Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Jeremy, don't forget that the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme also allowed the "fake" Marguerite Oswald to give an interview to a local journalist! 

Hey... thanks John  :up

Since you are so well versed in the evidence you MUST know about all the conflicts created by the "fake" Marge's WC testimony...  or better yet, you can explain how the "real" Marge would not know so much about herself, her children, her marriages, or her residences....

C'mon here Jon...  you must know SOMETHING about her history from reading or viewing source documents all by your little self

:secret(oh, right, thanks for the update)

I had forgotten... you don't do research or check anything...  you only criticize and jump on the bandwagon with a few "atta boyz" for those knowing vastly more than you...

Thanks for adding so much to this thread and the forum in general...  

You're a shining example  ...  :sun

:pop     

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

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How did you assess their credibilities? You'd have to know if they were prone to lying, had criminal record, etc.. Something of that nature to impugn their character.

My apologies, I meant witness statements. Sometimes I type fast and then also miss it on a quick proofread. 

I assessed the credibility of their statements. I don't really have the desire, or truly the ability, to delve into their character. 

By the same token, since you have at least appeared to make these assessments regarding their character, what criminal records and other background information did you review? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Since you are so well versed in the evidence you MUST know about all the conflicts created by the "fake" Marge's WC testimony...  or better yet, you can explain how the "real" Marge would not know so much about herself, her children, her marriages, or her residences....

Yes, I can offer a simple explanation that does not require her to be an impostor and/or part of some doppelganger plot. She had a poor memory, made honest/simple mistakes, was nervous and under stress, some of her responses were recorded incorrectly, etc. etc. Haven't you ever made a mistake when recalling details about your own life? Can you remember the exact address of every place you've ever lived? As with every single piece of evidence that you claim supports the doppelganger theory, there are perfectly logical alternatives to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan Cohen writes:

Quote

Jeremy, don't forget that the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme also allowed the "fake" Marguerite Oswald to give an interview to a local journalist!

Indeed! As well as the fake Marguerite giving interviews (whoops!), and Robert Oswald giving the game away, twice, about his doppelganger brother attending Stripling (whoops!), there's also the incident in the Texas Theater, when both of the Oswald doppelgangers managed to get themselves arrested and each told the cops that his name was Oswald (whoops!).

Then there was the decision to publish the 5' 9" doppelganger's official Marines entrance records and the 5' 11" doppelganger's official Marines leaving records (whoops!). It does make you wonder who was in charge of this Laurel and Hardy-style top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now that Jim and Sandy have had a chance to Lol a lot over my insane expectation of a straight answer from either of them, let’s recap where we are:

Frank Kudlaty told John Armstrong two mutually exclusive things about a phone call he got instructing him to meet the FBI @ Stripling Nov. 23 and hand over LHO’s attendance records.

He got that call from Stripling principal Weldon Lucas.

He got that call from Stripling principal Harry Wylie.

No, you’re not confused. Harvey & Lee doesn't just have two Oswalds, and two Ma Oswalds, but also boasts a pair of school principal doppelgangers.

Armstrong’s key witness re: Stripling told him two different things and either: a) Armstrong didn’t realize the discrepancy (which is a stretch for a thorough man); or, b) Armstrong recognized the discrepancy but thought he’d keep it on the down low.

Maybe nobody would notice. If so, he was almost right. Certainly none of his inter-tube publicists did. But they are apparently exempt from having to know what's in H&L.

This is one of those unfortunate situations where we are forced to choose between two scenarios and the motives that lead to each. Was this the result of sheer incompetence or a more malign motivation?

Oddly enough, it doesn’t seem that JA, JH, SL, DJ or any of their running-buddies have any ready reply. Sure, it was “a good catch” on my part, and “useful” even. Thanks for that, boyos.

But where's the much-anticipated reply?

Now please explain the discrepancy and why NONE of you, from author to flacks, seemed to know about it, when it is, after all, your own work? How many decades has this been part of your H&L curriculum without any of you noticing?

Jim said he’d raise it with Armstrong 'ASAP” when he got him on the Batphone.

So? Is John not returning your calls? Has he suddenly been struck mute?  Pining for the fjords, perhaps?

It’s obvious we can’t rely upon the memory of your key witness 30+ years after the fact, because of his - how shall we say?..... supreme unreliability.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that we cannot rely upon the purveyors of the H&L hypothesis to even vet their own output. Or own up with answers when challenged. Or listen to their own key witness while he tells two different tales.

These mutually exclusive items have been used for 25 years by the H&L practitioners without any of them apparently realizing these different answers from Kudlaty cannot both be true. Hence, somebody's memory has let everyone down. And I don't mean Kudlaty.

But then, I don’t see much evidence of JH, SL, DJ, or Dr. Newbie presence here since this tiny bombshell arrived here.

They must be busy gang-Lol-ing and awaiting further instructions.

Or.... is it something I said?

Maybe Dr. Newbie will seek my expulsion for discovering a weakness in H&L that he hadn't? 

But then, he recently discovered fresh records that illustrate White-Out or Liquid Paper (choose your preference) had been used in order to correct an initial typing of Harvey Lee Oswald to the accurate Lee Harvey Oswald. Was this a Freudian slip on the typist's part?  Or just a typo that was fixed?  Since mundane explanations  aren't favored among the crack H&L team......

Critics of H&L chastise the hypothesis because witnesses were quoted without a sufficient attempt to verify if what they said was true.

(Lol expert Sandy Larsen thinks this means finding witnesses to corroborate your witnesses, which is just so goofy, so silly, I mean, really, who would do that?)

“Somebody trying to do a proper job” would be the answer we're looking for, contestants.

Listening to their own star witness re: Stripling, it becomes apparent that precisely zero effort was taken to verify which of the multiple choice principals called Kudlaty. Hell, they didn't seem to know there were a couple from which to choose, until it was kindly pointed out to them.

That’s not journalism, or even authorship. It’s stenography. With an undeclared purpose, undisclosed to the reader.

Jim, Sandy, DJ, et al, seem to delight in stenography, because it’s what they do too. They repeatedly regurgitate something they think should be of interest to us, and when they realize it’s not, they regurgitate it some more. Because when you’re flogging a losing proposition, the best course is to double down.

And, for God's sake, whatever you do, don't acknowledge the labor-intensive, highly enlightening post by Mark Stevens that started this thread.   Just argue the same old same old talking points, carpet-bomb him with condescension and emoticons and hope he wearies.

*brilliant*

Do continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Yes, I can offer a simple explanation that does not require her to be an impostor and/or part of some doppelganger plot. She had a poor memory, made honest/simple mistakes, was nervous and under stress, some of her responses were recorded incorrectly, etc. etc. Haven't you ever made a mistake when recalling details about your own life? Can you remember the exact address of every place you've ever lived? As with every single piece of evidence that you claim supports the doppelganger theory, there are perfectly logical alternatives to the contrary.

IOW you never read her testimony and have no idea about the conflicts to which I refer....

You never read the book but feel qualified to critique it... :zzz

You are terribly unfamiliar with the subject matter and seem only to parrot those who have a little knowledge and with whom you agree....  🦜

And yes Jon, given the time she was given, the address of everywhere I've lived is not too difficult....  the problems arise from the conflicts created...
and the outright lies she tells about her marriage, her children, her homes, her jobs... and on and on...  you'd know that if you took any time to research a topic
instead of just jumping in and hoping you know how to swim....   you obviously need some of those water wings....   :surfing

Since you really have no idea of what I speak..(and the others are here to argue the breadcrumbs)..... and you honestly think that the JFK case is filled with "perfectly logical alternatives" to the actual narrative... There is no point in discussing anything with you.... you have no grasp of the underlying situation whatsoever....  :up   all good Jon....

....you aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know....   and since there are quite a few locations for you to find out for yourself...  you might take the time to brush up on the subjects you so vehemently denounce....

I can ask you the same I asked RCD who also chooses not to answer...

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?

 

Bu-bye now...  :pop

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Do continue.    Do you even know a snake if it bites you in the asp?

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

Asked and answered, although I'm hardly surprised this has already been forgotten.

So, here again for the remedial readers - I'm looking at you DJ - another chance to rub your own nose in it.

On 7/19/2020 at 4:08 PM, 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
1 minute ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

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?

Guess you never put together a puzzle where one piece gives you no real clue about the entire image, but it fits and helps make the image complete...

Without that piece yet with all the others, the picture is still easily seen...  only not by you   :up

Maybe that's the problem...  you look to solve complicated equations by trying to find where it says 1 + 1 = 2 so you can understand it...

Sorry RCD...  in this one of a kind exception to virtually every rule...  this situation can't be understood with 1 + 1 = 2 simplicity ....  if you want simple... Oswald did it.... 
There, simple and easy for you...

As with Stripling and virtually every item of evidence you can name, there are "alternate explanations"...  A lot of it planned that way.

You not accepting evidence or witnesses does not negate what they say and represent...

You can't prove Kudlaty was making it up....
You can't prove Myra DeRouse wrong
and you still don't seem to understand 1954 at Exchange vs 1956...

Again RCD... no matter...  luckily, you are not the standard by which evidence and truth is determined...  that only exists in your mind.
Now that you've repeatedly proven yourself here....

What jollies do you derive by remaining here if you're never going to be satisfied with an answer in the context of the assassination?

Too bad too, you used to have something to say...

:sun

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

I assessed the credibility of their statements. I don't really have the desire, or truly the ability, to delve into their character. 

 

The only way to discredit a witness's statement (i.e. show that it has no credibility) is to prove that it is wrong. Otherwise the person's statement must be accepted as evidence. You can't just throw out what doesn't suit you.

Even if an isolated error is found, you can't just throw out the entirety of of a witness's statement, as people do occasionally make mistakes. (You throw out their entire statement only if the witness himself has been shown not to be credible.)

So did you prove that parts of any of the six witnesses' statements are untrue?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Too bad too, you used to have something to say...

No, DJ, what vexes you - so much that you feel the instant need to attack me - is that I still have something to say.  

You don’t like it?  Tough!  Disprove my contentions.

But you don’t, because just like every other curious person who’s fallen down the H&L rabbit hole, you have NO answer.

Two school principals directed Kudlaty to go to Stripling and meet the FBI?

That’s what YOUR key witness has said.

But I’m out of line for pointing it out to you?  

To my mind, Kuldlaty’s credibility and value to your shared hypothesis underwent a serious shellacking as a result of my post - you know the post; the one for which none of you - including Armstrong it may yet transpire - have any rejoinder.

A post to which none of the crack H&L team have conjured an answer.

Don’t know why you’re attacking me for your own sloppiness.  Shoot the messenger much?

 

39 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Sorry RCD...  in this one of a kind exception to virtually every rule...  this situation can't be understood with 1 + 1 = 2 simplicity ....  if you want simple... Oswald did it.... 


Yeah, because you and the Warren Commission both offer conclusions that share much in common, not least of which is the howlingly funny lowest-possible-bar you set for what qualifies as “evidence.”


Dear God, this is where the H&L lost patrol actually claims that all disbelief must be suspended, all laws of nature and the universe must be abandoned in order perceive the perfect genius of what is being laid out for us.

David, when you can explain Kudlaty directing Armstrong to two different school principals, I’ll read what you have to say.  When you can explain why Armstrong didn’t ever address this fundamental fact, while encouraging us to believe Kudlaty, I’ll read what you have to say.  If you can explain Armstrong’s apparent decision to hide Kudlaty’s incredibility from his readers, I’ll read what you have to say.

Poison pen letters written out of a desperate inability to answer simple questions will not get you where you want to go.

But they work wonders for me.

Do continue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
52 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

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?

Guess you never put together a puzzle where one piece gives you no real clue about the entire image, but it fits and helps make the image complete...

Without that piece yet with all the others, the picture is still easily seen...  only not by you   :up

Maybe that's the problem...  you look to solve complicated equations by trying to find where it says 1 + 1 = 2 so you can understand it...

 

David,

I'm pretty sure that the reason most, if not all, H&L critics don't believe in it has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with ideology. Ideologues choose what to believe first and then cherry pick evidence to support their beliefs, while ignoring evidence that opposes their beliefs. When forced to face up to opposing evidence, they simply rationalize it away.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

I'm pretty sure that the reason most, if not all, H&L critics don't believe in it has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with ideology.

Sandy, you are wrong, wronger and wrongest.  You want to talk evidence?

5 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

When you can explain Kudlaty directing Armstrong to two different school principals, I’ll read what you have to say.  When you can explain why Armstrong didn’t ever address this fundamental fact, while encouraging us to believe Kudlaty, I’ll read what you have to say.  If you can explain Armstrong’s apparent decision to hide Kudlaty’s incredibility from his readers, I’ll read what you have to say.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ideologues choose what to believe first and then cherry pick evidence to support their beliefs, while ignoring evidence that opposes their beliefs.

Pot meet kettle.  You want evidence that completely contradicts the central tenet of Stripling?  Try reading the very FIRST post in this thread.  Or, for that matter, mine.  You and Jim found it “useful” and a “good catch,” yet haven’t replied to it.  Because you have no idea what to say that won't make you look even more stupid than you already do.

What the hell are you people afraid of?  Explain how your key witness Kudlaty got the same call on the same day from two different school principals.  Go ahead.  If you can’t, which doesn’t surprise, don’t bother asking Jim because he had no idea how to deal with this either.    Nor can the other H&L cheerleaders, who are even more useless.  Nor, I assume, can John Armstrong, or we would have had his explanation for this by now.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

When forced to face up to opposing evidence, they simply rationalize it away.

No you don’t.  You just call it “useful” and “a good catch” and then pretend you never read it.

Which is fine.  Your comportment here tells every reader precisely what they need to know about H&L, your collective refusal to contend with contrary evidence, and your inability to even grasp what’s so wrong about this fast-unraveling hypothesis.

Is Armstrong in the market for a new crew?  If not, he should be, because the one he has here can't find their own ass with both hands.

Two principals.  Drop your explanation right here: ___________________________________________________________________

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Try reading the very FIRST post in this thread.

Did you even bother reading Mark's post that starts the thread before posting?  Obviously not

24 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Explain how your key witness Kudlaty got the same call on the same day from two different school principals.

Not once on that page does anyone state that he received calls from 2 different principals... are you so desperate to appear as if you actually know something about H&L
that you'll make things up just to try and prove a point?

Sad really that you can't follow 3 different people on one single page of a thread  :up  not to mention the hundreds of other details with which you can't be bothered....
You must be an expert at those large piece puzzles where you only need 3 pieces to complete...  any more than that and the puzzle is simply unsolvable for you...
If you don't understand the entire puzzle from one piece, why bother....   what a farce.

FWIW...  see if you can keep this all straight :pop   #3 in particular as you can't be bothered to read for comprehension... geez!
Keep posting buddy... you'll talk yourself out of your own position soon enough... :cheers

 

There were 3 Principals:  1 - Lucas for Stripling 1963, 2 - Bostick for Monnig 1963, 3 - Ricardo Galindo for Stripling 1990's

1.
He explained, "Early on the morning following the assassination, Saturday morning, I was telephoned by my boss, Mr. (Weldon) Lucas (Principal of Stripling), and told to go to school and meet two FBI agents
. I lived close to the school at that time and arrived at the school before they (FBI Agents) got there.

2.
Frank Kudlaty knew the principal of Monnig Junior High, Mr. Ree Bostick, for many years and talked with him after the assassination. Mr. Bostick told Frank that FBI agents also visited his school and asked for Lee Harvey Oswald's school records. Mr. Bostick did know which records, if any, were given to the agents

3.
Galindo was the Principal at Stripling Junior High School when Armstrong was researching “Harvey & Lee” 
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]

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DJ:

First, try reading for comprehension.  Because there seems so much you fail to comprehend.  Let's bring you up to speed.  For the umpteenth time.

Does the name Harry Wylie ring a bell?

Aside from mentioning Weldon Lucas, Kudlaty ALSO told John Armstrong he got the phone call from school principal Harry Wylie.   Must have been Wylie, he said, because that was the chain of command.

So your star witness can’t remember his own principal?  The one who instructed him to meet the FBI?

Which NONE of you seemed to know, including Armstrong.  Do none of you read and watch your own propaganda?

Your fellow crack H&L squad members have already acknowledged the truth of what I said.  

Are you denying this?

If so, take it up with Jim and Sandy, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

If Armstrong had an explanation for this, I’m sure we would have heard it by now.

That’s your problem to deal with, not mine.

And you’re doing a piss-poor job of it.

Funny how your star witness in the Stripling episode can’t remember which school principal called him with instructions to meet the FBI at Stripling.  

Funnier still that NONE of you even knew this.  

But I’m the one who needs to pay attention to details, right?  The one who made what Jim and Sandy called a “useful” observation and a “good catch.”   Which you now seem to deny.

Even more hilarious, none of you has a reasonable rationale for this discrepancy.

You may think you know more than anybody about this aside from Armstrong himself.  You said so.  But if you don't know about Harry Wylie, you don't know something that maybe you ought to.  Stop wasting our time.

Learn your own propaganda.  Because NONE of you seems to know how to deal with this.

Do continue.

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...