Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Or maybe we should agree to go back to the Stripling thread and conclude unfinished business.

I didn't see any unfinished business.

We were discussing the Stripling School evidence in a thread I had started.  Mark Edwards decided to start his own new thread when he wrote a post attempting to discredit the Stripling evidence I had presented.  When Dr. Norwood wrote a detailed rebuttal to Mr. Edwards’ critique, I suggested he (Dr. Norwood) create a new thread, this one, just as Mr. Edwards had created a new thread for his critique.

I doubt your side will go for this, but if you’re willing to continue the Stripling School debate in this thread, which begins with clear examples of the influence of John Armstrong’s research, that’s fine with me.  Here, again, is the Stripling School evidence JA and I have compiled.

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.

NYC%20school%20record.jpg

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

Beauregard%20Record.jpg

One year later, one LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans while the other was indeed enrolled in Stripling School in Fort Worth.

It was, and still is, common knowledge among local Stripling School district residents and current and former students and teachers that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School in the 1950s.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram confirmed this simple fact in an article published in 2017 and updated in 2019.

  Quote

Students_&_Teachers.jpg

Once again, 

This 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

This 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

Published two days after the assassination of JFK, this Fort Worth Star-Telegram article reported: “He attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School before joining the Marines.”

In his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Robert Oswald said that LHO attended Stripling School.

This May 11, 2002 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicated that “a boy walked to Stripling from a home nearby.  His mother was living in a home behind the school on Thomas Place by 1963, when the world learned the name Lee Harvey Oswald.”

And then, of course, there is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 mentioned above.

Way back on December 27, 1993, John Armstrong wrote to Ricardo Galindo, the then current principal of Stripling School, asking if there were any records for Lee Harvey Oswald's attendance the school.  Mr. Galindo telephoned John back and said that, although there were no records, it was “common knowledge” that LHO had attended the school. [Harvey and Lee, p. 97]

In this 1997 interview, Stripling Student Fran Schubert watched LHO walk from the school to his house at 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from the school.

And, of course, in a 1997 interview, the assistant principal of Stripling School described how he met two FBI agents at Stripling less than 24 hours after the assassination and gave them the records for LHO.  H&L critics can only say that Frank Kudlaty, who went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, was mistaken (about his entire story of meeting FBI agents hours after the assassination???) or lying.

=====================

The assertion that the Fort Worth newspaper was just repeating information Robert Oswald had given them years before the assassination is easily dismissed.  

The earliest Fort Worth Star-Telegram (FWST) articles indicate Robert said that LHO attended Stripling a year or so before joining the Marines (marking the 1954-55 school year most likely), which is what actually happened.  

Two days after the assassination, a third FWST article merely stated LHO attended Stripling but didn’t say when.  During Robert Oswald’s 1964 WC testimony, he swore that LHO DID attend Stripling, but gave incorrect dates.  

The 2002 FWST article said, “Yet a 1956 student would become the school’s best-known.  For a few weeks—his mother moved several times across Fort Worth—a boy walked to Stripling from a home nearby.  His mother was living in a home behind the school on Thomas Place by 1963, when the world learned the name Lee Harvey Oswald.”

The 2017 FWST article merely says, without giving a date, “Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.”  

These articles clearly have different sources because they provide different details and, in at least one case, disagree on the year LHO attended Stripling, though all clearly agree that he did attend that school.

Despite the five newspaper articles, and Robert Oswald’s sworn testimony confirming LHO’s Stripling attendance, and Marguerite’s newspaper interview indirectly confirming it, and filmed interviews with a 1954 Stripling classmate and the Stripling assistant principal in 1963 who gave LHO’s records to the FBI, the H&L critics simply cannot accept any of this.

Why?  Because they know if LHO attended Stripling even briefly in 1954, there were two LHOs, and, above all else, they cannot accept this.  That leads directly to the U.S. Intel project the Russian-speaking LHO was trained for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Robert

I've always respected your posts (and views).  So, I am surprised at your animosity and verbal gymnastics.  I do not not appreciate your fancy and sarcastic soliloquy, now aimed at me.  You seem a little too cute with your words and arguments ... so please save the thinly-veiled sarcasm for someone else.  Speculating on my "skin in the game" is none of your business.  As far as use of the word “valet”, you should should show Jim DiEugenio more respect (as he deserves such).  You are backing away from what I consider boorish comments; using the phrase "converts to the cause" is condescending.  This is supposed to be an "education" forum ... not a podium for your admonishments. 

Gene Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

As far as use of the word “valet”, you should should show Jim DiEugenio more respect (as he deserves such). 

 

Gene:

Couldn't agree more.  Since I never said that.

I suspect you intended to mention Jim Hargrove, rather than Jim DiEugenio.

So damn hard to keep all these doppelgangers straight.

Your continued indignation over my continuing offensiveness is noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peace, Robert ... you're one of the most respected posters on the EF.   So, I would hope that I'm simply over-reacting.  If the 'Jim' you referred to was Hargrove, then that's my mistake.  But he too deserves some respect (disagreement notwithstanding).  I'm not sure that I would go so far as to characterize Mr. Hargrove's views/posts  as "disinformation", but that's your prerogative to maintain.  And for the record - its not indignation - I'm just surprised (and mildly disappointed) at the vitriol, coming from (of all people) you.  I've always been impressed by your command of the storyline, and how you express your views,.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Peace, Robert ... you're one of the most respected posters on the EF.   So, I would hope that I'm simply over-reacting.  If the 'Jim' you referred to was Hargrove, then that's my mistake.  But he too deserves some respect (disagreement notwithstanding).  I'm not sure that I would go so far as to characterize Mr. Hargrove's views/posts  as "disinformation", but that's your prerogative to maintain.  And for the record - its not indignation - I'm just surprised (and mildly disappointed) at the vitriol, coming from (of all people) you.  I've always been impressed by your command of the storyline, and how you express your views,.   

 

Gene,

I think you got it right in you previous post and are being too kind to Robert in this one.

Also, when you say, "I'm not sure that I would go so far as to characterize Mr. Hargrove's views/posts  as 'disinformation'.... ," it implies that you might do so. You might want to rethink that given that the definition of disinformation is "false information which is intended to mislead." Do you really think that Jim H. might be trying to mislead people? No, I didn't think so. Even Robert doesn't think so. But he'll say it anyway because his hostility leads him to be obnoxious and to say dumb things.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

The assertion that the Fort Worth newspaper was just repeating information Robert Oswald had given them years before the assassination is easily dismissed.

And then he fails to dismiss it.

James Norwood does the same thing in his original post in this thread:

Quote

(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. ... The critic has failed to offer any proof that the newspaper reporting about Stripling was erroneous.

In other words, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram relied only on Robert Oswald's mistaken assumption about something of which he had no first-hand knowledge, just as Mark Stevens claimed.

The first post in the following thread is where Mark Stevens (not his doppelganger, Mark Edwards) made a good case that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram simply repeated Robert Oswald's mistaken assumption:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Mark made several points:

(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.

Neither Jim Hargrove nor James Norwood has dealt with the points Mark made. If they want to do so, they should head over to this thread, which was set up specifically to deal with the topic:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Alternatively, I suppose they could try to get him banned. That's probably their best bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne writes:

Quote

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?

Alex Wilson has commented elsewhere (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2228-doc-norwood#34074) that James Norwood used to be chairman of an organisation that's dedicated to the notion that the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake. Now Robert alludes to the same thing. Is it true?

In the interests of psychiatric research, I've checked out the website of this 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' (and had a good antiseptic rinse-down afterwards). They do indeed think that Altgens 6 was faked. And not just given a small tweak here and there, but practically rebuilt from the ground up. It was quite an achievement by whoever did it, considering that the photograph was sent out to newspapers all over the world only half an hour after the assassination.

Apparently, the purpose of faking the Altgens 6 photograph was to disguise the fact that it originally showed Oswald standing on the steps, where we now see Billy Lovelady. The figure of Lovelady, whose physical similarity to Oswald generated widespread suspicion that Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor during the shooting, is actually a fake; it was pasted over the figure of Oswald.

You see, to prevent people thinking that Oswald was on the steps, the bad guys chose to use the image of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it led people to think that Oswald was standing on the steps.

Oh, and the bad guys altered most of the other figures in the photograph too, and altered other films, and inserted figures taken from photographs that weren't processed until long after Altgens 6 had been sent all over the world. Quite an achievement!

As with the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, you wonder at first if it's all a joke. Then you start to worry that there may be people at large who actually believe this stuff.

Here's an excerpt from the insanity I found at http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html:

Quote

all of the anomalies center around the figure whom we refer to as Doorway Man or Doorman. That area ... is where you will find a gathering of motley figures whom Ralph refers to, affectionately, as "The Addams Family."

(1) Black Hole Man ... We assert that his face was blackened out deliberately to hide his identity. Was he the real Billy Lovelady? Yes, he was.

(2) Obfuscated Man ... we say he has been obfuscated or practically removed from the picture. And keep something very important in mind: many of these crops got enhanced behind the scenes. ... It looks like somebody put a dab of Wite-out there, doesn't it?- and that is essentially how they did it using a product called Kodak Opaque. ... you need to know that that is not a legitimate image. It is a photoshopped image. ... It just looks like a totally amorphous white blotch. Somebody put a dab of the photographic equivalent of Wite-out there. Then later, it was converted into an elbow. But that is NOT an elbow.

You might think that's not too bad, really. But there's more:

Quote

(3) Big Afro Hair Woman, with the radiant smile, was actually standing on Elm Street, which was rather far away from the TSBD steps. ... Look how big her hair is! It's 4x bigger than that of the other African-American women near her. They gave her that large hair in order to hide what they didn't want you to see.

(4) Black Tie Man is the man standing next to Doorman on his left, which is to our right as we view the image. However, he is an impossible figure. He is seemingly standing behind Doorman, but he is also overlapping him, which is physically and anatomically impossible. Doorman's left shoulder is missing, when it should be visible. ... we show where his left shoulder should be and undoubtedly was - before the picture was tampered with.

Notice also how distorted Doorman's left ear is ... That ear got deformed by the placement of Black Tie Man into the picture. There is no other reason why it looks so bad. ... It is obviously distortion, and that distortion came from the conspirators placing Black Tie Man in there. Photographic alteration is not an exact science, and tell-tale signs are often left behind. ... We suspect that they moved the image of Black Tie Man where it is to hide the unique form of Oswald’s shirt on his left side ... How many men’s shirts come with a button loop? Do you think Lovelady's shirt was fashioned that way? They had to cover that up, which seems to be why Black Tie Man was put there.

And more:

Quote

(5) Doorman, himself, must be considered an anomaly because of what is going on with Black Tie Man ... the modifications to Doorman's face and hairline to "Lovelady-ify" him, as best they could, must be considered an anomaly. ... Essentially, Doorman is Oswald from the eyes down, and he is Lovelady from above the eyes to the top. ...If it was done at all--and it was--it had to be to get Oswald out and Lovelady in. ... Doorman was like a centaur, except that instead of being half man/half horse, he was half Oswald/half Lovelady--and except that instead of being half and half, he was more like 90% Oswald and 10% Lovelady.

6) Fedora Hat Man and the Woman and Boy ... Another sign that the Woman and Boy were not really there is the distortion of the nose of the black woman who is in front of and below them. She has got a nose like Pinocchio, and that isn't typical of anyone, and certainly not someone of African ancestry. That distortion of her nose was due to the placement of the Woman and Boy into the picture.

After installing the Woman and Boy in the Altgens photo, they decided to install a Woman and Baby in the Towner film to confirm the former. Why they thought a Woman and Baby could pass for a Woman and Boy I do not know. But, here is how it came out. This was not a photograph of real people. It is pure techno-art.

The craziness goes on:

Quote

(7) Finally, we are uncomfortable about the Black Man in Profile, who is right in front of and below Doorman ... But, why does Doorman's sleeve seem to be in front of Black Man and dividing his head from his torso? It doesn't make sense, and there is no way to explain it. We think it was fabricated. We suspect that Black Man was pieced in, above and below Doorman's cuff. ... So, the image of Carl Jones was pieced in, and we believe we have found the source. There is some post-assassination footage of him by Phil Willis in which Carl Jones is walking down the steps of the TSBD, on the east side of the median handrail, and he has his head turned exactly as it is in the Altgens photo. We think that is where they got the image of Carl Jones to place into the Altgens photo.

Notice that Doorman1 on the left looks slender while Doorman2 on the right looks stocky. ... They are definitely not the same man ... The image of Doorman2 was added to the film. He isn't real. The fact that he doesn't match Doorman1 tells you that he isn't real. Also, the fact that he is standing there looking straight ahead, stiff as a board, stiff as a Cigar Store Indian, and detached from the pathos of the scene tells you that he isn't real.

And on:

Quote

But, the second Wiegman Doorman was someone else, definitely not Oswald, not Lovelady, and not the Altgens Doorman. ... We believe that 2nd Wiegman Doorman, who is supposed to be Lovelady, was inserted there to hide the fact that Oswald had already left. He had begun his trek to the lunch room. The image of 2nd Wiegman Doorman is a photographic fakery. ... the first Wiegman Doorman nd [sic] the second one. They are two different guys. The first one, who is higher up, was Oswald and the second was who knows who. They stuck him in there because Oswald left.

Returning to the Black Man in Altgens, Carl Jones, why is he turned the direction that he is? ... It's just more photographic fakery. ... Was his image implanted in the Altgens photo? Yes! ... As to why they implanted him, it may have been to hide the tattered appearance of Oswald's shirt

It concludes:

Quote

We realize that is a lot of manipulating for one photograph. They must have had a crack team of experts waiting in the wings.

So, did they have time to make the alterations? As Jim Fetzer says, "The fact that the alterations can be seen is proof that they had time to make them."

We know now, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the Doorman was Oswald

I'm not sure about the exact medical definition of insanity, but whoever wrote that stuff must be at least knocking on the door of the asylum.

Is it true that James Norwood actively associated himself with these crackpots? If he did, how much of that paranoid drivel does he still believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy

Thanks for validating my initial post (I didn't think that I had confused the two Jim's). Also, it as not my intent to imply anything about James Hargrove's views/posts.   I used the phrase to emphasize that its one thing to disagree or refute some point, but quite another to characterize it as misinformation.  In other words, it goes too far.  While I might question some aspect of this entire theory, but I would never label it as misinformation.   I visit these threads to learn, and understand ... not to criticize other's views or try to convince them otherwise.  

Gene  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Sandy

Thanks for validating my initial post (I didn't think that I had confused the two Jim's). Also, it as not my intent to imply anything about James Hargrove's views/posts.   I used the phrase to emphasize that its one thing to disagree or refute some point, but quite another to characterize it as misinformation.  In other words, it goes too far.  While I might question some aspect of this entire theory, but I would never label it as misinformation.   I visit these threads to learn, and understand ... not to criticize other's views or try to convince them otherwise.  

Gene  

 

Gene,

When I said, "I think you got it right in you previous post and are being too kind to Robert in this one," I wasn't referring to the alleged DiEugenio/Hargrove mix-up. I was referring to the respective gists and tones of your two posts. You chastised Robert in the first one, as you should have (I mean, since you wanted to) because he behaves so badly in the H&L threads, even when he's addressing you. But you were too kind to him in your later post. (IMO)

As for the alleged DiEugenio/Hargrove mix-up, I believe you got it right in one post, but wrong in a later one. But you see, it doesn't matter... everybody knew who you were talking about... we all make little slips like that on occasion. But Robert likes to point out innocent mistakes of his opponent (which you were at the time). It gives him ammunition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

James Norwood used to be chairman of an organisation that's dedicated to the notion that the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake. Now Robert alludes to the same thing. Is it true?

In the interests of psychiatric research, I've checked out the website of this 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' (and had a good antiseptic rinse-down afterwards). They do indeed think that Altgens 6 was faked. And not just given a small tweak here and there, but practically rebuilt from the ground up. It was quite an achievement by whoever did it, considering that the photograph was sent out to newspapers all over the world only half an hour after the assassination.

 

So James used to rub elbows with members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign? People like Jim Marrs, Mark Lane, Gerald McKnight, Vincent Salandria, and Peter Janney. Well good for him.

But what does that have to do with the Harvey & Lee evidence?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarity Sandy.  I am still a bit confused (Stripling is perhaps easier to understand) but I originally thought that RCD was criticizing Jim Di Eugenio ... but if it was Jim Hargrove, the same sentiment applies.  I can't find the original RCD post now, but I should've paid closer attention to Jim D.'s example when he stated that he would only make one post, and then leave.   I must say that a number of very respectable researchers have weighed-in on this thread, so I was drawn to it.  But when it becomes polarized, and the argumentum ad hominem  begins, I suspect another agenda is at play.  The work of Armstrong - and Jim Hargrove's representation - must somehow threaten someone (or something) for it to become so personal.  Such staunch opposition ironically has the opposite effect on me ... it sends a message that there's substance to the H&L anomalies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

James Norwood used to be chairman of an organisation that's dedicated to the notion that the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake. Now Robert alludes to the same thing. Is it true?

In the interests of psychiatric research, I've checked out the website of this 'Oswald Innocence Campaign' (and had a good antiseptic rinse-down afterwards). They do indeed think that Altgens 6 was faked. And not just given a small tweak here and there, but practically rebuilt from the ground up. It was quite an achievement by whoever did it, considering that the photograph was sent out to newspapers all over the world only half an hour after the assassination.

IMO, that's not quite true.  It was sent in an hour to the AP, but not to newspapers all over the world.  It's first showing was with Walter Cronkite.  They had several hours afterwards to realize there were problems and remake the photo.  It didn't go on the air until about 5:35 CST with Uncle Walter.  That's time to make a fraud and re-wire it to the AP or whoever several times over.

This is what I recall.  My memory is not as good as once past.  If I am wrong on this, please correct.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, John Butler said:

IMO, that's not quite true.  It was sent in an hour to the AP, but not to newspapers all over the world.  It's first showing was with Walter Cronkite.  They had several hours afterwards to realize there were problems and remake the photo.  It didn't go on the air until about 5:35 CST with Uncle Walter.  That's time to make a fraud and re-wire it to the AP or whoever several times over.

This is what I recall.  My memory is not as good as once past.  If I am wrong on this, please correct.

This would mean that between 12:30 and 5:35, of course the plotters also altered other films and photographs of the TSBD doorway -- which they didn't even yet have in their possession or know existed -- so that they could bring them into alignment with the newly faked Altgens 6. You've got to be kidding, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

'm not sure that I would go so far as to characterize Mr. Hargrove's views/posts  as "disinformation", but that's your prerogative to maintain.

Although Sandy has now deleted it, he posted an agreement that I accused Jim of "disinformation" too.  And then a bunch of unsupported ad homs, because courage!  And yet he must either have realized he was wrong to cite disinformation, or thought his ad homs unworthy of him, and deleted it.  Because courage!

On 7/27/2020 at 9:37 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I’m old fashioned enough to believe that those who spread misinformation ought to be called out for it when it happens.  So, as time allows and interest sustains, I’ll be doing just that.

Do neither of you read that to which you respond?

Because I'm rather weary of being misquoted, then tarred and feathered for things invented by others.

But that’s ok, because it seems that people are more anxious to attack my posts than to actually read them first.  

You know, DJ’s incontinent use of emoticons and shrill attack, until Sandy informed him that his post was in error.  Whaaaaa?

Why?  Didn’t read the post to which  he was ostensibly replying.  But still had the cheek to comment that trying to teach me anything was like trying to teach a rock to swim.  Even as I was extracting from Team H&L an acknowledgment of their error.  (More on this below.)

You know, Sandy’s accusations that I am dumb, and my stupid comments are unworthy of debate.  

Even as I was demonstrating that an Armstrong assertion was wrong.  If I am so dumb and my posts so stupid, how did I manage the ultra-rare feat of procuring an admission of error from John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove?  

You know, when they were finally shamed into admitting that Weldon Lucas and Harry Wylie couldn’t have both instructed Kudlaty to meet with the FBI.  

You don’t often see them stand down in the face of their own error.  

Which, I stress, was a detail that neither DJ, nor Sandy, nor Doc Newbie, nor Jim H., nor  John Armstrong, nor any other H&L acolyte - the ones who preach endlessly about attention to detail - had noticed.  In decades.  

You’re welcome.

Fact is, the most condescending and arrogant people who inhabit the JFK online forums are not the lone gunman advocates.  Though they’re always in contention for the title.

The most smug, shrill, condescending people I’ve encountered are the ones who propagandize on behalf of a tainted bill of goods.  Why, they’re so clever, and so infallible, they don’t even need to read your posts in order to spit a withering retort in your direction.

Just think what they could accomplish if they paid attention to detail.

Instead we have Jim Hargrove referencing a contretemps he had with someone named Mark Edwards.

Never happened.

Mark Stevens, perchance?

Maybe Jim would remember that name better had he not abandoned the thread in which Mark Stevens filleted the so-called  Stripling witnesses to very little nubs.

First, run away from Mark’s thread - and insist others do likewise - then pretend you don’t remember his name.

Or maybe you actually don’t remember his name.

Kind of like John Armstrong with Weldon Lucas and Harry Wylie.

Heck of a way to run a railroad.

Do continue.

(For the umpteenth times, it seems necessary that I should point out I am not in disagreement with everything in H&L.  Only the parts that aren't true, or even necessary to explain the assassination.)

 

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...