Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review


Recommended Posts

On 7/18/2020 at 11:42 AM, Mark Stevens said:

It has also been claimed the photo below was the original from which these photos were based on:

image.png.482ab934778a1f1545e64f8afbb74935.png

(Unsure where I got this photo or what the source is)

The source of this photo is John Armstrong, who purchased it years ago from AP/World Wide Photos.  The typed label to the left indicates: "This is a retransmission of FW1 of Nov. 1 to provide better copy."   Associated Press/Wide World Photos.  This is a spitting image of our boy, isn't it?  Now why would anyone want to publish such an unidentifiable picture of "Lee Harvey Oswald" in his home town of Fort Worth? But wait, the actual picture published by the Fort Worth paper was even worse. Hmmmm.... 

WW-Photo-1-Small.jpg

Here's the photo that was actually published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

FWST.jpg

No one who actually knew American-born LEE Harvey Oswald would think anything was wrong with that, eh?

For more on this picture, see Evolution of the "Defection" Photo.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That "derp" you keep whining about is the EVIDENCE that one LHO attended Stripling School.  No wonder you want to run away from it.  Five local newspaper articles... sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, video interviews with Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty and Stripling student Fran Schubert, as well as other witnesses that John A. described in his book.  None of this will go away no matter what you say.

Nobody’s running way from your derp, Jim.  Nobody can.  It’s ever-present.

What is not ever-present is your willingness to contend with questions for which you have no easy answer.

You then regurgitate what we already know, but were it persuasive, this thread would be populated by people seeking to legitimize your shared hypothesis.  They should be legion by now, and yet....

You have some evidence that various people made various claims, few of them uniform, about an event they witnessed 40-plus years earlier.  No one disputes (with few exceptions) that these people said the things that are claimed.  

What is in dispute is the validity of these claims, predictable questions for which you seem remarkably unprepared.  Hence, the instant replay of the same derp that wasn’t previously successful.  

As a face-saving pivot, it’s a flop.

Do you have any significant information about Weldon Lucas?

       

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

What is not ever-present is your willingness to contend with questions for which you have no easy answer.

No easy answer....   :cheers

RCD... there is a book full of "no-easy answer" conflicts....  you say you were involved with the text but not to what extent and in which areas...

If you were aware, you chose not to follow up on the sources upon which the theory is based as it obviously does not suit your understanding of history in this matter...
or you did and found them not supporting the theory...

Fair?....  well fair enough

 

I see a conversation starting in 1945 which includes Edwin Ekdahl, Benbrook, Korth, the growth of Ft. Worth post WWII....
and the conflicting testimony of Robert O and John Pic.

You will not be convinced here at least....  so I have to ask... 

What caliber of evidence would suit you... ?
...would convince you we are dealing with the records of one person created from the lives of 2 people
...for a long period of time....?

For if there is no standard to meet...  why are you bothering with this at all?

:huh:

 

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

What caliber of evidence would suit you... ?

I like the kind of evidence that actually offers proof for a contention.  Not a contention made, and then a whole lot of hot air about usually-unrelated other stuff.  Don’t care about elaborate byzantine schemes that you think prove a pattern; without incidents like Stripling, your hypothetical pattern quickly evaporates. But let Stripling be the start.

I like evidence that withstands scrutiny without the demand made upon me to depend on a dozen other things in a pattern for it to be true.  If it can’t stand alone, how does one justify dependence upon it to show a pattern?

Not all evidence is created equal.  An impartial mind seeking a correct resolution to the mystery must be able to discern that which is substantial - with commensurate proof - from that which remains hypothetical, due to insufficient probative evidence,  no matter how provocative or seductive.  

And to question one’s own hypothesis at every turn, in order to rule out all other possible, plausible likelihoods.  This is a particular Achilles Heel for H&L.

I like the kind of evidence that answers a question asked, not a hundred questions the crack H&L team wish they had been asked.  I like evidence that gets posted on the first occasion when it is requested, rather than having to beat it out of hypothesizers with a dozen recitations of the same question.  And then still get more derp.  Unpersuasive.

I like the kind of evidence that sustains a hypothesis.  If it is to be made, let there be proof.  Where the proof is not entirely persuasive, be prepared to answer the questions asked, not the ones you wish had been asked.  

And if all of you could avoid getting snitty about the fatiguing imposition of having to answer questions you’ve solicited, that would likely help public perception of the Armstrong hypothesis somewhat.  It certainly couldn’t hurt the hypothesis any more than you currently do.

Because H&L is a rather rickety construction, not many fundamental elements need be disproved before the rest becomes merely academic.  Stripling is one such instance, but far from the only one.  

As I’ve already conceded, I am convinced of the fact of LHO imposture in his adult life.  

But that does not require him to have been impersonated while a pre-teen, and absent dead certain proof, neither am I required to endorse something just because you believe it true.  

The scientific method doesn’t bend no matter how hard you may sometimes wish.  It places on those who make claims the onus of defending the claims and proving their validity.

Yet these things don’t seem to much interest your crew.

But let’s hear more about impossible 13 inch heads.

Do continue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Nevertheless....

Nothing anyone can say or do can alter the obvious facts that Robert Oswald told the local newspaper before the assassination and swore to the WC after the assassination that LHO attended Stripling School.  Nor can it alter the video recorded recollection by Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty that he gave LHO’s Stripling School records to two FBI agents just hours after the assassination, nor can it alter the video recorded statement by Stripling student Fran Schubert indicating she watched LHO walk from Stripling School across the street to 2220 Thomas Place, the same home Marguerite was living in at the time of the assassination and probably the same home she used to store furniture and personal possessions way back to 1947, when she was living at 101 San Saba in Benbrook.

The key point, which we all keep trying to explain to you, is that the point isn't the fact that they said what they said. True, nothing short of time travel will change what they said. The fact that they said it doesn't make what they are saying true. If I tell you the sun is purple, nothing can change that. Nobody can change or deny the fact that I said the sun is purple. Nothing will make it true either. No matter how many times people might state "but Mark said...," it doesn't become true because it meets some threshold of repetition.

In spite of the fact they were stated, I have shown that the evidence, events, and information the statements are based on is faulty. I have done a thorough job doing so. Would you like to examine my analysis and explain how I am incorrect? Until you do so, no amount of repetition of their statements by you will prove the statements to be true, will prove the Stripling episode to be true, or will refute my analysis of the statements and evidence. You will actually have to refute my analysis, not just keep exclaiming "but they said!!!!"

Quote

H&L critics should note that all of this evidence, including five articles by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, can be referenced quickly and I would think that their best hope of conclusively countering it all would be to pressure the Star-Telegram to print a formal retraction. Any real debunking of the Stripling evidence should also debunk the clear evidence that, just one year before one LHO was at Stripling and the other at Beauregard, one LHO was attending school in NYC city and the other in New Orleans.  The evidence for that was accidentally published by the WC and I’ve posted it above.

I've referenced them, I'm not denying them, I'm explaining them and I've done a thorough job at doing so. The fact is that the Star-Telegram is not going to make a retraction unless Robert Oswald tells them they are incorrect. Since he's no longer living, I think this might be a hard thing for him to do. Regardless, we do not need a retraction to know where the information comes from, and to know it is in error. Do I have to say the sun isn't actually purple? Will you believe the sun is purple, even though you can see with your own eyes it isn't, until I retract that statement?

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That "derp" you keep whining about is the EVIDENCE that one LHO attended Stripling School.  No wonder you want to run away from it.  Five local newspaper articles... sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, video interviews with Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty and Stripling student Fran Schubert, as well as other witnesses that John A. described in his book.  None of this will go away no matter what you say.

The evidence is what I have examined, but is which you refuse to actually do. You will not even comment on my analysis of the evidence. You just keep saying the evidence and statements exist. We know it exists, now actually examine what it means and what it says.

You could just again say "it's in this many articles, and this many people said this thing," or you could make attempts top support their statements with analysis and evidence. You can also make attempts to support the articles with analysis and evidence.

I have done a fairly thorough job of examining the evidence and making a conclusion. Can you do more than say "nuh-uh?"

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The source of this photo is John Armstrong, who purchased it years ago from AP/World Wide Photos.  The typed label to the left indicates: "This is a retransmission of FW1 of Nov. 1 to provide better copy."   Associated Press/Wide World Photos.  This is a spitting image of our boy, isn't it?  Now why would anyone want to publish such an unidentifiable picture of "Lee Harvey Oswald" in his home town of Fort Worth? But wait, the actual picture published by the Fort Worth paper was even worse. Hmmmm.... 

WW-Photo-1-Small.jpg

Here's the photo that was actually published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

FWST.jpg

No one who actually knew American-born LEE Harvey Oswald would think anything was wrong with that, eh?

For more on this picture, see Evolution of the "Defection" Photo.

The source of the photo is not John Armstrong, unless you mean he put it on the Internet, for which that I wouldn't know. I'm referring to the source for the paper. Are you saying John Armstrong gave this to the Star-Telegram in 1959?

Edited by Mark Stevens
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

What I posted Mark, leads us to Dec 1953,, a year before Stripling...  I’d think we both agree that certain events lead to the scent of duplicity...  Stripling doesn’t just happen on an island.

I get the feeling you didn’t bother reading my post at all....  where we find Pc and Robert at odds over the fall of 1952 when Robert falsely claims he was not in NYC with Lee, mother and the Pics...  to Robert per his story, Lee is in NYC and not possibly at Stripling in 7th grade...

Pic says he was there... no matter, fast forward to August 1953.  Robert is with Harvey, taking his photo... Pic visits his real mother, Lee is not included...  Lee, says mom, has no one to confide in...   yet Robert is within weeks one way or the other of coming and living with Lee and Marge...  I see this as the real mother and Pic talking and not mentioning an event that will not happen to them...

Robert is visiting Harvey, the boy at the zoo, and Marge....

Robert knows about both boys, I conclude, and truly does not know where Harvey and Marge go in Sept 1953.... while Lee and mother Stay thru Jan 1954 then  go to New Orleans and Beauregard January 1954.

But Jenner keeps up the attack on the correct years

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then. 
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?  (NO, 7th grade is 52-53)

 

But we are talking about 1954, September.....  gotta finish this on the laptop...

Again, the idea of two Oswald's does not need Stripling, or Hungarian boys to exist.

The tale of "Harvey & Lee" very much needs Stripling and a Hungarian boy to be true. If you erode Stripling from the story, there is a serious hole with then has to be explained. Therefore, it's necessary to never fully examine Stripling and instead deflect to Beauregard, or zoos, or head sizes, or anything else because if there is no Stripling in the story of Harvey & Lee, then what exactly is there? Where did he go to school then, what fanciful way will other events now have to be explained?

Instead of saying we can't look at Stripling without tying in all kinds of other...stuff. Just take a look at the evidence as it relates to Stripling, like I did, and see if it supports the story. I did, at least do me the service of reading my comments and refuting them instead of saying "look over here" instead.

As I stated before, you could strip out the information in Harvey & Lee which legitimately depicts "two Oswalds" and still leave 900 pages in the book of filler and fanciful explanations of mundane events.

At the end of the day, we probably believe 80% of the same evidence depicts some form of "two Oswalds," we just disagree on who those "two Oswalds" are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:
12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Nevertheless....

Nothing anyone can say or do can alter the obvious facts that Robert Oswald told the local newspaper before the assassination and swore to the WC after the assassination that LHO attended Stripling School.  Nor can it alter the video recorded recollection by Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty that he gave LHO’s Stripling School records to two FBI agents just hours after the assassination, nor can it alter the video recorded statement by Stripling student Fran Schubert indicating she watched LHO walk from Stripling School across the street to 2220 Thomas Place, the same home Marguerite was living in at the time of the assassination and probably the same home she used to store furniture and personal possessions way back to 1947, when she was living at 101 San Saba in Benbrook.

The key point, which we all keep trying to explain to you, is that the point isn't the fact that they said what they said. True, nothing short of time travel will change what they said. The fact that they said it doesn't make what they are saying true.

 

That's right Jim. So you'd better find witnesses who will testify that what your witnesses said is true!

Oh wait.... wouldn't that be what your corroborating witnesses are doing?  :P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we are advised that Frank Kudlaty took a call from his immediate superior, the school principal, and was advised to go to Stripling school and meet FBI men there who would be picking up LHO’s school records.  Frank Kudlaty says that his boss at the time was principal Weldon Lucas. 

He told this to John Armstrong.

https://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html

Elsewhere, however, we have Kudlaty relaying he’d received the call from the school principal, Harry Wylie:

Kudlaty:  I believe it was Harry Wylie, you know I...that’s the only person who would have told...who would have called me, because that would have been the chain of command, you know......

Q: And who was Harry Wylie?

Kudlaty:  The Principal.

 

In an effort to be charitable toward Frank Kudlaty for what seems an element of confusion, one might assume that he was new to the school, or to his job as vice principal.  Kudlaty assures otherwise, in the very same interview:

 

Kudlaty:  Mr. Wylie...that may have been his first year as Principal at Stripling, I’m not sure. And I would have been far more familiar cause I had been there since...I’d been a teacher for...there for 9 years and that would have been my 4th year as Assistant Principal.

He told this to John Armstrong.


Thus we find a man who 30+ years after the fact can be relied upon to tell the difference between grades for Robert Lee Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald - something which by his own admission he only glanced at briefly - but cannot be relied upon to know which principal called him to arrange his date with destiny, despite having worked with both men for some years.    

And, sadly, we find an author who was told two different mutually exclusive things by Frank Kudlaty.  If the discrepancy wasn't reported by that author,  I would submit this was for obvious reasons.

It just grows shabbier by the minute.

Do continue.

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

....if keeping the LHO Stripling attendance top secret was necessary, why was Robert Oswald allowed to repeat this H&L-exposing comment for a four-plus year period?

 

Robert told the newspapers that his brother went to Stripling because that is the school HARVEY, the defector, attended. After that he just stuck with the story.

That he said it to the WC was an oopsy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's right Jim. So you'd better find witnesses who will testify that what your witnesses said is true!

Oh wait.... wouldn't that be what your corroborating witnesses are doing?  :P

What exactly do the witnesses corroborate, and how do they corroborate it?

This thread details how they don't actually corroborate one another, much less show that Oswald attended Stripling. Why not, maybe a strange to do on a discussion forum, but why not read the thread and give feedback as to the content, versus coming in and giving feckless atta-boys to Jim for his vapid posts. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

You have some evidence that various people made various claims, few of them uniform, about an event they witnessed 40-plus years earlier.  No one disputes (with few exceptions) that these people said the things that are claimed.  

What is in dispute is the validity of these claims....

 

Jim,

RCD also wants you to provide witnesses for your witnesses.  LOL

Should you be able to provide them, do you suppose he will demand witnesses for those too? When will it end???

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

The tale of "Harvey & Lee" very much needs Stripling and a Hungarian boy to be true. If you erode Stripling from the story, there is a serious hole with then has to be explained.

 

Hate to burst your bubble Mark, but the "H&L" theory doesn't need either Stripling or the Hungarian boy to be true. There's plenty of other strong evidence for it.

But we do have the strong Stripling evidence, and the more speculative Hungarian boy evidence. So we declare them as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Jim, when you’re finished Lol-ing, maybe you or Sandy could pony up an excuse for why your key witness Kudlaty couldn’t remember which principal called him.

And pony up another one for why John Armstrong either didn’t notice this discrepancy - highly unlikely - or didn’t disclose it to readers.

Also, why does Sandy respond to something posted over eight hours ago, but completely blank on something posted only 90 minutes earlier?  You know, the post  that demolishes Kudlaty?  Was that unworthy of comment?  Or does that post explain Sandy's non-response?

Maybe another page of derp and a hundred DJ emoticons? 

Yes, this Lol-ing is quite fun.  Let’s trash some more of your alleged witnesses, shall we?

The buffoon behavior displayed in this thread by the crack H&L team is juvenile and pathetic.

Do continue.

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys crack me up. You seem to think that witnesses should be accepted if their testimony is true, but thrown out if it is false. Well, yeah, that would be great... if only it were feasible.

In practice, all one can do is try to assess the credibility of the witnesses and remove any found not to be credible.

Since even credible witnesses make mistakes, one needs to find additional witnesses to the same event (or some other evidence) so that they can corroborate each other's testimony.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...