The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

"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?

 

Whenever I read the words of a conversation being recounted, I always assume that the writer has paraphrased the words. Even if presented in story form with quotation marks. After all, people don't walk around with tape recorders in their pockets. The only time I take the text as being an exact quote is when the writer says or implies it is.

Regardless, you can tell from context that John was paraphrasing Kudlaty. Here is what John wrote:

I telephoned Mr. Kudlaty, introduced myself as a JFK researcher, and asked if he knew whether or not "Lee Harvey Oswald" had attended Stripling. Without hesitation Frank said, "Yes, he attended Stripling." Somewhat surprised I asked, "How do you know that." Frank replied, "Because I gave his Stripling records to the FBI."

That was obviously not a tape recorded interview.

BTW, even if Kudlaty himself had used the wrong name, Mr. Lucas, the first time he talked to John, so what? They had both been principals at Stripling during his tenure there, so it would be an understandable slip for him to say the wrong one when it was first brought up after thirty years.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

Either way...if Mark Summers says he taught Oswald in 1952 how is this the same person who Armstrong says attended in 1954?

 

You need to use the noodle between your ears, Mark. (And I'm sure you would if you weren't so hostile toward H&L theory.)

In 1963 Mark Summers sees on television a guy who is said to have shot Kennedy. He recognizes him as a student he had taught a decade earlier.

Thirty years later he recalls this when contacted by John Armstrong. It's not the sort of thing you forget.

So he tell Armstrong that he taught Oswald in 1952. He got the year wrong. It was freakin' 40 years later and you think he's going to recall the right year?

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, even if Kudlaty himself had used the wrong name, Mr. Lucas, the first time he talked to John, so what? They had both been principals at Stripling during his tenure there, so it would be an understandable slip for him to say the wrong one when it was first brought up after thirty years.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thirty years later he recalls this when contacted by John Armstrong. It's not the sort of thing you forget.

So he tell Armstrong that he taught Oswald in 1952. He got the year wrong. It was freakin' 40 years later and you think he's going to recall the right year?

So, if I’m reading Sandy correctly, he’s saying that people cannot be expected to remember various things after 30-40 years.

The “witnesses” we’re discussing are allowed to get facts wrong, but that’s ok, because it’s been, like, forever.

This is the impossibly low standard you're forced to create?

Sandy, you do realize that these are your own witnesses, right?

So what if their memories are wrong?

They’re still right.

This from a man who thinks anything written within quotation marks need not be a verbatim quote.  If not for that very purpose, for what reason do quotation marks exist?

Next we’ll hear from the good Doc that photos mean little in the grand scheme of things, after having spearheaded a campaign based upon the misreading of ONE photo.  Lesson learned?

From Cinque to Armstrong?  

Heck of a way to run a railroad.

Do continue.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, even if Kudlaty himself had used the wrong name, Mr. Lucas, the first time he talked to John, so what? They had both been principals at Stripling during his tenure there, so it would be an understandable slip for him to say the wrong one when it was first brought up after thirty years.

 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thirty years later [Mark Summers] recalls [that his former student had shot JFK] when contacted by John Armstrong. It's not the sort of thing you forget.

So he tell Armstrong that he taught Oswald in 1952. He got the year wrong. It was freakin' 40 years later and you think he's going to recall the right year?

So, if I’m reading Sandy correctly, he’s saying that people cannot be expected to remember various things after 30-40 years.

 

People cannot be expected to remember insignificant things after 30 to 40 years. That's right.

They CAN be expected to remember highly significant things.

But you already know this. It is your hostility toward the H&L theory that is making you look dumb.

 

[Mark Stevens]

On 7/23/2020 at 9:28 PM, David Josephs said:

As much consideration as you give that it was Harvey who attended Stripling...  

I guess this still isn't clear to you all, but I have considered it. Considering it is what got me here. Reading "Harvey & Lee" and spending time researching claims in the book led me where I am today. Instead of reading a book and thinking to myself "yep, everything in there is obviously true." I actually looked into the things Armstrong stated and the evidence he provided which needed further verification. 

Quote

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.

I don't necessarily find Kudlaty unbelievable, so I'm not sure how to respond here other than to say I don't believe I've actually commented on the Wylie/Lucas discrepancy. 

Quote

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... 

I'm not using conjecture though and "the rest of my OP" isn't about any single witness.

Mark Summers for instance, his timeline does not match the "Harvey & Lee" timeline. I'm not making conjecture. I'm not interpreting how something should be. I'm only calling attention to what is. Sandy Larsen then basically states that Summers should have stated 1954, but even though he didn't he's a good witness anyway because it fits the "Harvey & Lee" story.

Quote

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.

I guess I'm confused. Why do I need to understand the interpersonal relationship between the Oswald "brothers" to understand Kudlaty's statements regarding school records? Again, you seem to be questioning whether I think Kudlaty is being honest. Again, I do believe Kudlaty gave something to someone. I'm just not as certain as you as to what that something was.

Quote

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.

You're confounding two points though.

My point regarding the reporting on Stripling was:

Quote

After almost 60 years, the Star Telegram has not presented a single statement from any person other than Robert Oswald which would link Oswald to Stripling, in any year, much less the years as alleged by “Harvey & Lee.” Numerous opportunities have been presented, not the least of which was a teacher who taught durring the same time period and who also researched Oswald. She would have been in a prime, if not the most prime, position among Stripling witnesses of knowledge of Oswald at Stripling, and she curiously…”forgot” to mention it. In spite of the numerous times the Robert Oswald statements were printed, not a single person who taught Oswald at Stripling, or attended with him at Stripling, after seeing the articles thought they’d give their story to the paper.

(Another damn typo?!)

My point regarding Robert Oswald:

Quote

The statement from Robert Oswald, while clearly an error on his behalf regarding the chronology of 1952 is nevertheless blown out of proportion and taken out of context and bent to instead claim he meant 1954 and Stripling, another time period for which he had no direct knowledge. When the totality (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.) of Robert Oswald’s statements are taken into account, it is clear he is not referencing 1954, nor is he scrambling to cover up this reference. He is simply speaking out of turn regarding events he has no actual direct knowledge of.

I don't even use conjecture there. He doesn't actually have any direct knowledge of the events he is speaking of.

Quote

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 did
Mr. 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.

[Picture included for whatever reason removed from reply]

I'm not sure what your point is here and to make matters worse, you're flat out wrong. Unless you all are now saying the two "Oswalds" were actually in different grades, Oswald entered the 7th grade in 1952 and the 9th grade in 1954. I thought you knew more about all of this than anyone?

Quote

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

If the bar for commenting on the JFKA is speaking to witnesses or people who did then I guess the list of people allowed to comment on JFKA topics just grew considerably short.

I have spoken to and interviewed one person related to the JFKA though, and while it wasn't directly related to Stripling I feel like it should check some kind of box. Even if it's next to "amateur."

In any event, I haven't really used much conjecture in my analysis, much less hyperbole. As stated above, I'm simply pointing out what was actually said. You all then use conjecture to make it fit the "Harvey & Lee" story.

Quote

   We have little else to cover here...   now we know about Wylie.... and you still think these guys are the same...     

[Pictures included for whatever reason removed from reply]

As I stated before, I haven't even talked about Wylie/Lucas and even though I haven't had breakfast yet, all these words being shoved in my mouth aren't very filling.

Quote

  On 7/24/2020 at 3:32 PM, Mark Stevens said:

A quick glance at any calendar tells me that 1952 and 1954 are in fact different years.

Not sure the point here. Maybe sarcasm? While you preach about context, it might be helpful to understand how it applies to that sentence you quoted. You might then do more than sarcastically slow clap...maybe not.

Quote

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.

In your haste to mock my supposed misuse of "impeach," you not only contradicted yourself, but were again flat out wrong.

Not only is that evident in your quotes (hence the contradiction), but....

Reasonable Doubt https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reasonable doubt

Quote

a doubt especially about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof

Impeach https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

Quote

 

1: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office After Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached, finished his chaotic and disgraceful administration, Grant was the inevitable successor.— Richard Brookhiser

2: to cast doubt on  

especially: to challenge the credibility or validity of

 

Reasonable doubt would seem to be the very process of impeaching something.

Quote

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.

The crux of what matter exactly? Is it how the statements do not add up to Oswald attending Stripling? Or is it how that even though they don't, when you look through "Harvey & Lee" colored glasses their statements still mean something?

Again you refer to this mystical context, I'm guessing this time context refers to Hungarian boys and merged identities, which I have to consider if I'm going to understand Bobby/Bobbie Pitts. Regardless of any supposed context, Pitts didn't attend Stripling in 1954 and didn't give any information regarding Oswald attending Stripling.

The only way he becomes a witness to Oswald attending Stripling is when you, Armstrong, Hargrove, Norwood, Larson, Butler it would seem, and any other "Harvey & Lee" supporter warp the reality by introducing conjecture, and even a dash of hyperbole for flavor.

I'm not using conjecture to state Pitts didn't attend Stripling in 1954. I don't need any "context" for that to be true. He didn't attend Stripling in 1954.

Quote

Your incredulity doesn't change the dynamics of the context....  a point you sorely miss, repeatedly.

Meaning...although the situation may look fuzzy now, if you would just put on these "Harvey & Lee" colored glasses it all becomes clear.

Instead of the evidence shaping the theory, the theory shapes the evidence. Got it.

Quote

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....

I believe you need to apply some of that context you keep preaching to me about to what I actually said.

Quote

Thanks for the discussion...

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, even if Kudlaty himself had used the wrong name, Mr. Lucas, the first time he talked to John, so what? They had both been principals at Stripling during his tenure there, so it would be an understandable slip for him to say the wrong one when it was first brought up after thirty years.

Perhaps you missed the inter-office memo on talking points.  The H&L team has conceded the error was John Armstrong’s, and not Frank Kudlaty’s.  

Since changes often happen on the fly in H&L HQ, you should try at all times to tailor your current argument according to the current liturgy.

So, it’s cool that you’re sticking up for Kudlaty, but according to your squad it’s not his memory that’s in question; it’s John Armstrong’s memory that is in question, for points already conceded by JA and JH.

I have in this thread spit-balled the notion that the fault was not actually John’s, but that John may have felt his only recourse was to take the fall for the discrepancy himself.

Painful as that might be, the alternative would be worse:

Admitting that star witness Kudlatry could not remember something as significant as the school principal who told him to meet the FBI at Stripling that Saturday morning.  

It seems - by Sandy’s own definition - one of those moments so significant that it ought not be forgot.  

But by Sandy’s other definition, Kudlaty may have forgot, but didn’t need to recall facts correctly to be correct.  

(But then, by another of Sandy’s definitions, the use of quotation marks somehow doesn’t necessarily mean the quotation was accurately quoted.  Got it.)

So it’s ok if Kudlaty forgot it, because how can you ask a witness to remember something 30 years later?

But, instead, it was John Armstrong who could not remember something as significant as the name of the school principal who told Kudlaty to meet the FBI at Stripling that Saturday morning.  

And John didn’t have a 30 year interim to explain his error.  For him, it was only days, maybe weeks, maybe months?

If he taped the interview - for which I think there is prima facie evidence - then he didn’t even forget, but misheard his own witness.

Possible?  Sure.

Likely?  Even I give Armstrong more credit than that.

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It is your hostility toward the H&L theory that is making you look dumb.

As for appearing dumb, it’s not my reputation at stake, Sandy.   

The Stripling discrepancies - plural - are not my dilemma to solve, thank Zeus.   

That’s your onus to bear.  It’s your good name on the line, bud.

There’s been a lot of talk here recently about puzzle pieces, and how they fit.

Your team has various puzzle pieces, agreed.  

But they’re not from the same puzzle... so.... good luck with that

In the meantime, I trust you’ll pardon me if I exercise my right to voice opinions that may run counter to your own.

[Mark Stevens]

On 7/25/2020 at 11:13 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

People cannot be expected to remember insignificant things after 30 to 40 years. That's right.

They CAN be expected to remember highly significant things.

But you already know this. It is your hostility toward the H&L theory that is making you look dumb.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I need to make a few things clear.

I have no animosity towards anything. I do have an issue with unresearched claims being help up fact when even if he claims are not easily disputed, they are still far from facts.

I also have to point out that it is you all who have some deep animosity not only towards me, but towards anyone with the audacity to question "Harvey & Lee."

You were hostile towards me from the moment I began asking questions:

Quote

It's just Mark bitching about James supposedly moving goal posts.

Then you doubled down with comments saying I live in another universe, I'm living in the Twilight zone, that I need to use my "noodle." Not to mention it is my hostility which makes me look dumb. Adding on the numerous attacks by Norwood, it becomes clear where the hostility is coming from. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely irritated at not only how you all construct and defend your positions, but by the general behavior of the group as well. I have let my irritation out and made a couple of snarky comments, but I've done my best to maintain composure and encourage genuine discussion. I'm guilty though, and I do need to do better.

My overall point is evidenced in my ability to engage in discussion and offer my time and assistance helping you with other questions you had. I'm honestly not trying to be hostile towards any person or any idea, I'm just trying to determine the truthfulness and likelihood of it all. I've asked time and again to point out the flaws in my arguments and explain how my reasoning is wrong. Instead I get attacks on my writing style, gross generalizations of my points, and conflation of my points with the points of others. In all but literally 2-3 specific instances, no one has replied to things I actually said. In spite of all of this I'm still here, still trying to have a reasonable discussion and ascertain the validity of the statements surrounding Stripling,id.

To some degree we have made ground though, you for instance seem to agree that the anomalies with Galindo's statements would exclude him from being used as a witness, Norwood believes basically the same with Summers. I for example believe Kudlaty gave records to the FBI. There is common ground to be shared and if we are all genuinely interested in promoting the truth and determining what transpired and how it transpired versus just promoting our own pet theories, then it behooves us all to critically examine everything. This should include our own beliefs and belief systems. I don't believe myself or my beliefs are beyond reproach, I would hope you would agree for not only how the statement applies to me but to how it applies to you as well.

I wrote something years ago about divide and conquer, and about how "they" use this strategy to divide "us" on a macro and micro scale. I believe it happens at a macro scale (black vs white) for instance, but then further at micro scales (there are a variety of issues which divide the male community, the black community, the gay community). The same thing is true in CT and JFKA communities. Instead of unity, there are 200 JFKA theories from Greer to Files to freaking Jackie shooting him. There's 5 different versions of who the tramps are and even more versions of how many Oswald's. We claim to be people who have researched these associated patterns and are familiar with these behaviors, and then fall into the set traps.

Disrupt, fracture, minimize.

I don't believe the Stripling episode happened as relayed because the evidence which is provide does not support that assertion. I would like to discuss what I based this belief on, and I have done so by writing the OP to this topic. 

If you still are interested in having a genuine discussion then please...take any of the names in my OP and copy and paste that section into a quote and tell me what's wrong with my analysis. You don't have to reply to everything, pick a person and let's talk. From there I can only attempt to learn or attempt to teach. It's all done though in the hope of and quest for truth and knowledge. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Mark made several points, so far unaddressed by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, about Robert Oswald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

(a) The first mention of Stripling by Robert Oswald was in the 31 October 1959 edition, in response to the apparent defection of the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Robert was accosted by a reporter while at work.

(b) The following day, Robert was interviewed at home. The paper included a statement by Robert that his brother had attended Arlington Heights for a year, but did not mention Stripling. Presumably the paper would have mentioned Stripling if Robert had done so.

(c) The relevant passage from the second article was then repeated word for word in a third article later that week.

(d) Mark reproduced six further Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles (from 1962, 1963, 1980, 1999 twice, and 2006) which mention Oswald attending Stripling. Each uses virtually identical wording. Two of the articles (from 1999 and 2006) use the phrase "including awkward teenage years at Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School". Clearly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, like every newspaper, was in the habit of recycling earlier reports.

(e) None of these articles mentions any pupils or teachers who recalled Oswald at Stripling.

(f) A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 1992 does mention a teacher who taught at Stripling at the time the imaginary Oswald doppelganger is supposed to have been there: Beulah Bratton, who taught English and journalism at Stripling from the 1940s to the 1970s. Under the headline, "Teacher Recalls Famous Students", the article actually states that "After President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, Bratton was asked to do research on Lee Harvey Oswald's family for the New York Times." If an Oswald doppelganger had attended Stripling, and especially if that fact was "common knowledge" as the 'Harvey and Lee' believers claim, there's a pretty good chance Ms Bratton would have uncovered the fact and mentioned it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wouldn't you think? But it appears that she didn't.

Mark concluded:

Quote

After almost 60 years, the Star Telegram has not presented a single statement from any person other than Robert Oswald which would link Oswald to Stripling, in any year, much less the years as alleged by “Harvey & Lee.” Numerous opportunities have been presented, not the least of which was a teacher who taught durring the same time period and who also researched Oswald. She would have been in a prime, if not the most prime, position among Stripling witnesses of knowledge of Oswald at Stripling, and she curiously…”forgot” to mention it. In spite of the numerous times the Robert Oswald statements were printed, not a single person who taught Oswald at Stripling, or attended with him at Stripling, after seeing the articles thought they’d give their story to the paper.

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 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.

Mark has shown that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's coverage provides no strong evidence to support the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling.

The burden of proof is on the 'Harvey and Lee' believers. Since Stripling is supposed to be their strongest suit, we can assume that they will be keen to put Mark right. Let's see how they respond.

[Mark Stevens]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mark made several points, so far unaddressed by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, about Robert Oswald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Jeremy, 

Super-duper thanks for tha... 

Nevermind, I can't even pull myself to do something that silly. 

In any event, at this point we're both just wasting our breath. The echo chamber has been sealed, no sounds from outside can be allowed in. 

It's clear to me the team has launched a concerted effort to ignore me and literally anything I say to avoid bringing attention to the points I am making. 

To support this theory, simply look at the threads and associated pattern. On the same day they each stopped replying, at basically the same time. They've all talked around me or flat out ignored me. 

I guess it's because I'm so threatened by the truth.

🤷‍♂️

Edited July 31, 2020 by Mark Stevens
Hit enter too soon

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

A few days ago, I wrote:

Quote

Mark has shown that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's coverage provides no strong evidence to support the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling.

The burden of proof is on the 'Harvey and Lee' believers. Since Stripling is supposed to be their strongest suit, we can assume that they will be keen to put Mark right. Let's see how they respond.

Now we know how they responded. Did they finally summon up the courage to admit that the Stripling evidence isn't actually very strong? Sadly, no. Did they at last get around to dealing with the points Mark raised? Sadly, no.

Instead, Jim Hargrove created a new thread to pump the same old stuff that Mark disposed of in the thread you're now reading. Presumably the idea is to get this thread to sink into the murky depths of page 2, then page 3, then ...

Would Jim or any other 'Harvey and Lee' believer care to actually deal with the points Mark raised?

[David G. Healy]

On 8/3/2020 at 2:06 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

[...]

Would Jim or any other 'Harvey and Lee' believer care to actually deal with the points Mark raised?

Why? David Josephs and RCDunne have spoken, that's enough... The H&L debate been going on since I bought the book (the first batch) from Rich DellaRosa... 

JFK assassination controversy still draws out some of those that think filling up USENT boards and forums bandwidth re the JFK assassination subject is basic training for a book publishing audition... (hint): Publish your own damn book on the subject, commit yourself to the topic -- and who cares about the points he (Mark) raised?

John did, he financed his own book, wrote the thing, published it in China himself and distributed it by his self... if its full of non-starters for you, tough. Be grateful then, at least you've got a road map of what NOT to do if you publish on the same subject...

There's only one David Lifton around here and he's not in this thread, he'd be a great reviewer of H&L, but none of us will live that long...

Edited March 9, 2021 by David G. Healy
name spelling error

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

There's only one David Lipton around here and he's not in this thread, he'd be a great reviewer of H&L, but none of us will live that long...

I am pretty sure David Lifton is on record that the H&L theory is complete nonsense...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I am pretty sure David Lifton is on record that the H&L theory is complete nonsense...

That is correct.

[David G. Healy]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

That is correct.

Tracy, Tracy, Tracy -- we KNOW lone nutters speak for the 1964 WC conclusions, now they speak for David Lipton too?

[David G. Healy]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I am pretty sure David Lifton is on record that the H&L theory is complete nonsense...

"pretty sure"...?

Here's another "pretty sure"... The 1964 WCR conclusions were not used in a court of law, therefore, they're opinions of a select, biased few. Do you agree?