAVE is information in John’s book, and it's clearly insufficient.  What else is there to get, from Jim or you or anyone else?  The book is not persuasive because the “evidence” just isn’t there.  Additional evidence is precisely what has been requested of ALL of you from H&L HQ.  But it hasn’t been forthcoming because it doesn’t exist.  Doesn’t stop people from trying to shoehorn events into their preferred version of events, or bandy about meaningless numbers, and then get all chafed and butt-hurt about it when the tactic is exposed.

 

Quote

 

Though Jim isn't obligated to say anything about the 41,

He brought up the list of 41, but now he's not obligated to say anything about it?   My God you people love to make up your own rules as you go along.  He WON'T say anything about it because he knows he was caught trying to pull some sleight of hand.  And by refusing to admit his gambit, he lets you offer up a rationale so weak it is truly comical to witness.

Quote

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."

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.

Jim was not “falsely” accused of anything.  He offered up “a list of 41 Stripling teachers,” of whom we have what? .... one teacher?  So the only purpose served by raising the number 41 was to bamboozle the gullible.  Of whom there seem to be precisely zero in this thread.   Little wonder.

The closed minds belong to those who hold their ears repeating “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you."

As you've all repeatedly proven, what we as critics say doesn’t comport with your conclusions, so we are mocked and ridiculed as unworthy of further debate (as though any of you have proved capable of it.)  When you can’t answer a question, you switch it up to another topic, or flood the board with pages of derp that don’t seem to elicit the response you desire.  When that doesn’t work, some newbie to the forum will threaten us with expulsion.  Because nothing says "I've got a superior persuasive argument" better than "please kill my opponents."

And, Sandy, I would remind you and DJ and whomever else is in your ragged little posse to recall that John Armstrong asked me to vet his manuscript.  Long before any of your posse - with the exception of Jim - knew anything about it.  Not you, not DJ, not Dr. Newbie...

Why?  Because when Gary Mack (RIP) and others attacked a book not yet written, I repeatedly defended John’s right to pursue his hypothesis.  I said that when his book was written, we would see whether Armstrong or his critics had the superior argument.  And if his work wasn’t persuasive, smart people would be able to reach their own conclusions.  I still believe the very same thing.

Closed mind?  Got a mirror?    

 

 

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Just wondering-isn't there some kind of forum rule against posting the same thing over and over again? Is that your idea of making an argument? Posting the same thing over and over until the other side gives up? These points have been answered a million times and that will be true no matter how many times you repeat them.

I don't know if there's a rule about this, but certainly some pointers were given about how to save forum bandwidth.  Those tips are still at the very top of the forum's home page.  They seem to have been contributed by somebody named Sandy Larsen. 

Life is rich.

[Tony Krome]

On 6/4/2020 at 7:11 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

John Pic

Pic stated in his testimony that he had not seen his mother since 1958, "except in magazines and stuff", which presumably would have been editions published post assassination.

[David Josephs]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Just wondering-isn't there some kind of forum rule against posting the same thing over and over again?

Fire, meet Frying pan....

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

First, the wording of the quoted sentence makes it seem Armstrong spoke to “a surprising number of teachers” although “many were deceased”.  Sloppy wording, but not fatal.  

The same can not be said for this, from the author’s own work:

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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."

John was able to contact “...a surprising number of former Stripling teachers” whose advice was often “call Frank Kudlaty.”

In the course of his conversations with “a surprising number of former Stripling teachers,” he doesn’t disclose how many he was able to reach, or if any of them independently recalled LHO @ Stripling.  Had they done so, it seems only natural that John should include them as part of the “overwhelming” evidence” he was developing.

What are we to make of this peculiar omission?  One doesn’t know what “a surprising number” is intended to convey, but surely to God if Armstrong had found a half dozen or so teachers willing to verify LHO’s attendance @ Stripling, he would have said so.

You seem to think that this is minor quibbling.  Others see glaring gaps in which we should be finding “evidence,” rather than vague wording about a “surprising number” of such teachers, only one (or two) of whom remembered LHO.  One or two out of a list of 41 - even with half being dead - still doesn’t constitute “common knowledge.”  Well-intentioned people make mistakes, too, you see.  People use colloquialisms all the time, as a type of short-hand.  Using such a term doesn’t demonstrate that it’s true.  This distinction cannot be lost on you, because none of you is stupid.  

Others have long since tired of your collective obfuscatory evasions.  Yet “a surprising number” of Forum members not only disbelieve the hypothesis behind H&L, but insist upon getting answers to basic ABC questions.  Which are evaded at every turn.

If you cannot see the damage you are doing in this thread to the very hypothesis you’re here to defend, all I can say is please continue.

[David Josephs]

4 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

And, Sandy, I would remind you and DJ and whomever else is in your ragged little posse to recall that John Armstrong asked me to vet his manuscript.  Long before any of your posse - with the exception of Jim - knew anything about it.  Not you, not DJ, not Dr. Newbie.

Then how is it you don't know a single zigsaw puzzle piece tells little about the entire image....?

Take Stripling out of the equation for a second...  It's not like the lynchpin to the entire batch of thousands of documents which illuminate the duplicity.

If you spent that much time with the work, why do you know so little about the rest of the puzzle pieces around which Stripling fits?
You and the gamg of 4 treat each item of evidence as if it stands along and doesn't fit into other pieces to show us a glimpse of what was going on....

If you're not EVER going to look at this in context, within a framework of deception to pile on the patsy as much evidence as possible so "patsy" becomes "guilty",
in what context DO you place the strange activities of 1953-54 school year?   

I'll post the BJHS perm record and source grade cards as ask again....

Why is 1954-55 at BJHS so sparse regarding attendance while at the same time the NYC records feeding into BJHS are also FUBAR and look amazingly like 2 children's records combined into one....    and why don't the actual grade cards feed into his perm record?

The grades themselves don't match....
12 absences...  when not a single card has anything over 8.

You think New Orleans schools simply forget how to count or copy information?  You think every discrepancy is simply human error in a case where all roads led to Oswald or they weren't taken...

And herein lies the rub....  you wont address a SIMPLE question like what do your eyes see .... but rather keep throwing back your bona fides and the same myopic rhetoric.

an example... we don't SEE black holes, we see the movement of the objects near to it behaving differently than if they were not near a black hole....  the black hole is a logical conclusion from the entirety of the evidence....  100 years ago no one knew much of their existence... 55 years ago another existence was hidden leaving only signs and wavelengths to chase...
 the similarities are eerie..

While we have early photos of Lee to compare to Harvey, the last LEE image have is the 1959 passport photo.   So in essence LEE becomes the black hole around which we see anomalous behavior that stands out from the norm.... Having spent so much time with the data then Robert, how is it you're not aware of this?

Like being both at Atsugi and Ping Tung at the same time....  Being in Dallas and New Orleans at the same time, 
one being a loud, big, strong, fighting marine... the other a quiet, standoffish, politic talking annoyance... obviously much more educated than the real Lee... and obviously in the employ as an asset for the FBI and CIA... the perfect patsy doing work for his benefactors while simultaneously setting himself up....

I'm terribly sorry John didn't spend more time with you discussing 1952, 53, 54....  we spent 2 years and went thru every footnote...  you?

Are you also saying GORSKY was lying when he tells us LEE left the marines in March 1959 with all records forwarded to DC....  in direct conflict to the official narrative
How can you say you have knowledge of the data when it is so obvious you don't.?  

You're aware that Santa Ana and El Toro, in 1963, where 2 very different places.

At the end of the day Robert...  neither of us budges.  If you feel one item/area of evidence has the power to negate all the evidence... 

There always seems to be a handful of critics with nothing but their critique as their only weapon...  CONTEXT simply doesn't exist - and from my POV that is one sure way to completely misunderstand the situations and circumstance presented....  CONTEXT, Robert, changes everything... so you keep jamming your square peg into the round hole and wonder in amazement why it dont fit while the rest of us understand there is something wrong with both the peg AND the hole....

I took a break from the forum since there seems to be no bar too low for critics of other's work to stoop in refusing to accept any evidence contrary to their own opinions...
Show them the evidence and like cockroaches after a light switch goes on... the scramble is on for a tactic that can mitigate the truth, make the poster enter an endless BS-loop with the critic, and take readers minds off the subject at hand....  we post what we do to allow anyone without the background knowledge to see the evidence first hand...

Not thru the filters you boys render it thru....

   

 

That tactic is outlined in COINTELPRO....  and is especially effective when combined with other tactics,,,  here are a few for reference - numbered below - that we've seen here over the years I've been here....
Whether consciously or not... the tactic remains the same and is why H&L threads are so incredibly long each time.

Most of those who are the most vocal, remain the least knowledgeable on the subject matter... as if reading the book and doing some research on one's own is simply too much to ask for a posting critic bent on being contrary.   Last time - if you see nothing wrong with NYC's records or BJHS records...  isn't it time for you to move on to a thread where you have something to offer?

 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Edited July 16, 2020 by David Josephs

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, for a guy who isn’t offering much to the discussion, I notice that few of you resist the temptation to respond to my nothing.

Yet you do resist answering plain and simple questions, put to you directly.

Instead, as predicted (because the crack H&L squad is nothing if not predictable), we get pages of irrelevant derp.  

“If we can’t defend Stripling, that’s not ALL we’ve got, you know.”

But if it’s all the same quality as your Stripling “evidence” then quantity alone will not suffice.  The Warren Commission had an “overwhelming amount of evidence”, too.  Isn’t the quantity, but the quality.

Yet your slogan seems to be:  

“Never mind the quality, feel the width.”

(btw - pointing out the very rhetorical sins of which you are yourselves guilty, in this very thread, displays an uncanny lack of self-awareness.)

Please do continue.

[David Josephs]

33 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

(btw - pointing out the very rhetorical sins of which you are yourselves guilty, in this very thread, displays an uncanny lack of self-awareness.)

Fire.... meet frying pan....  again... 

Robert... what's to defend...?  that's his recollection...  You can bring up all you'd like, Kudlaty was there, you weren't.
you're accepting or believing is inconsequential to the outcome...

The men and women who were children at the time and were spoken to directly helps confirm Oswald's life to and from school across from Stripling...
2220 Thomas is a reoccurring theme in Marge's life with her there the day of the assassination.
2220 Thomas is related to Korth
Korth was Ekdahl's trustee as well as lawyer

Just coincidences... 

So you don't believe Kudlaty, Schubert, Pitts, Gann.   You don't accept the FBI would take original records and leave nothing in their wake?  

You don't accept that 2220 Thomas was a repetitive theme from San Saba 1947 to 1954  thru 1963
You don't accept that his records would have gone to Monnig JHS and not Stripling... 
You don't accept the conflicts between the actual school record of LEE who attended all of 8th grade, and what Marge here tells the WC... (BELOW)

You don't even see them as possible...?
To each their own

    
           

 

NOTE: After Harvey Oswald "defected" to Russia in 1959, the short, dumpy, heavyset "Marguerite Oswald" imposter was interviewed by Fort Worth reporter Les Strother. In an article titled "My Values Different, Defector Told Mother," she told Strother about Lee Harvey Oswald's school life. She said, "He quit school at 14 .... he quit in the eighth grade .... but was so set on getting an education, he quit and returned three times. " This statement is very significant because, according to the Warren Commission, Oswald did not have an attendance problem or quit school in the 8th grade. He graduated from Beauregard in the 9th grade, and only dropped out of school in the 1Oth grade so that he could join the Marines.
 

The "Marguerite Oswald" impostor accurately described to reporter Les Strother in 1959 how Harvey Oswald quit and returned to school on 3 separate occasions. The most likely reason for Harvey's changing from one school to another was his inability to provide transcripts from the previous schools. We can now see that her innocent sounding, but very revealing statement, about Harvey was correct. 
 

·         The 1st school Harvey returned to was Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth (1954) where he dropped out after two months.

·         The 2nd school Harvey returned to was Warren Easton High School in New Orleans (1955) where he dropped out after a month.

         The 3rd school Harvey returned to was Arlington Heights High School in Fort Worth (1956) where he dropped out after a month to join the Marines.

 

 

[James Norwood]

38 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The "Marguerite Oswald" impostor accurately described to reporter Les Strother in 1959 how Harvey Oswald quit and returned to school on 3 separate occasions. The most likely reason for Harvey's changing from one school to another was his inability to provide transcripts from the previous schools. We can now see that her innocent sounding, but very revealing statement, about Harvey was correct. 
 

·         The 1st school Harvey returned to was Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth (1954) where he dropped out after two months.

·         The 2nd school Harvey returned to was Warren Easton High School in New Orleans (1955) where he dropped out after a month.

         The 3rd school Harvey returned to was Arlington Heights High School in Fort Worth (1956) where he dropped out after a month to join the Marines.

David,

Very nice work in providing the background about the three schools.  In the writing above, you have accomplished three things:

(1) You have placed the Stripling discussion in context with three instances of Oswald dropping out of school and moving to a new location;

(2)  You are examining the totality of the evidence deriving from Marguerite in her own words as told to a reporter; and

(3) You are synthesizing a trail of discrete pieces of evidence to see where it leads.  And I know that you could provide unlimited imagery to document with primary evidence each and every one of your assertions.

This is the kind of research/investigatory method that others should be following. 

It is obvious that the critics on this thread have not read Harvey and Lee or any of the outstanding articles on harveyandlee.net.