Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review


Recommended Posts

On 3/17/2021 at 6:44 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Paul Jolliffe writes:

Of course it's no big deal! He made an off-hand assumption, a decade after the supposed event, about a trivial subject of which he had no personal knowledge, and he got his assumption wrong. What's so unlikely about that?

You could argue that Robert was only speaking one decade after the supposed event, unlike the other 'witnesses' whom Armstrong dug out four decades after the supposed event. But even one decade would be more than enough time for Robert's memory to become clouded, especially concerning something insignificant which he had no first-hand knowledge of in the first place.

Jeremy,

I believe you are writing in good faith, so I will respond in kind. 

We disagree about the significance and accuracy of the several witnesses, each of whom independently claimed that our "Oswald" attended Stripling Jr. High in Fort Worth in the mid 1950's. 

OK.

There are only two possibilities:

1. Each and every one of these witnesses is either mistaken (or deliberately lying) about "Oswald's" supposed attendance at Stripling, or

2. They are correct - :"Oswald" did indeed attend Stripling for a brief period in the mid 1950's. 

I believe the simplest explanation for these witness statements is #2. You don't. Might I point out however, that your preference for #1 requires an incredible amount of convoluted (and frankly, contradictory) reasoning, whereas mine is very simple - the witnesses were right. 

Further, since first and foremost of these witnesses was the brother of the accused, and since he swore under oath that "Oswald" attended Stripling, it was incumbent on the WC to explain Robert's error, if error it was. (By the way, the first time Robert mentioned Stripling was NOT "a decade later." It was in 1959, a mere five years later.) Tasking the FBI to investigate "Oswald's" possible attendance at Stripling would have been easy, yet the WC did not do even that. 

Instead, we are left, half a century later, to thrash this out. A final resolution is not possible at this point in this matter, but the fact that the Warren Commission could devote so much of its time and energy to such trivia as Jack Ruby's mother's dental records   https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=425

does not inspire confidence in the "official solution."

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul Jolliffe writes:

Quote

I believe the simplest explanation for these witness statements is #2. You don't. Might I point out however, that your preference for #1 requires an incredible amount of convoluted (and frankly, contradictory) reasoning, whereas mine is very simple - the witnesses were right.

What convoluted and contradictory reasoning is required to cast doubt on Armstrong's Stripling 'witnesses'? Mark Stevens has cast plenty of doubt on them without using any (let alone "an incredible amount" of) convoluted and contradictory reasoning.

Have you actually read Mark's first post in this thread? Here is his summary:

Quote

In closing, it is obvious there is nothing at all to Stripling. Individually, no witness makes a clear case for Oswald at Stripling.

  • Robert Oswald – Refers to different timeframe
  • Kudlaty – Gives confusing information regarding school records
  • Schubert – Gives contradicting timeframe, gives contradicting descriptions of Oswald, gives contradicting location of where he lives (same house different apartment)
  • Summers – Is clearly confused
  • Gann – Does not make clear case for identification
  • Pitts – Gives no information about Oswald attending Stripling
  • Galindo – When weighed against totality of Stripling evidence, is clearly wrong

When taken in totality ... all of the information which makes the entire story is nothing more than a literal handful of people with stories stretching across 30 years which all tell different stories being strung together based on very flimsy and dubious details.

Mark also mentions someone who should certainly have known about and reported Oswald's attendance at Stripling, had such an event actually occurred. Here's what he writes about Mrs Bratton, the teacher who didn't bark in the night:

Quote

a teacher, who was able to recall other famous students, who taught at Stripling during his alleged attendance, and who also researched his family forgot to mention the alleged “common knowledge” of Oswald attending Stripling.

If you really think Armstrong's parade of vague and contradictory 'witnesses' has any merit, perhaps you could go through Mark's analysis and tell us exactly where he went wrong.

Paul continues:

Quote

it was incumbent on the WC to explain Robert's error, if error it was. ... Tasking the FBI to investigate "Oswald's" possible attendance at Stripling would have been easy, yet the WC did not do even that.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, even if the Commission had genuinely wanted to investigate the assassination, which it did not, it had no reason to question what was obviously a trivial, faulty recollection. Robert explained to them that he had not been living at home during the period in question, and that his contact with Lee then had been limited. He had no first-hand knowledge of where his brother went to school that year. He himself had attended Stripling, and he mistakenly assumed his brother had done so too.

Why should the anyone in the Commission have given such a trivial matter any attention? "Hey, guys! Did you hear what Robert said? He just gave the game away! That means there must have been a long-term top-secret project involving two virtually identical Oswalds (one of whom vanished without trace immediately after the assassination) and two virtually identical Marguerites (one of whom also vanished without trace immediately after the assassination), not to mention an army of people to keep the show on the road for a decade! The project was probably run by aliens from the planet Tharg! We need to investigate this, pronto! We can crack the case wide open!"

Quote

the fact that the Warren Commission could devote so much of its time and energy to such trivia as Jack Ruby's mother's dental records does not inspire confidence in the "official solution."

That's something we can agree on. We know that the Warren Commission had no interest in conducting a proper investigation of the assassination. But that doesn't mean that we should accept a load of poorly supported speculation originating from some crackpot who thought the moon landings were faked.

As I also pointed out earlier, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is no more. It has ceased to be. It is pining for the fjords. There was no long-term double-doppelganger project, because it could never have happened:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26056-evidence-for-harvey-and-lee-please-debate-the-specifics-right-here-dont-just-claim-someone-else-has-debunked-it/?do=findComment&comment=429433

Incidentally, there is a message for Paul from Alex here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2382-if-you-have-a-doppelganger-related-problem-and-no-one-else-can-help-if-you-can-find-them-maybe-you-can-hire-the-b-team#36291

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...