Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”

Recommended Posts


You raise an important question about how much Ruth Paine knew about Oswald.  Her Warren Commission comment implies that this man answered to the name of Harvey.  It is not clear if she actually knew Lee personally.  But she was clearly aware that the defection story was a ruse and that this man who lived briefly in her home and spoke flawless Russian was not the real Lee Harvey Oswald. There is evidence to suggest that she or an imposter was working behind the scenes to create a legend of Oswald prior to the assassination.  She played a role in the circumstances of his employment at the Texas School Book Depository.  And, most importantly, she was instrumental after the assassination in bringing forth incriminating posthumous evidence against Oswald. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The critic has failed to offer a plausible explanation for why Robert would identify Stripling on multiple occasions to the press and to the Warren Commission, then omit it in his book.   

Perhaps he omitted it from his book because during preparation for that work, he reviewed the evidence and realized he was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Doc, but your bias is showing.

If the only people here who have critiqued Mark Stevens’ epic post - in the thread where your reply should have been, naughty boy - belong to the crack H&L squad... well, what else are they going to say?  Disagree with you?  

There’s already enough intra-squad disagreement here.  There’s Sandy, who believes, but certainly not completely.  There’s Jim, who has been John’s loyal valet for decades, and won’t hear a bad word said, but will steer you away from posting in the thread to which you replied.  Courage!  There’s DJ, who needs some time in the H&L re-education camp.  And then there’s..... who exactly?

You keep claiming major things for H&L, yet other than being cited in a few other self-published books - you know,  vanity publications - where are all the converts to this cause?  Where are the comments posted here by those converts, rather than just the usual suspects?

The demonstrable fact of LHO’s imposture during his adult life doesn’t in any way require two kids to have been teenaged spy larvae.  So, if Jim Douglass mentions adult imposture, it is scholastically and intellectually dishonest to count such a book as being in agreement with H&L.  It is not.  If it were, it would have said so.

You seem to think the imposture angle is something John Armstrong first discovered.  But even aside from the already mentioned Richard Popkin book, one mustn’t forget Robert Cutler’s Alias Oswald, in which anomalies in LHO's military records got a thorough inspection.  

Both books in their entirety - and other books of merit, to a lesser degree - acknowledged adult imposture.  They do not require teenybopper spy boys to make their case.  H&L does.  If you can’t see the disconnect between those works and Armstrong’s, you should re-read them.

You’ve demonstrated yourself incapable of replying in any meaningful way to even your most cherry-picked of  Mark’s cogent points, so now must warn him that unnamed “others” find fault with his writing.  Well, why not let them do it, instead of you?  Let’s see who all these people are who are incapable of reading and understanding English.  Let them state their case right here.  

Please, Forum members, if you couldn’t make heads nor tails out of what Mark wrote, make your cavils known.  Mark Stevens has even politely asked for precisely that criticism, which demonstrates ethics that might not register with a ban-hammer fan such as yourself.

14 hours ago, James Norwood said:

In my rebuttal of Mark Stevens' critique of the Stripling evidence, I attempted to respond to him respectfully.  But, I must confess that his writing and thinking, as expressed in his critique, were some of the most incoherent and bizarre that I have ever read in my life.

And yet you admit to having read H&L?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

But [Ruth Paine] was clearly aware that the defection story was a ruse and that this man who lived briefly in her home and spoke flawless Russian was not the real Lee Harvey Oswald.


Ruth Pain knew that HARVEY was an imposter? Oh, I can't believe that. Unless a mistake was made and somehow she figured it out. The whole H&L operation would have been highly compartmented and each intelligence operative given just enough information to do their jobs. There was no reason for Ruth Paint to know about the Oswald Project. At least none that I can think of.

James, can you tell me where I can get more information on this topic?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There was no reason for Ruth Paint to know about the Oswald Project. At least none that I can think of.

James, can you tell me where I can get more information on this topic?


As you know, the subject that interests me the most about Oswald is the story of how, at an early age, he came to such proficiency in the Russian language.  Ruth Paine was studying Russian, and she welcomed the opportunity to practice and learn from the Oswalds.  Based on Oswald's exceptional command of the Russian language, I am suggesting that Ruth had to have known that the boy born in New Orleans who had dropped out of school in the tenth grade would not have the mastery of such a difficult language as Russian.  In her Warren Commission testimony, Paine even recalls Oswald entering the Paine house and greeting his two little girls, Baby Junie and little Rachel, with a salutation in Russian.  I concur that Paine's instructions would be compartmentalized, and I know of no evidence to suggest that she had intimate knowledge of the Oswald project.  At the same time, the ties of Ruth Hyde Paine to the American intelligence community ran deep, as documented in Jim DiEugenio's extremely detailed book The Kennedy Assassination--The Evidence Today and Joseph McBride's outstanding book Into the Nightmare.  I have not been following a current thread on the Ed Forum devoted exclusively to the Paines.  But you might find more bibliographic information from the participants on that thread.  If so, I hope you will report it back here.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

John A. wrote that “Mrs. Paine studied Russian for three years at the University of Pennsylvania….” and used her knowledge of some Russian to help establish a quick relationship with Marina.  (H&L, p. 433)


I just made public a vastly expanded new edition of the “Marine Corps and the Soviet Union” page on HarveyandLee.net.  John A. has been working on the new material for months.  The page also features the “Application for Enlistment and Individual Data Card” brought to the attention of JFK researchers just days ago by Dr. James Norwood.

Here’s the direct link to the page:

Marine Corps and the Soviet Union

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I just made public a vastly expanded new edition of the “Marine Corps and the Soviet Union” page on HarveyandLee.net.  John A. has been working on the new material for months.  The page also features the “Application for Enlistment and Individual Data Card” brought to the attention of JFK researchers just days ago by Dr. James Norwood.

Any news from Armstrong about Harry Wylie?

Seems that's something you might want to get cleared up, right quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.
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

I have just corrected this page to show Wylie instead of Lucas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:


For me, the most profound example of the use of Harvey Lee Oswald is Item# 9,


a) This was meant to be preserved. It was "for the record"; and,

b) It tells me that the name Harvey Lee Oswald was not a transposition of names. It was not a mistake, or a typo, or as someone put it to me once, a case of "bureaucratic bungling". It was real. It was genuine. It was a thing.

Here is the Memo:


RIF# 104-10209-10001 (04/05/72) CIA# 80T01357A


HSCA Segregated CIA Collection (microfilm - reel 44: HTLINGUAL, Oswald) Item# 105 page 2.


NARA Record Number: 104-10209-10001

The author of this memorandum is unknown. The subject of the memo is Harvey Lee Oswald. This memo is dated April 6, 1972.

1. “The DC/CI (counterintelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald.”

2. I will arrange to have the questions about Oswald sent to SB/CI for use with the defector Oleg Lyalin returned to me and will advise C/SB/CI of the injunction.”

Document Number 1562-1115-B 201-0289243”

c) I'm pretty sure that SB/CI means Soviet Bureau/Counterintelligence. It appears to me that use of the name Harvey Lee Oswald was to be confined to that Soviet Desk. The memo was dated April 6, 1972, long after the issue of Oswald's correct name should have been settled.



Oleg Adolfovich Lyalin (Russian: Олег Адольфович Лялин; 24 June 1937[1] – 12 February 1995) was a Soviet agent who defected from the KGB. His defection led to the expulsion of 105 Soviet officials suspected as being Soviet spies from Britain on 25 September 1971.

Lyalin was sent by the KGB to London in the 1960s, posing as an official with the Soviet Trade Delegation. His defection came about after he was arrested in London by policeman Charles Shearer for drunk driving in the early morning of 31 August 1971.”

Steve Thomas



Yeah, Item # 9 is fascinating in several different ways.

There are a lot of indications that one of the LHOs preferred to be called "Harvey," even as a student.

Myra DaRouse had him for homeroom at Beauregard and said, in the interview linked below, "I knew him as Harvey Oswald."  Talking about him, she says that Harvey did this, and Harvey did that.  There are quite a few other examples, one of whom was Henry Timmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, James Norwood said:


Here is some feedback for you.

Awesome man, I've been looking forward to this. Let me grab my notebook, I'm really looking forward to your in-depth analysis of the Stripling evidence.

Let's begin...


In an earlier post, you implied that you were interested in a debate, and I took you up on your offer.  I have read all of your comments above, but I cannot discern any issues that you still want to debate. 


I guess I'm not going to need my notebook.

I'd just like to point out, if that's allowed, that what you just said isn't true. You haven't offered to debate me. Of three threads I've participated with you on, the word debate was mentioned by you in 2 of those for a total of 4 instances, none of which were an offer to me.

(Mole Hunt Thread) 1st instance was before I began participating, 2nd was when you complained to the moderator and pointed out how your debate with Simpich was civilized, 3rd was telling me there was no debate. (This Thread) 4th the post I'm replying to. A quick search of those threads and your name and anyone can see this for themselves.

That's all four, right there. You've never made an offer, in fact you've instead danced around every opportunity to do so and in fact even complained to the moderators in a bid to have me banned. Instead of replying to my thread, and you know, debating...you instead created this one in a bid to push my questions out of sight and then didn't even debate my points, but "rebutted" other points instead.

I challenge you to debate the Stripling evidence. We can both pose "X" amount of questions to one another and whoever can decide what the evidence supports and what it does not.

Do you understand that? Is that incomprehensible? Too abstruse for you?

Should I use crayons?

:idea :sunMaybe you would understand me better this way.🤷‍♂️ 🤞

:secretCan you hear me now? 📞⁉️

I challenge :box you to debate :rant the Stripling evidence. Or is my toddler 🍼 argument too much for your Mike Tyson 💪 evidence and you'd hate to chew my ear off :help in front of all these people? :rip

🙈 Never fear, I have my emotional support cat near.🐱 No matter the outcome :tomatoes I'll be able to accept the impartial results. :news


A debate is not so much about errors, but rather the development of an argument.  I am sorry, but your writing is not persuasive, and it is shot through with a transparent bias.  Amazingly, after all of your abstruse writing, you appear unable to put any of the issues on the table. 

I don't really recall talking even briefly about so called errors. I figure though, since my arguments are so easily shot down, you'd just do that. Instead you make a "rebuttal" thread, and half of the rebuttal points aren't even things I discussed, or were rebuttals to things the "Harvey & Lee" witnesses said. With that in mind, I'm not sure what the rebuttal was to here.


Your writing is also filled with wild speculation that is neither supported by the evidence nor by sound reasoning.  Another user on this site referred to your reasoning as comparable to “The Twilight Zone.”  While I might not select that metaphor, it does seem like a number of your sentences carry a meaning that only you understand.

If not too much of an inconvenience, could you cite that speculation made by me? The majority of my writing was simply pointing out how the statements made by the witnesses did not fit the "Harvey & Lee" tale/timeline/facts. I'm sure I had to offer some sort of speculation, I hardly believe it "filled" my writing. So...if possible kind Dr., citation for that please.


If you are hearing from multiple forum participants that your writing is not persuasive and you are willing to accept honest feedback, then you should take what we are saying to heart.

I haven't though, in spite of my numerous offers. The only person is you, and since you have no bias I have taken it to heart, but I also do need some corroboration for further rumination. Maybe you have received that criticism on my behalfMaybe people are reaching out to you and saying "yeah that Mark is sure abstruse, you got him there." Maybe it's so much so that your inbox overflows.

In any event, send that my way. I'm literally all about trying to improve myself, my writing would be no different. Bring the critics, I need to know how to improve.

With all that in mind...

I challenge you to debate the Stripling evidence. We can both pose X amount of questions to one another and whoever can decide what the evidence supports and what it does not.

Don't fear my argument being too weak, all the easier to tear down and be rid of.

I'd hope for at least 5 questions each, but less than 20. I'm even up for allowing others to select the questions which we both answer or things like that. I'm all for fairness and truth and I want the real story to rise to the top, whatever that story might be. Don't get me wrong, I do have my opinion of the validity of the story. I do nonetheless have an open mind, and especially now that I hear Armstrong has other evidence related to the witnesses and their statements...!?!? Yeah, let's get some evidence on the table, lets open up that box and see what's in it. I'm up for the challenge, in spite of what I'm being told is a pretty weak argument, what say you?

I challenge you to debate the Stripling evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Ruth Pain knew that HARVEY was an imposter? Oh, I can't believe that. Unless a mistake was made and somehow she figured it out. The whole H&L operation would have been highly compartmented and each intelligence operative given just enough information to do their jobs. There was no reason for Ruth Paint to know about the Oswald Project. At least none that I can think of.

James, can you tell me where I can get more information on this topic?



Clifton Shasteen's testimony raises the possibility that both Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine were acquainted with a second "Oswald." 

According to Shasteen, the "Oswald" he knew regularly DROVE to Shasteen's barber shop in a 1955 green and white Chevy station wagon (undoubtedly this one linked below),, yet Marina insisted that her husband NEVER drove anywhere except when practicing with Ruth Paine. 


This LHO was accompanied on at least two occasions by a 14-year old boy, but no such boy was ever in the company of our "Oswald" in Dallas, let alone identified and questioned. 



Gertrude Hunter and Edith Whitworth were adamant (they never backed down) that Marina and two children had been to their Furniture Mart in Irving in the company of a man in the first week of November of 1963.This man drove the family there in a two-toned Ford.  Gertrude Hunter provided details about seeing Marina around town a number of times before the visit to the Furniture Mart - she even correctly described the rose jacket Marina wore one time!

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you saw Mrs. Oswald, or who you think was Mrs. Oswald, in ,the Station there that day before you saw her in the Furniture Mart; is that right?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, when you saw her in the Furniture Mart, did you recognize her?
Mrs. HUNTER. No; it didn't dawn on me I didn't think a thing in the world about it.
Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me, do you remember how I was dressed and was I pregnant at that time?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
*Mrs. OSWALD. And what did I have on?
Mrs. HUNTER. All I know is you had on a jacket.
*Mrs. OSWALD. What color?
Mrs. HUNTER. It was pretty chilly--it was a rose or more of a--it wasn't red.
Mrs. OSWALD. Was it blue?
Mrs. HUNTER. It was more of a rose.
*Mrs. OSWALD. I had a rose short one
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you testified before you had seen Mrs. Oswald several times.
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; but I didn't know who she was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about the other times you saw her.
Mrs. HUNTER. I have seen her in Minyards Grocery Store.
Mr. LIEBELER. What is that?
Mr. McKENZIE. [Spelling] M-i-n-y-a-r-d-s.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where is that?
Mrs. HUNTER. On Irving Boulevard.
*Mrs. OSWALD. Grocery store?
Mrs. HUNTER. And this drive-in grocery that I was talking about, if you remember there I think I had seen her there.


 While it may seem that this man must have been our "Oswald" at the Irving Furniture Mart the first week in November, in fact, the Warren Commission simply could not place him there.

Why not?

Because they had irrefutable evidence that our "Oswald" was indeed at work at the TSBD at that very time!

And since they wanted no part of a second LHO, they were forced to conclude, in spite of the convincing testimony, that Whitworth and Hunter were (somehow) wrong. Wesley Liebeler even went so far as to arrange an actual visit to the Furniture Mart. He nearly succeeded in getting Marina to deny ever having been there, until she said added that she didn't know whether she'd been there!

Mr. LIEBELER. You are now standing directly in front of the store at 149 East Irving Boulevard, aren't you?
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you are sure you have never been here before?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have never been here before.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have anything to add, Mr. McKenzie?
*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know if I were inside this store, but I don't recall it now.
Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize this store as a place you have ever been before?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no further questions, and this will adjourn the deposition."

With that, Liebeler (figuratively) threw in the towel. 

To sum up, there are strong hints in the testimony of at least three Irving witnesses that a second LHO was driving around Irving in the company of Marina, and very possibly in Ruth Paine's automobile.

The fact that the Warren Commission and FBI were unable to resolve these contradictions does not inspire confidence in the "official" narrative. 




Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I challenge you to debate the Stripling evidence. We can both pose X amount of questions to one another and whoever can decide what the evidence supports and what it does not.


Here is a summary of our debate activities during the past two weeks:

(1)  You posted a 6,822-word critique of the Stripling evidence entitled "The Stripling Episode - Harvey  & Lee:  A Critical Review"

(2)  I responded with a 2,500-rebuttal entitled "James Norwood’s Point-By-Point Rebuttal of Mark Stevens, 'The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review'"

(3)  You responded with a 4,650-word screed to my rebuttal that appears on this thread. 

(4)  After you solicited "feedback" on your response, I wrote you my honest feedback.

(5)  You wrote a mocking reaction to my feedback above.

Now, you want another chance at a debate, requesting that we start from scratch with a convoluted plan to "pose X amount of questions to one another and whoever can decide what the evidence supports and what it does not."

Please be advised that I will not be wasting any more of my time in debate with you on this subject.  On this forum, I am primarily interested in interacting with individuals on the subject of this thread:  the far-reaching influence of Harvey and Lee.  I am not interested in spending my time with those who wish to create a toxic environment.

You have the totality of my current thinking on the Stripling topic, and you are welcome to respond to any of the eight topics below to your heart's content:

James Norwood’s Point-By-Point Rebuttal of Mark Stevens, “The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review”

(1)  Newspaper Coverage of Stripling:  It is a fact that Stripling Junior High School was identified in newspapers as one of the schools attended by Lee Harvey Oswald.  The critic attempts to discount this evidence and faults the reporters for not interviewing teachers and students to verify that Oswald actually attended classes at Stripling.  But when Stripling was first mentioned in the papers in 1959, the focus was on a United States Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union.  The reporters had no obligation to visit the schools to confirm Oswald’s status as a student.  The schools he attended were facts surrounding the greater story of a local boy turned traitor.  In his section on Frank Kudlaty, the critic returns to the newspaper evidence to speculate that “another possibility is that the local FBI was aware of newspaper articles referencing a Marine defector from Fort Worth who attended Stripling” and the article prompted the FBI to pay a visit to Stripling Junior High School to confiscate the school records.  In other words, the newspaper evidence was credible enough for the FBI to lead them to Stripling, but not good enough for the critic to take seriously today. The critic has failed to offer any proof that the newspaper reporting about Stripling was erroneous.    

(2)  Robert Oswald:  Robert Oswald has been a notoriously unreliable eyewitness to history, as apparent in his pseudo biography Lee—A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother Robert Oswald (1967).  To both newspaper reporters and in his Warren Commission testimony, Robert mentions Stripling as a school attended by his younger brother.  But in his book Lee, Robert studiously avoids mentioning Stripling, while identifying the names of other schools that his brother attended:  Benbrook Elementary School, Ridglea West School, Junior High School No. 117 in the Bronx, Beauregard Junior High School, and Warren Easton High School in New Orleans.  With no reference to Stripling, Robert moves on to Lee Harvey’s enlistment in the Marines on October 24, 1956.  Robert’s pre-assassination statement that his younger brother attended Stripling, as well as his Warren Commission testimony sworn under oath, must be factored in to the complete body of Stripling evidence.  The critic has failed to offer a plausible explanation for why Robert would identify Stripling on multiple occasions to the press and to the Warren Commission, then omit it in his book.     

(3)  Videotaped Interview with Frank Kudlaty:   Stripling Vice-Principal Kudlaty, a man of unimpeachable character, describes in the video interview the transaction he made with FBI agents when he surrendered the file on the student Lee Harvey Oswald that had been maintained in the school’s administrative office.  The critic works up a tortured argument in the attempt to downplay the FBI’s visit to Stripling by suggesting that “on the morning after the assassination the FBI sent agents to all local schools in areas Oswald lived.”  This astonishing statement begs the question of why, one day following the assassination of an American president, the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency would be expending this much effort to track down school records of the alleged assassin.  Much time is spent by the critic in pure speculation on what might have been included in Oswald’s academic file, when Kudlaty admitted that he only had time to glance at the file before the agents arrived to collect it.  It is obvious that the crucial information that the FBI wanted expunged from the documentary record was that Oswald had been enrolled in a public school in Fort Worth during the academic year 1954-55.  Otherwise, why were the contents of the file never disclosed to the Warren Commission, and why did the file vanish from the historical record?  It is unfortunate that in his zeal to undermine the testimony of Kudlaty, the critic is missing a golden opportunity to understand a key point about the JFK assassination, which is how the FBI was rewriting history in the days and weeks following the event.  One salient point emerges from the testimony of Frank Kudlaty:  he was called in to work on a Saturday morning to hand over to FBI agents the school records related to Lee Harvey Oswald, and the eyewitness has consistently maintained the same account over the years.  The critic is unable to undermine that unassailable fact.         

Note:  It takes a careful reading of the first 120 pages of Harvey and Lee to understand that, for years, Oswald was being intentionally moved around from school to school in order to create confusion and to avoid the exposure of two boys using the same name and attending different schools concurrently.  During the period of 1954-56, there were three consecutive instances in which Oswald enrolled in a school, then suddenly dropped out.  The goal of the constant moves was to keep the two boys separate and buy time until they reached the age when they could permanently drop out of school and enlist in the Marines.

(4)  Videotaped Interview with Fran Schubert:  The critic attempts to undermine Fran Schubert’s description of Oswald as both “cocky” and “nondescript” from her experience of him as a fellow student at Stripling.  Yet this paradoxical thinking is perfectly in keeping with the fragmentary impressions she would have retained of a student whom she had only passed in the halls and noticed occasionally on the playground.  She confidently recalls the academic year 1954-55 as the time when she witnessed Oswald attending the school.  She certainly may be forgiven for uncertainty about identifying the season in a state that does not have clearly defined winters, but she does note the time she remembers Oswald occurred in one of the colder months.  In a more detailed conversation with John Armstrong than the short video interview, Schubert recalled seeing Oswald cross the street to go home for lunch:  “The one thing I remember clearly was him walking home for lunch….it made me mad that he could go home for lunch and I couldn’t.”  Living across the street from the school, young Oswald clearly had a perk that made the memory of him leaving the campus at lunchtime stand out in Schubert’s mind.  The three main points recalled by Schubert are (a) Oswald was a fellow student at Stripling whom Schubert passed in the halls and saw on the playground; (b) the timeframe that Oswald attended Stripling was clearly identified as 1954-55 at a time when Schubert was in the eighth grade; and (c) Oswald would leave the school grounds at lunchtime to walk across the street to his home at 2220 Thomas Place.  The critic fails to offer a persuasive rationale for why Schubert’s recall would be inaccurate on these three points.

Note:  The sources for the following eyewitness testimony of Doug Gann, Bobby Pitts, and Mark Summers are from interviews personally conducted by John Armstrong in the 1990s.  Citations from the interviews appear in the book Harvey and Lee and are carefully documented in endnotes.  Armstrong’s work product in conducting the interviews is documented in the massive Baylor University archive.  Armstrong tape recorded all of the interviews and still retains the complete audio recordings of these interviews.

(5)  Doug Gann:  Gann’s testimony complements that of Fran Schubert, and he recalls actually attending classes with Oswald at Stripling, possibly in the same home room.  He also recalls shooting baskets on the courts after school.  Like Schubert, he also recalls Oswald living across the street from the school.  Inexplicably, the critic dismisses the entirety of Gann’s testimony with the blanket statement, “there does not appear to be any record of Gann’s statements.”  The record is the interview he gave to John Armstrong!  The critic then writes this extraordinary statement: “For me to state with good conscience that Gann saw Oswald, I would have to know how he made the distinction and identified the person as Oswald.”  Here, the critic appears one step removed from stating that all eyewitness testimony is existentially invalid.  If Gann took classes with Oswald and played basketball with him, it naturally follows that he knew the boy’s name and “identified the person as Oswald”!  The fact remains that Doug Gann’s recall is precisely what one would expect from a short-lived acquaintance with a schoolmate with whom he shared classes and shot baskets.  The critic has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for why Gann is not a bona fide eyewitness.

(6)  Bobby Pitts:  Bobby Pitts’ testimony is important for two reasons:  (a) he explicitly recalled Oswald living at 2220 Thomas Place and (2) he recalled the time frame as the academic year 1954-55.  The critic challenges the veracity of Pitts’ testimony, arguing that because Pitts was not a student at Stripling at the time, “how did he know this was Oswald?”  The answer is simple:  Pitts resided next door to Oswald at 2224 Thomas Place.  From his perspective as a neighbor, Pitts observed Oswald sanding on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place watching the group playing touch football.  The critic continues to grasp for ways to undercut the testimony when he writes that “any person who resided in the rear apartment would not ‘hang out’ on the front porch of the apartment, which would be part of the front apartment.”  But the critic has no knowledge of the layout of the duplex and whether or not the front porch may have been shared communally by the two tenants.  Fran Schubert recalls the porch at 2220 Thomas Place as “large.”  It could have just as easily been a place where both residents could “hang out.”  The researcher should not be under the obligation to verify the use of a front porch by the tenants of that building; rather, he is only reporting what Pitts conveyed to him in the interview.  Pitts’ testimony corroborates that of both Fran Schubert and Doug Gann with the clear and distinct recall of Oswald residing at 2220 Thomas Place.  At the time, Pitts was not a student at Stripling, so he could not verify that Oswald was attending school there.  But Schubert, Gann, and Kudlaty are eyewitnesses that do recall Oswald as a Stripling student.  The critic has failed to demonstrate any flaws in Pitts’ basic recall of his experience.

(7)  Mark Summers:  Summers was a gym instructor, math teacher, and war hero who began teaching at Stripling in September, 1950.  He recalled that Oswald was a student in his class in the seventh grade.  But, as the critic points out, this has to be inaccurate because Oswald would have been in the ninth grade in the academic year 1954.  The critic has located an anomaly in Summers’ testimony, as apparent in John Armstrong’s typewritten notes on the Baylor site, which suggest that Summers also recalled teaching Robert Oswald for two years.  On the face of it, this is impossible because Robert only attended Stripling for a single academic year (1948-49), which was one year before Summers began teaching there.  In his written notes taken during the phone interview with Summers and prior to typing up the notes, the single point written by Armstrong was that Summers began teaching at Stripling in September, 1950 and that LHO was student in his seventh-grade class.  The following is a screenshot of Armstrong’s written notes from the Baylor archive:




I contacted John Armstrong for clarification, and he plans to review his written notes and the audio recording of the complete interview with Summers.  In the interim, I made an attempt to contact Mark Summers myself to learn his story first-hand.  I was able to reach a relative, who informed me that Summers had passed away in 1998.  In his book Harvey and Lee, Armstrong devotes only three sentences to the testimony of Summers.  Based on anomalies in the evidence and the passing of Mark Summers, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about whether Oswald was a student in one of Summers’ classes at Stripling.    

(8)  Ricardo Galindo:  In 1993, Armstrong was in touch with the principal of Stripling at the time, Ricardo Galindo, who indicated that it was “common knowledge” that Oswald had attended Stripling.  By “common knowledge,” Galindo presumably means “word of mouth.”  Because Galindo was not the principal at the time the school records were rounded up by the FBI, his testimony carries substantially less weight than that of Frank Kudlaty, who physically handled the records and recalls surrendering them to the FBI agents.  It is not clear why Galindo’s testimony appears to be the capstone piece of the critic’s argument, when it is clearly a much smaller evidentiary piece of the puzzle than that of the eyewitnesses who knew Oswald first hand and recalled specific details about him.


An objective critic should approach the Stripling evidence impartially, but the bias of Mark Stevens is apparent throughout his review of the evidence.  Stevens uses the same approach to undermining the testimony of the Stripling eyewitnesses that has been used for decades by Warren Commission apologists to discredit “inconvenient” witnesses in Dealey Plaza who heard gunshots fired from behind the picket fence or to impugn the integrity of the medical staff at Parkland who almost universally recalled that President Kennedy had received bullet wounds from shots fired from in front of the limousine.  Stevens offers a valid critique of the anomalies in the interview of Mark Summers.  After I followed up with an interview of a relative and learned that Summers is deceased, I am unable to conclude decisively whether Oswald was a student in Summers’ class at Stripling.  But, for all of the other eyewitness testimony, the evidentiary record is compelling precisely because it is what one would expect about a student who had spent only a couple of months at the school, prior to dropping out.  The recall of shooting baskets, seeing Oswald sitting on a porch, passing him in the halls of the school, or watching him walk across the street to his home at lunchtime, are all examples of the precise kind of memories students would retain about a kid who had spent only a brief time at the school.


The most compelling Stripling evidence is (a) the testimony of the school administrator Frank Kudlaty who recalled surrendering the school records to the FBI and (b) that of a student, Fran Schubert, who recalled Oswald attending the school in 1954-55 and living across the street.  In turn, the eyewitness testimony of Doug Gann and Bobby Pitts supports the videotaped interview of Fran Schubert.  Taken together, the eyewitnesses corroborate one another in a way that allows the evidence to coalesce around three main points:  (a) Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School for a brief period; (b) the timeframe was the academic year 1954-55; and (c) he resided across the street from the school at 2220 Thomas Place.  Newspaper coverage identifying Oswald as a Stripling student and the recall of Stripling by Robert Oswald in both newspapers and his Warren Commission testimony add more weight to a critical mass of evidence placing Lee Harvey Oswald in Forth Worth as a student at Stripling Junior High School for a brief period in 1954-55.  

Edited by James Norwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

To sum up, there are strong hints in the testimony of at least three Irving witnesses that a second LHO was driving around Irving in the company of Marina, and very possibly in Ruth Paine's automobile.


Thank you for the incisive wrap-up of the evidence related to Lee Oswald, who likely comes in close proximity to Ruth Paine on multiple occasions. 

In my reading of Laura Kittrell's manuscript, there is the indication that either Ruth Paine or a Ruth Paine lookalike accompanied the second Oswald (Lee) to the office visit at the Dallas employment bureau.

Thanks again,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2020 at 5:26 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Now, let's take a look at some more of the evidence that one of the two Lee Harvey Oswalds attended Stripling School during the fall semester of 1954.  The H&L critics are always begging me to repost this, and let's consider the newspaper and media evidence.

First, of course, is the prerequisite proof that the two LHOs attended two different schools just ONE YEAR before the Stripling School attendance.

Because both the FBI and the Warren Commission missed this detail and neglected to cover it up, school records published in the Warren volumes show that both LHOs attended a full fall 1953 school semester in New York City and New Orleans simultaneously.

In the fall semester of 1953, one LHO attended Public School 44 in the Bronx borough of New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.


Also in the fall semester of 1953, the other LHO was present at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 school days.



Take a closer look guys.

Here's a blow up of both of the above transcripts that purportedly help to 'PROVE' the beginnings of a multi year sinister plan by the CIA (I suppose) to create a double (or twin) for a future operative to carry out an assassination of a future U.S. president, who by the Fall of '53 hadn't even been a U.S. senator for a year . . . the first is the PS 44 school in New York City, the second is the Beauregard Junior H.S. in New Orleans . . . 



Lee might have had some troubling psychological issues, but he could decipher things well, far better than is evidenced on these boards.  Who ever comes up with a lot of this stuff should be putting their creativity into turning out some good spy thrillers, but ones that are a bit more believable.  

Edited by Aldin Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Lee,

The 1/13/54 “Originally Admitted” date obviously has nothing to do with the clear record that one LHO attended the entire fall 1953 semester Beauregard while the other was in NYC.  The January 54 date probably marks the time when one LHO became a full time student at Beauregard and was assigned a home room for the first time.

The LHO who attended the entire 1953 fall semester at Beauregard was clearly a part-time student, taking just a couple of courses.  Why?  Because his pattern of school truancy in New York City had landed him in the clutches of the NYC court system, threatening to expose the entire Oswald project.  While one LHO continued to live in NYC, the other with his caretaker mother fled to rural North Dakota for the summer, and then was placed in just a couple of classes at Beauregard to get him accustomed to attending school.

I’m re-posting below the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it.  Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.



Page 10 of the FBI report above summarizes LHO attendance at Beauregard.  “REPORT 1” covers the fall 1953 semester, “REPORT 2” covers the spring semester, and “REPORT 3” summarizes the two semesters.

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year. Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe that every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year!  It is obvious that one LHO was a part-time student for this fall 1953 semester at Beauregard.  I believe this was carefully planned to gradually re-introduce him to New Orleans and its public school system.  NYC obviously had been a real problem.  His truancy from school and his entanglement in NYC courts threatened to expose the Oswald project, which obviously had nothing to do with JFK.  The real purpose was to take a youth, reasonably fluent in the Russian language, give him an American ID, and eventually send him as a U.S. spy in the Soviet Union who secretly understood Russian.

Link to comment
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...