Sandy Larsen Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 David obviously missed the posts regarding the second principal. Listen to the Kudlaty interview again, David. He says that the principal was (Harry) Wylie. Somehow this got changed to (Weldon) Lucas in Armstrong's book. Jim said that he would ask John Armstrong about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: David obviously missed the posts regarding the second principal. obviously... but it's not mentioned in the post that starts this thread.... Was it just a mistaken name... I've had enough of this bantering anyway... Like trying to teach a rock to swim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 11 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said: 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. You got it RCD.... Now you can go right back to your tiny little world where nothing relates to anything else... keep discussing the chlorophyll while the rest of us explore the trees and the forest.... what an amazingly myopic view of evidence you have.... Obituary for Kathryn Lucas: A Yucca beauty while in her freshman year, she met and later became engaged to Weldon M. Lucas, a student and athlete at North Texas. They married Dec. 24, 1932, and resided in Fort Worth, where Weldon, known as "Luke," coached in the Fort Worth Independent School District. In the mid-1940s he became a vice principal at McLean Junior High, in the '50s a principal at Stripling High School and in the early '60s a principal at Arlington Heights High School. Can you post HARRY WYLIE's bio and occupation from 1953 to 1957.... y'know to prove he was actually the principal at the time... Lucas started in 1953... maybe Wylie was 51 & 52? Maybe, just maybe Kudlaty misspoke having had Wylie as his principal a few years earlier... You can prove Wylie was the principal, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Maybe, just maybe Kudlaty misspoke having had Wylie as his principal a few years earlier Ask John Armstrong. It's HIS unresolved - and I might add, undisclosed - discrepancy. 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: You can prove Wylie was the principal, right? You cannot possibly be this stunned. Missing the point. Willfully and not for the first time. Kudlaty told Armstrong two different things. It was HIS job to ascertain which principal was actually at Stripling at the time. He didn’t. Neither did you. And clearly, neither of you have any answer for this, nor do the rest of the crack H&L squad. Which you’re now trying to make my fault? Now I have to do both John’s AND your homework for you too? Have you no self-awareness? YOU didn’t even know anything about it, until I enlightened you. And then you still didn’t even read the relevant post, so anxious were you to go on the attack. Sandy needed to explain it to you. Yet you profess to be an expert at connecting dots. What a time-wasting joke. Aren't you the guy who claimed to know more about H&L than any human alive, save for Armstrong himself? Maybe next time you should not post until you know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, feel free to continue making yourself look stupid. In the meantime, nobody in the H&L fever swamp has an interest in Wylie. Why? Because it is but one of several fatal flaws to the H&L hypothesis. The H&L publicists didn’t recognize it because even they don’t know what they’re talking about. They do now. On this matter, at least. Harry Wylie. Get back to me when you know something. Preferably with whatever lame excuse you can torture out of Armstrong, now apparently struck mute ever since I mentioned Harry Wylie. Jesus, don’t you people ever learn? btw - Adults who use emoticons the way you do come across like they should be playing with crayons. It doesn't reflect a serious, studious approach one expects from a grownup. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Krome Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 On 7/21/2020 at 10:32 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said: 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. Must of been a call from the grave ..... Weldon Lucas was DEAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 Nobody has thanked you ... and nobody cares for the orders you bark... While you go round and round with Wylie and Lucas and Stripling... waiting and drooling for a post to come your way so thankfully you get to speak your piece.... (originality doesn't seem to be your strong point... Other People's Work... that's where you live... ) Luckily there is an IGNORE function whereby we don't have to listen to you pollute thread after thread... Frank said what sounds like Wylie at the beginning of that video... Lucas took over in 1953. Probably a simple mistake since this was now 10 years later... What's not a mistake is your ineffective attacks on Kudlaty for not having done this that or the other... for doing what he says he did... and you wondering, hypothetically, what else... what else can we use to trip Kudlaty up...???? In the end, you simply can't. Which principal is not nearly as important as FBI agents removing the accused's school records and job records in select areas of the country from 11/23 all thru the following week... while the FBI Lab takes fewer items than it returns to Dallas that following week... Your inability to see more than a single puzzle piece at a time is what defines childish here Robbie... Terribly sorry you can'y figure out how they fit together but if you follow along for a while and stop interrupting, maybe you'd learn to see TWO pieces at the same time... With regards to the emoticons... it's 2020, get over yourself already... 💩 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 The Stripling principal who called Frank Kudlaty in 1963 was Mr. Wylie, just as Mr. Kudlaty says at the start of his interview. This is what John A. wrote on two different places on our website Seven months later, on November 23, 1963 (one day after the assassination) Mr. Kudlaty received an early morning phone call from his boss, Mr. Wylie, the principal of Stripling Junior High. Mr. Wylie told Kudlaty to immediately go to Stripling and meet two FBI agents who would arrive shortly and to give them Oswald's school records. https://harveyandlee.net/School/Stripling.html Early Saturday morning, the day after the assassination, Mr. Wylie, principal of Stripling Junior High, called the assistant principal, Frank Kudlaty, at his home . Mr. Wylie told Kudlaty to immediately go to Stripling and meet two FBI agents who would arrive shortly and to give them Oswald's school records. https://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html Weldon Lucas was the Stripling principal when LHO attended Stripling. John accidentally used his name instead of Wylie's here: Early Saturday morning, less than 24 hours after the assassination, the assistant principal of Stripling Junior High School, Frank Kudlaty, received a phone call from his boss, Weldon Lucas. Mr. Lucas instructed Kudlaty to go to Stripling, locate (HARVEY) Oswald's school records, and give those records to FBI agents who were on their way https://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html I have just corrected this page to show Wylie instead of Lucas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted July 23, 2020 Share Posted July 23, 2020 (edited) Jim, it’s gracious of you to acknowledge the error and make the correction. I suspect we’ll be getting back to some of that later. But in the meantime, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure, allow me to suggest to you - a published author - that an * asterisk be placed next to the change in text. At the foot, a simple erratum notice: * "from whatever date until July 22/2020 this name inadvertently read “Weldon Lucas." We regret the error.” No big deal. The Times and Post run errata columns. It would show an interest in being honest in presentation of facts, which your site’s readers will no doubt admire. Is this the final word; that this was Armstrong’s own error, and not Kudlaty’s? I ask, because I have some questions about that. But let’s start with the erratum notice, as it’s the least an honest broker would do. Otherwise, things tend to slip into the memory hole. Good on you for trying to do the right thing. Edited July 23, 2020 by Robert Charles-Dunne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stevens Posted July 23, 2020 Author Share Posted July 23, 2020 On 7/20/2020 at 2:54 PM, David Josephs said: Thanks for adding so much to this thread and the forum in general... While you really don't have to, and I only have an average level of care whether you do, you haven't actually commented on a single point of the OP in any of your 10 posts on this thread. So even though you've stated you'd post a reply, and also chastised another for posting information not relevant to the topic, you've posted more on this thread than is in the OP, and none of it relates to the OP. So before you point a finger, remember that (in the words of Maynard) if he's the man then you're the man as well so you can stick that finger... If you want examples of how posts do not contribute to the thread search this thread for your posts, because Quote You're a shining example ... Honestly though, I'm not here to try to Quote I really just want to keep the water unpolluted by attempting to eliminate situations and possibilities which can't be true. So while you can pretend in this instance: Quote this situation can't be understood with 1 + 1 = 2 simplicity The opposite is the actual truth. Don't get me wrong, I agree with this statement as applied to the JFKA, but as applied to every situation which composes the whole of the JFKA? Absolutely not. Many of those situations are 1+1=2. Many others truly are not though and those details is why in the case of the JFKA, 1+1 definitely does not =2. While you can claim: Quote the others are here to argue the breadcrumbs You do the exact same thing. It's what we all do. The reason we do it is because the breadcrumbs are the details which decide whether the situations have any real validity. If you didn't argue breadcrumbs, and didn't believe the details of the situations were important, you'd accept the Mexico trip as presented. You don't though because the breadcrumbs don't lead you back to the right piece of bread; the details do not match the evidence/statements/story. You would also likely accept the Beauregard records as well, but you don't because to you the wheat breadcrumbs lead back to a chocolate donut; the details do not match the evidence. The same holds true for Stripling. The witness breadcrumbs do not lead to the right piece of bread. The puzzle pieces do not all fit together and go to the same puzzle. Witnesses make statements which then have to be reframed as maybe they meant some other thing to even fit the narrative. So, even though we had to jam the piece in and it's not quite right, and you only notice if you look at it at a certain angle, we got the piece to fit. That means something, right? This is exactly what you accuse the Warren Commission of doing. When they jammed a square peg into a round hole you didn't accept that it fit, now. If you cast the same critical eye to what the people who surround Stripling actually say regarding Oswald and how it relates to the "Harvey & Lee" story and timeline, you'd dismiss it as quickly as you do the Beauregard records. Even if the story of "Harvey & Lee" is true, neither of these boys went to Stripling. You need to at least consider that. In closing I pose to you the same question you've posed to Jon and RCD: On 7/21/2020 at 9:32 AM, David Josephs said: You will not be convinced here at least.... so I have to ask... What caliber of evidence would suit you... ? For if there is no standard to meet... why are you bothering with this at all? For if your own standard will not convince you, what exactly will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said: Even if the story of "Harvey & Lee" is true, neither of these boys went to Stripling. You need to at least consider that As much consideration as you give that it was Harvey who attended Stripling... I'm sorry you find Kudlaty unbelievable ... John just mentioned that it was Wylie who was principal in 1963 after Lucas' tenure - he was the Principal '53-'56 when Oswald attended - he had moved onto Arlington Heights... He says Wylie on the tape because it was indeed Wylie... yet Lucas had been there for years and Kudlaty and he were close... It not being consistent across all the platforms it's being presented is indeed a simple oversight.... and will be corrected. As to the rest of your OP, you are trying to impeach a direct witness with conjecture.. with your interpretation of how things SHOULD be... You start with Robert... I address Robert by trying to have you understand the relationship between the three "brothers"... by giving you context for this you give me grief... The conflict between the 2 older brothers is central to understanding how it was even possible for Kudlaty to be telling the truth. You then proceed to say, repeatedly, that people don't mean what they are saying... that no one else was ever asked? that's the rebuttal to which you want me to reply? THIS is your point...Further, numerous local personalities and people connected to Oswald have spoken to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram over the years, and as mentioned, newpapers across the country. Many of them have some connection to Oswald or a story to tell, none have Stripling stories. It is clear the Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles which reference Robert Oswald’s statements regarding Oswald as attending Stripling are blown out of proportion to increase their otherwise neglible (sic) importance. At no point over the almost 60 years of coverage does the Star-Telegram update their reporting, and continues to this day to use statements Robert Oswald gave them in 1959. The paper likely was unable to get new statements, and continues to just run with what they have. You seem to be forgetting his testimony in 1964... Says the same thing... has no idea about Beauregard... can you please try and remember it was 1959, not 2019? So people COULD have said something... newspapers COULD have followed up... you truly do not comprehend the reach and power of the FBI in 1963.... the number of informants was staggering... if Hoover's FBI didn't want you looking, you stopped looking... I know you're not that naive.... man, I hope you're not that naive. The rest of the OP is only your questioning the statements of direct witnesses... Summers is clearly confused about what he remembers. He references teaching Robert Oswald, when they weren’t at the school at the same time. a semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses. The images below start with the 49-50 school year... followed by 50-51.... Robert is listed along with Harvey... with different parents... Robert testifies to skipping 10th grade, Mr. JENNER. Would that be 1951, the end of your sophomore year?Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; 1950 would be the end of the school year. That summer there I started a job with an A&P Supermarket there in Fort Worth.I might say along this period mother seemed to be having difficulty keeping a job or making enough money and so forth to raise us. I stayed out of school that next year and worked for A&P.Mr. JENNER. Out of school 1950-51? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Proceeding with you, at the end of the school year '50-'51--I assume you continued working there the summer of '51?Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.Mr. JENNER. And did you reenter school that fall?Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I didMr. JENNER. Where?Mr. OSWALD. Arlington Heights High School. Mr. JENNER. You attended Arlington Heights High School for the school year '51-'52?Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.Mr. JENNER. And what about the year '52-'53?Mr. OSWALD. July 1952 I joined the Marine Corps. Robert is crossed out in the 51-52 records.... despite finishing the entire year.... strange so if Mr. Summer teaches him Jan 50 thru Summer 1951... one way or another... that's about 2 school years in his mind... so what? Harvey Lee Oswald in 7th grade would be 1954.... September. He would be with the woman on the right, while Lee remained with the woman on the left... Context again Mark... and for those who don't know everything about the subject, it helps. Looking again at the OP, you simply try to impeach these witnesses with conjecture and hyperbole.... and you neither spoke with these witnesses or the people who did We have little else to cover here... now we know about Wylie.... and you still think these guys are the same... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 mole under eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stevens Posted July 24, 2020 Author Share Posted July 24, 2020 On 7/21/2020 at 10:35 AM, Sandy Larsen said: 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? This is ridiculous. At no point do you have to prove a statement wrong to impeach the credibility of the statement. All you have to do is bring reasonable doubt. You aren't here today, posting on a JFKA forum because someone proved Oswald didn't do it. At least, I find that doubtful. What is more likely is that in your mind the details did not match the evidence, the stories being presented didn't match other bona-fide truths. This created reasonable doubt in your mind that the events of the JFKA, as relayed by the WC, were the truth. Hence you began a journey that got you here. Again, for the umpteenth time...I'm not speaking about errors, or even isolated errors. I'm saying the witness statements do not match the timeline and other "official" accounts as presented in "Harvey & Lee." This is based on their words, not errors they made in their statements. Not errors, not mistakes...just their words and what they meant. It is you all, meaning "Harvey & Lee" supporters, who keep mentioning errors and mistakes and then reframing the statements because "maybe they meant this..." or "it's possible that..." while accusing me of only using supposition, speculation, and conjecture to prove my point. For instance, I stated Summers recalls Oswald in his class in 1952 and therefore could not refer to the Oswald which "Harvey & Lee" claims attended Stripling in 1954. This is just a simple fact. The reply from "Harvey & Lee" supporters... "Maybe he was confused..." Maybe he meant.... Maybe any number of things. But it is you all who has to reframe his comments as mistakes and errors. I take them for what they are. As it is the piece doesn't fit the puzzle. Also again, Sandy...I have answered almost every single question brought forth from you (I feel like every one, but there's likely at least one I didn't reply to or just honestly missed) and in the meantime you haven't answered almost any of mine. Am I wrong to expect fair play and reciprocity? I faithfully answer your questions to the best of my ability, can you do the same? I've done my best to not name call, use sarcasm, etc... (not claiming I'm innocent, but I have made a conscious effort) and I've tried to have a genuine discussion. Could you meet me halfway, maybe? Also, I'm not necessarily trying to "disprove their statements." I'm just trying to honestly determine if the statements match the evidence as presented in "Harvey & Lee." For example, I don't have to try to prove/disprove Summers statements. All I need to do is answer the question, does Summers statement support Oswald attending Stripling in the fall of 1954? All I need to do to answer that is prove that the year he stated, 1952, is not the same year as the year "Harvey & Lee" claims Oswald attended Stripling, which is 1954. A quick glance at any calendar tells me that 1952 and 1954 are in fact different years. So by the same token, Sandy...how did you prove that parts of any of the six witnesses' statements are true? How did you prove Oswald was in Summers gym class in 1952? How did you prove 1952 and 1954 are the same year? If you didn't prove the last point, how did you prove Summers was mistaken as to the year? Like I said to Josephs, I'm seriously not trying to "burst your bubble." None of this adds up though. The only way to then make it all fit is to apply conjecture, speculation, and supposition to the statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said: A quick glance at any calendar tells me that 1952 and 1954 are in fact different years. 1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said: This is ridiculous. At no point do you have to prove a statement wrong to impeach the credibility of the statement. All you have to do is bring reasonable doubt. Yes, this is. Reasonable doubt does not "impeach" anything... Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof, requiring that guilt be proven to the satisfaction of a rational person. Clear and convincing evidence is somewhat less rigorous. It requires that a judge or jury be persuaded that the prosecution case is true. "impeach the credibility" ?? Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. 1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said: You aren't here today, posting on a JFKA forum because someone proved Oswald didn't do it. At least, I find that doubtful. And here we have the crux of the matter Mark... you're attempt at introducing reasonable doubt has no bearing on the credibility of anything any of the witnesses said because you fail to give the audience - those you are introducing the doubt to - the proper context for what was said. Your incredulity doesn't change the dynamics of the context.... a point you sorely miss, repeatedly. As to your naive and assuming comment, of course we've proven it was not possible for Oswald to have done it... proven it in a number of different ways. ...and we remain here to continue to dig and reveal... What you find doubtful .... is highly subjective.... the neglect of context appears to be your calling card in this discussion... and you still aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know.... Thanks for the discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 As promised, I have some questions for the crack H&L squad, and a few observations of my own. Actually, not even the whole squad. Just Jim Hargrove, as he's demonstrated he has sufficient pull to get John Armstrong to admit an error, eventually. Maybe Jim can clarify a few things that puzzle me. The rest of you can take a breather. Jim, you have said that John Armstrong made an unfortunate error by typing the name "Weldon Lucas" when he intended to type "Harry Wylie." Simple mistake; these things happen. Except that John was not riffing on his own, dropping heavy prose. The improper name appears in the text of a direct quote. "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." How does someone accidentally type the wrong name into a direct quote? Was that interview taped? Because if it was, a direct quote should have included Wylie, not Lucas. If the mistake was Armstrong's. I have in my life interviewed literally hundreds of people, and always used a tape recorder. (After finding out the hard way early on that it was the safest practice.) When typing out the transcript, I could never mistake one name for another. Why? Because one is only transcribing what one hears. I find it hard to imagine that a man of JA's laser-like focus would make such a mistake. Or that it could remain undetected for so long. (Do H&L adherents not read that to which they adhere?) I tend to think there was a tape recording of this interview. Re-read the quote above, and notice how Lucas' first name and school position are inserted. If this were simply prose, there'd be no insertion; it would be pointless. Notice too the awkward sentence structure. That's a direct quote, as spoken. Were it not, John would not word that sentence so poorly. Consequently, I think there is a tape recording. If so, I sure would like to hear the relevant portion, nothing else. However, if there was no tape recording of the problematic Kudlaty discrepancy, then John wasn't transcribing quotations from tape. He was taking the info from his notes, and then pretending - by using quotation marks - that what he wrote was a verbatim quotation. (And having seen some of John's notes – um, yikes!) That is the textbook definition of putting words in a person's mouth. However, as above, there are two hints - large hints - that this was recorded. Now, the more easily distracted of the crack H&L squad will say this is a minor quibble, over an understandable mistake. Jim's agreed to amend the text online, so what's the big deal? Big or not, the deal is that this mistake is also in the book, and was repeated on the H&L website for what? 10-15-20 years? How does one correct so widespread an error? I find it more than passing strange that of all the people who have read the book, researched the basis of the book, and those who proof-read it before publishing, no one noticed this discrepancy. Or perhaps I have just assumed that more people have read the book than is actually the case. (But if that's true, how can there really be 'far reaching' yadda yadda yadda?) The issue is of import not merely because a mistake has been allowed to taint what readers have been reading for multiple years in the book and online. (Although that's bad enough.) The existence of a tape recording in which Kudlaty says "Weldon Lucas" or "Harry Wylie" would demonstrate whether the mistake was JA's or Kudlaty's? If there is a tape, I'm sure people would love to hear it, just to certify definitively that the mistake was John's. Hence, Kudlaty's own voice would be on tape saying either the right name or the wrong one. If there is no tape, how does one use quotation marks to indicate a direct quote? From memory? That's a perilous practice, as nobody likes to be misquoted by someone who's acting solely from memory. So, a Q: Did John Armstrong tape the Kudlaty interview in which the latter said in a phone call either "Weldon Lucas" or "Harry Wylie?" If not, perhaps somebody could explain how an author comes up with a direct quote that purports to be precisely verbatim, until it turns out it wasn't....? Seems to me, when confronted with his "error" John would rather toss himself on his own sword than admit the error was Kudlaty's. Because it's Kudlaty's credibility that must be maintained at all costs. Even if/when he's not credible. I'll have some more questions as time allows. Hearing twenty seconds of the taped recording might add some more. Or prove the error was John's, in which case the rest becomes moot. But in the meantime, I think it behooves you to add an erratum notice on the website that contained the mistake, as already suggested by yours truly. * Side note to DJ - and before there's any more emoticon incontinence, these are not orders, or demands, or barks, or shrieks or howls, or whatever else you may hear in your head. They are suggestions. Take 'em or don't. Not really my dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stevens Posted July 25, 2020 Author Share Posted July 25, 2020 On 7/20/2020 at 8:09 AM, Jim Hargrove said: To Mark Stevens: You and the other H&L critics are free to spin the Stripling School evidence any way you wish for as long as you desire. But you simply cannot make that evidence go away. I stand by that evidence, and see no point in arguing the details with you since you and the other H&L critics will always claim victory no matter what I say. I'm really not spinning anything, I believe it is you all who spins the actual evidence to fit into the "Harvey & Lee" theory. I'm also not trying to make it go away, I mean...I did kind of make a thread dedicated to the topic of the Stripling evidence, a topic I now have to list one at a time to get you to maybe discuss. Instead of replying to that topic, "Harvey & Lee" supporters created an entirely new topic, I guess I shouldn't think they want mine to "go away." I'm not trying to claim victory, honestly man I'm not. There's no "victory" to claim, this isn't about me or any perceived accomplishment. As much as you want to repeat there's no point in arguing the details, you know that isn't true. Or you wouldn't argue the details of the Beauregard school records. As I stated to Sandy, analyzing the details is why...I believe anyways, we are all here. This is all I'm trying to do...scrutinize the details of a story. Quote Nothing you have said makes me doubt in any way that one LHO attended Stripling School, a fact which is supported by so much evidence. I will continue to present that evidence, which includes five Fort Worth newspaper articles, sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, two videotaped interviews and written descriptions of other witness recollections presented in H&L. You can do as you wish. This should be about more than just presenting the evidence though Jim. We...I believe anyways, should be also discussing those details, and trying to make reasonable determinations as to whether those details match our theories. This is what I've been trying to do. I'm asking what I think are reasonable questions in a bid to determine if the details fit. Instead of helping understand, or explain aspects of your argument, you simply present the argument again. Not only then do you not support your argument, you say my questions are unreasonable, or don't make sense. If I ask how, so as to maybe craft a more reasonable argument, I'm basically told "it just isn't...neener neener." For instance, if I'm wrong about my conclusion on Summers, it would be helpful to me to explain how I've arrived at an incorrect conclusion. This is more helpful than just saying "Mark is wrong", or "Mark has failed to convince." Quote EDIT: If you'd like to consider some of your arguments one at a time, why not post one below, and I'd be happy to discuss it. Does this mean one specific question, or one specific topic or....? Either way...if Mark Summers says he taught Oswald in 1952 how is this the same person who Armstrong says attended in 1954? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now