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

[Jonathan Cohen]

47 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. 

Riiiiiight. The "Marguerite Oswald impostor" gives interviews to local journalists. Great thinking by the plotters, huh?

[James Norwood]

Jonathan,

is obvious that you have not read Harvey and Lee or even a single article on the harveyandlee.net site.  You are entitled to your opinion.  But, sadly, opinions are all that you are capable of writing on this thread that is dedicated to exploring actual evidence.

James

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Derp.

Derp.

Derp.
                        
Answer every question but the ones asked.  Bob, weave, duck, dodge.

And then self-congratulate each other on a job well done.  Answered every question - aced it! - except the ones asked.

Why is that?  Could it be because no answer can be promulgated that isn’t ludicrous on its face?  

Why would John Armstrong NOT include former Stripling teachers in his book if they, in fact, verified his hypothesis?  And if they did not, why were they mentioned here by Jim Hargrove?  

Did Armstrong just not ask the teachers?  Seems unlikely, and unlike him, because he’s often quite thorough in other areas.  After all, he talked to a “surprising number” of them.  Yet they remain almost uniformly unquoted.    

Could they have been excluded from the book because they told him that they knew nothing about it?  But they recommended that he talk with Kudlaty?  Maybe he could shed some light on this line of inquiry?  That’s the way it currently reads, which is somewhat underwhelming.  

Whether 41 or 21, distilling the number down to two possible hits does not a compelling case make.  And do remember, please, that it was Jim Hargrove who raised the number of 41 former Stripling teachers, in a bid to sway an argument with an apparently meaningless number.

My critique comes from simply reading what H&L HQ has posted here, some from Armstrong’s own typewriter.  (Yes, I know, but some of us still do have a fondness for typewriters.  I among them.)  

If you are unprepared to defend your own thesis, posted here by your own hands, why do you bother?  And why should anybody else care?  

(I would have thought a Phd would know a thing or two about defending one’s thesis.  Or moot court, or whatever alternative one fancies.  I was wrong on that score, as I am so often, it seems.)

Trouble yourself all you like about where the Oswalds lived while LHO wasn’t attending Stripling.  Have at it.  

Bobby Pitts seemed like a local kid, and he didn’t attend Stripling either.  Hence, any argument of proximity to a school being the sole determinant of where a child attended school is somewhat undermined.   

“Context” is the refuge sought by people who don’t/won’t/can’t answer simple questions.  “But what I say won’t make any sense unless you hear it all!”

I’ve heard this all before.  Before you did.  So what?

I guess I’m just not getting the cosmic vibrations behind this lack of argument.

“Never mind the quality, feel the width.”

[David Josephs]

39 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Riiiiiight. The "Marguerite Oswald impostor" gives interviews to local journalists. Great thinking by the plotters, huh?

Having now been thru your 2010 posts/arguments with Jack... and jumping ahead to now where you are purely and simply contradictory to virtually everything and anything written in these threads....  do you see yourself as some sort of Crusader against perceived injustice?

All you seem to do - like these other boys - is to ask questions you were never interested in having answered in the first place....
and when answered for you, you belittle the response since it doesn't do it for ya...  

Can you please explain to anyone left who may care how you can come to such sweeping conclusions after doing next to nothing to analyze the subject matter
but ask incredulous, doe-eyed questions and deny the responses?

Reminiscent of the "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" kindergarten arguments... your replies are...   

Every few months we get a clutch of y'all running a muck with the same few topics trying to prove everyone else wrong since you have so little to say for yourself...

But then again, thanks for making it so easy

 

[David Josephs]

13 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Derp.

Derp.

Derp.

Where do you get off DEMANDING answers to questions already answered in multiple threads, multiple websites, books and in digital form

Reminds me of a line from that WHO song.... Who Are You?   Is this all you're going to do now after years and years of decent insight and conversation you're pulling a Fetzer?

Do you really think that all of H&L rides on whether there is proof which meets your level of expectation...   NEWS FLASH RCD... 

You must have missed this post....

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

    
           

From H&L:

NOTE: After Harvey Oswald "defected" to Russia in 1959, the short, dumpy, heavyset "Marguerite Oswald" impostor 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.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Fetzer?  Really?

I ask, because I called him out long before you did.  Which is what I’m doing here now.

Is there no new all-time low to which you will not stoop?

But it’s the crack H&L squad that begs for intervention from the mods?

To punish a guy who adds nothing to the discussion?  Who makes demands for answers (from people who make claims)?  My God, how unreasonable I must seem.

Priceless.

Truly, I could not make this thread up, it is so common-sense-defying in its abstract weirdness.  I just hope others enjoy this as much as I do.

Do continue.

[Tony Krome]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Riiiiiight. The "Marguerite Oswald impostor" gives interviews to local journalists. Great thinking by the plotters, huh?

John Pic sees this same person in "magazines and stuff" and recognises her as his mother as per his testimony. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

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

Fair enough, but you must have noticed the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' consistent failure to answer reasonable but awkward questions. Even by the standard of 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda threads, the amount of evasiveness here has been remarkable. That's the thrust of Mark's comment. Surely you can't argue with that?

What makes this particular thread notable is not just the amount of evasiveness but the fact that it is happening on a topic, Stripling, that was brought up by the believers themselves, presumably as their trump card (sorry for the use of foul language there). They chose this particular battleground, and even here they can't deal properly with criticism of their beliefs.

Quote

how does one explain J. Edgar Hoover's memo of June 3, 1960 [which mentions] "a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate"

It is nothing but conjecture.

The "impostor" claim began when the one and only, historical Marguerite Oswald got in touch with the FBI after she hadn't heard from the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who at this time was in the USSR. The context is explained in the preceding paragraph of Hoover's memo:

Quote

In that report [by an FBI agent, John Fain] you will note that subject's mother, Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald, Fort Worth, Texas, advised that she recently received a letter addressed to her son from the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland indicating that Lee Oswald was expected at the college on April 20, 1960. She stated subject had taken his birth certificate with him when he left home. She was apprehensive about his safety because three letters she had written him since January 22, 1960, have been returned to her undelivered.

Evidently the combination of Oswald's unconfirmed location and the absence of his birth certificate led to speculation ("a possibility") at FBI HQ. We know it was no more than speculation because Hoover produced no evidence that anyone was using Oswald's birth certificate. As is the way with 'Harvey and Lee' talking points, harmless speculation has been transformed into sinister fact. There's nothing to it.

Incidentally, Tracy Parnell has written a good account of the role of Oswald's birth certificate in the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html.

Even more incidentally, a friend of Jim's reminds us (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209p25-dear-jim#33915) that the account of Hoover's memo on the home page of Jim's website is inaccurate. It claims that "FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate". Hoover wasn't "stating" it; he merely noted the "possibility". Naughty Jim! The moral of the story: if someone tries to sell you a far-fetched super-conspiracy theory involving doppelganger boys and their doppelganger mothers, don't believe a word of it without checking the sources.

Quote

how does one explain the multiple instances of Oswald possibly being impersonated in Dallas and in Mexico City just prior to the assassination

It does look as though Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City (the best online account of this is Bill Simpich's State Secret at https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html). Oswald may well have been impersonated at the encounter with Silvia Odio in late September 1963 (for my view, see http://22november1963.org.uk/silvia-odio-visitors; for an alternative view, see https://gregrparker.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Sylvia-Odio.pdf). Each of these incidents can be explained without requiring a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme.

Apart from that, there's nothing that can't be explained by the well-known phenomenon that big news events often generate large numbers of honest but mistaken sightings of the central characters. We shouldn't be surprised that people absorbed facts about the assassination and then claimed to have seen Oswald at a rifle range or getting his rifle fixed. And even if these specific instances were indeed impersonations, there's again no need to propose a long-term doppelganger scheme to explain them.

The 'Harvey and Lee' superstition relies on the assumption that there's no smoke without doppelgangers. But it's the other way round: unless they can prove otherwise, there's always smoke without doppelgangers. It doesn't matter how many items of evidence there are, if each item is weak. Quality is far more important than quantity.

It's essential to take a skeptical view of 'Harvey and Lee' claims; the onus is on the the believers to prove their case, not for anyone else to disprove it. If there's a plausible alternative explanation, the 'Harvey and Lee' explanation goes in the bin.

Quote

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.

I understand the point you're making, but the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is clearly nonsensical no matter whether or not Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 (he almost certainly wasn't) or 1963 (he almost certainly was). The central element of the theory is the claim that these and other impersonations were the results of a long-term top-secret plot in which two unrelated boys were chosen at a young age in the hope that they would grow up to look identical years later. There's also the claim that each doppelganger boy had a doppelganger mother, and that one of the boys and one of the mothers disappeared into thin air immediately after the assassination. The notion is constructed out of decades-old witness recollections and tendentious interpretations of anomalies in the documentary and photographic records. And we mustn't forget the small fact that the theory was debunked two decades before its foundational text was published. It is obviously nonsense.

Quote

clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.

Closer examination, certainly, but not the invention of preposterous long-term doppelganger plots. The impersonation in Mexico City and the Odio incident have perfectly plausible explanations that don't require two unrelated boys to have been chosen at a young age in the hope that they would grow up to look identical years later, and all the other improbable things that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory requires its believers to swallow.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

You continue to misrepresent what I have written about Bobby Pitts

No, I haven't. I quoted exactly what you wrote about Bobby Pitts, and I demonstrated that what you wrote was untrue.

You wrote that Bobby Pitts (and five other people) "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." The only evidence we have about what Pitts recalled is on pages 102-103 of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee. It states that Pitts did not himself attend the school, and that his only recollection was of someone whom he identified, 40 years later, as a boy named Oswald standing on a porch watching some boys playing football in their front yard. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School."

Your original claim was that "a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." At best, only one of those people "clearly recalled" such a thing, and that was at a distance of 40 years. Two of the others didn't even recall Oswald at all, let alone clearly. It is striking that, out of perhaps 300 people who might have recalled a mysterious eastern European doppelganger who went by the name of Oswald, the majority of whom would still have been alive 40 years later, only one person had anything like a clear recollection of Oswald attending Stripling.

The witness evidence is very weak, as you seem to acknowledge by admitting that "Taken alone, Bobby Pitts' testimony does not seem significant.  Its importance becomes apparent when examined in conjunction with other eyewitness testimony." Pitts, instead of clearly recalling Oswald attending Stripling, now merely provides weak corroboration for one small aspect of someone else's story. That's progress, I suppose.

Quote

The main point that I explained in detail to Mark was the importance of examining the totality of the evidence.

Again with "the totality of the evidence"! The totality of the Stripling evidence would comprise a small amount of weak eyewitness evidence, plus all the documentation that we might expect to find if an Oswald doppelganger had indeed attended Stripling. But there isn't any of that, is there? No photographs, no yearbooks, no student directories, no report cards. No solid evidence at all. The totality of the evidence confirms that the only Oswald who attended Stripling was Robert.

Quote

We are answering all of your questions.

I don't think so! Here's one, posed by Robert Charles-Dunne:

Quote

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?

Oh, it has been answered, and the answer turns out to be ... zero.

Here are a few questions that haven't yet been answered, for obvious reasons:

Question 1
Where's the photograph of your 5' 11" Oswald doppelganger standing in front of a height chart? When someone entered the Marines, his height was measured against a height chart, and a photograph was taken, as we see with the photograph of the 5' 9" real-life Oswald. Why isn't there an equivalent photograph from when Oswald left the Marines? It's because an exact height measurement isn't important at that point, isn't it?

Question 2
How come we have, according to 'Harvey and Lee' believers, official records of one top-secret doppelganger entering the Marines and official records of the other top-secret doppelganger leaving the Marines? Why would the authorities give away the top-secret plot by publishing the partial records of both doppelgangers?

Question 3
John Armstrong knew that the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave had debunked his theory two decades before he published his book. He knew about the scientific report of Oswald's exhumation, which mentioned the defect. He cited the report in his book, but he failed to mention the defect that he knew debunked his theory. He misled his readers. Why did he do this?

Question 4
This is the question Mark asked in the first place: take each of your "six eyewitnesses" in turn and show us how each of them "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School."

Once you've answered these, I'm sure we'll find a few more that haven't yet been answered.

[James Norwood]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Again with "the totality of the evidence"! The totality of the Stripling evidence would comprise a small amount of weak eyewitness evidence, plus all the documentation that we might expect to find if an Oswald doppelganger had indeed attended Stripling. But there isn't any of that, is there? No photographs, no yearbooks, no student directories, no report cards. No solid evidence at all. The totality of the evidence confirms that the only Oswald who attended Stripling was Robert.

Jeremy,

Once again, you are taking the words that I have written out of context, distorting what I have written, selectively misrepresenting the words that I used, missing the bigger picture of the importance of Stripling, and failing to answer the questions that I have repeatedly asked you.

Yesterday, David Josephs posted a set of criteria used by those who disrupt forum discussions.  The following is a perfect description of your approach:
 

"Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proof:  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material is irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by.  In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, or deny that witnesses are acceptable."

Take for example your limited understanding of the "totality of the evidence" as you write above.  The totality of the evidence includes much more than Stripling.  Within the period of 1954-56, there were three consecutive instances of Oswald enrolling in a school, then inexplicably dropping out.  They include in chronological order:  Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth (dropped out after approximately two months), Warren Easton High School in New Orleans (dropped out after a month), and Arlington Heights High School in Forth Worth (dropped out after a month).  During this kid's entire upbringing, he was being moved around like a piece on a chessboard.  The question is:  why?

The Warren Commission asserted that the years 1954-56 are critical for understand how Oswald was a malcontent and unable to adjust to his surroundings to the degree that he dropped out of school permanently and enlisted the Marines in October 1956:

"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)

My three questions for you are as follows:

(1) Why does Warren Commission fail to offer a detailed chronology of the schools Oswald attended from 1954-56, in the section of the report quoted above?

(2)  Why does the Warren Commission fail to offer examples of Oswald's "general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment" during the critical period of 1954-56?

(3)  What is your view on how Oswald developed fluency in the Russian language at such a young age?
 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:01 AM, James Norwood said:

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.

 

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

You wrote that Bobby Pitts (and five other people) "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." The only evidence we have about what Pitts recalled is on pages 102-103 of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee. It states that Pitts did not himself attend the school, and that his only recollection was of someone whom he identified, 40 years later, as a boy named Oswald standing on a porch watching some boys playing football in their front yard. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Pitts "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School."

As he continues to misrepresent Dr. Norwood’s posts about Bobby Pitts, Mr. Bojczuk leaves out an excruciatingly important detail.  Bobby Pitts lived at 2224 Thomas Place, right next to LHOs house at 2220 Thomas Place.  Fran Schubert and, apparently, others saw LHO walking home from Stripling School to 2220 Thomas Place.   What kind of person would remember to tell readers that Bobby Pitts didn't attend Stripling School, while simultaneously forgetting to mention that Bobby Pitts lived right next door to 2220 Thomas Place, the house Oswald was seen walking home to from Stripling School?

Mr. Bojczuk is also incorrect when he says the only place John A. mentions this info is in his book.  Back in 1997, during his famous speech in Dallas, John said:

Oswald's 1954 Stripling records have disappeared, but the memories of
Oswald's classmates have not. Doug Gann remembered Oswald in his home
room. Roy Parkin used to play touch football in Oswald's front yard and
saw him in the halls of Stripling. In 1955, Bobby and Jackie Pitts lived
at 2224 Thomas Place, next door to Oswald. Interestingly, Paul Gregory,
Oswald's friend and Marina's interpreter in 1963 also attended Stripling
Junior High in 1954 and was in the same grade as Oswald.  When we
understand there are two teenagers using the name Oswald, we realize each
of these boys had a parent or guardian. Perhaps this is the reason we see
Oswald's mother identified sometimes as Marguerite and other times as
Margaret. [From John A’s Dallas speech, 1997]

Since Mr. Bojczuk specifically mentions pp. 102-103 of Harvey and Lee, it is difficult to imagine how he missed that fact that John indicated Bobby Pitts lived at 2224 Thomas Place, right next to 2220 Thomas Place.

I located Bobby Pitts, who lived next door at 2224 Thomas Place during the 1954-55
school year. Bobbie was in the 10th grade at Arlington Heights High School but his
younger brother, Jackie (2 years younger), attended Stripling. Bobbie remembered that
when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee
Harvey Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch. [H&L 102-103]

Here's what John wrote about Bobby Pitts on our website:

The Marguerite Oswald impostor's repeated contacts with 2220 Thomas Place in 1947, 1954, and 1963, while always wearing a white nurse's uniform, makes this location a possible "safe house" and a "smoking gun." Fellow classmate Doug Gann remembered that Oswald (HARVEY) played basketball, shot baskets after school, and lived in a white house across the street. Bobby Pitts used to play touch football in front of 2220 Thomas Place and remembered that Oswald often stood on the front porch and watched. Gym teacher Mark Summers, who began teaching at Stripling in 1950, remembered that Oswald was in his gym class. [The Early Years of Harvey and Lee,]

Still waiting for an H&L critic to locate a published retraction by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram indicating that the FIVE SEPARATE ARTICLES it published saying that LHO attended Stripling School were in error.  No retraction, eh?  What a surprise!

Edited July 17, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

28 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Jeremy,

Once again, you are taking the words that I have written out of context, distorting what I have written, selectively misrepresenting the words that I used, missing the bigger picture of the importance of Stripling, and failing to answer the questions that I have repeatedly asked you.

Yesterday, David Josephs posted a set of criteria used by those who disrupt forum discussions.  The following is a perfect description of your approach:
 

"Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proof:  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material is irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by.  In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, or deny that witnesses are acceptable."

Take for example your limited understanding of the "totality of the evidence" as you write above.  The totality of the evidence includes much more than Stripling.  Within the period of 1954-56, there were three consecutive instances of Oswald enrolling in a school, then inexplicably dropping out.  They include in chronological order:  Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth (dropped out after approximately two months), Warren Easton High School in New Orleans (dropped out after a month), and Arlington Heights High School in Forth Worth (dropped out after a month).  During this kid's entire upbringing, he was being moved around like a piece on a chessboard.  The question is:  why?

In a November 15, 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram story entitled “My Values Different, Defector Told Mother,” Marguerite was quoted as saying: "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."

That, of course, hardly matches the WC education records of Classic Oswald®. But it makes perfect sense if we understand that the Russian-speaking Oswald attended, and later quit, Stripling JHS, Warren Easton High School, and Arlington Heights High School, all soon before joining the Marines, just as Robert Oswald told the FWST before the Warren Commission convened and hired all those high-priced lawyers to hide the truth.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

14 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Where do you get off DEMANDING answers to questions already answered in multiple threads, multiple websites, books and in digital form

Sounds more like Hargrove.

[David Josephs]

Pithy, insightful post T.... 

you add so much to a conversation

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

On 7/15/2020 at 11:41 PM, 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,....

 

How do you know that? Can you read Jim's mind?

You're just making assumptions.

Truth is, Jim was just retelling what John did to find eyewitnesses to LHO attending Stripling. And part of that was receiving a list of 41 former Stripling teachers.

If you think that John was implying that those 41 teachers were witnesses of LHO attending Stripling, then prove it. It's not there.

 

On 7/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

....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? 

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

On 7/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Quote

Sandy wrote:

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.

 

That's what I just said! Because you have treated Jim so disrespectfully, the only information you are entitled to is what is in John's book.

But, of course, there IS more information available. John Armstrong is still available. And he has copious notes archived at Baylor.

(NOTE: "More information" does not mean "more evidence." Though some of the information might be evidence.)

 

On 7/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

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.

 

Jim has presented the evidence and it is very convincing. If you want more evidence you'll have to dig it up yourself.

 

On 7/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

 

Quote

Sandy wrote:

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? 

 

Of course he has no obligation to say anything about the 41. He made no claims about them, no conclusions. He merely told the story which includes them.

You can ask questions about the 41 if you like. But it doesn't mean you'll get an answer. In which case you can look it up in the book.

 

On 7/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Closed mind?  Got a mirror?

 

I have a very open mind. You, on the other hand, won't debate any of the stronger evidence... you're stuck on  the six witnesses and the nitpicking on Jim's mention of the list of 41 teachers at Stripling.

If I were closed-minded I certainly wouldn't have given the H&L theory a chance. I'm also open-minded of dropping the theory if I later find problems with the evidence. (So far I've only found more evidence.)

P.S. Though I believe in two boy Oswalds, Harvey & Lee, that doesn't mean I agree with everything John Armstrong does about them.