Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy should recall it, because he has contributed to many of those threads. The classic example is probably this one:

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

Mark Stevens destroyed the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school, an essential element of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. By the way, if anyone wants to argue otherwise, please do so on that thread, not this one.

Oh, brother.  Jeremy Bojczuk declares that he can argue about Stripling School in this thread, but no one else can. 

I’ll make this short, but Mr. Bojczuk wants readers to believe that the linked post “destroyed” the enormous amount of EVIDENCE that one of the LHOs attended Stripling School in Texas at the very same time the other LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans.

Here is a quick synopsis of the EVIDENCE that one LHO attended Stripling, EVIDENCE that includes at least six articles from the local newspaper covering Stripling School, filmed EVIDENCE from the assistant principal of Stripling School and a Stripling School student, and more.  Mr. Bojczuk wants readers to believe all this evidence has been “destroyed”:
 

This 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling, but this, allegedly, is wrong.

This 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling, but this, allegedly, is wrong.

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.” But this, allegedly, is wrong.

In his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Robert Oswald said that LHO attended Stripling School, but he, allegedly, was wrong.

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.” This too, allegedly, was wrong.

A recent article from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 also indicates LHO attended Stripling, but this too, allegedly, was wrong.

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].  Mr. Galindo, allegedly was wrong.

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 Stripling School.  She too, allegedly, was wrong.

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.  Jeremy Bojczuk wants you to believe that Frank Kudlaty, who went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, was either mistaken (about his entire story of meeting FBI agents hours after the assassination) or lying.

Mr. Bojczuk wants readers to believe that all this evidence was "destroyed" by the post he linked.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Now, can anyone come up with a plausible reason why those masterminds would have set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when they had a simpler and far more obvious alternative?

As I said earlier, one of the major advantages of doubling political operatives is total DENIABILITY for any and every action taken by either player.  The example I gave is that one LHO couldn't possibly have been at Bolton Ford in New Orleans because he was in Russia at the time. The FBI tried to use this technique to discredit the Bolton Ford employees.

This deniability has been used time and time again in this very case as a way of discrediting  witnesses. 

For another example, Marita Lorenz was threatened with imprisonment because, in her HSCA sworn testimony, she asserted that she met LHO many times involving anti-Castro activities, starting in 1960:

 Mr. Fithian: "Now is it your testimony that the first time you saw Oswald would have been in the camps in the Everglades?"
Marita Lorenz: "The very first time, no. I saw him in the Safehouse and then in the camps."
Mr. Fithian: "And that first meeting at the Safehouse would have been within a year of the Bay of Pigs?"
Marita Lorenz: "I would say 1960."
Mr. Fithian: "It would be some time during 1960?"
Marita Lorenz: "Late 1960."
Mr. Fithian: "All right. Now I want to be sure that I have your dates correct. You said the first meeting of LEE Harvey Oswald, the first time you saw him, was at a Safehouse in Miami in 1960."
Marita Lorenz: "Yes."
Mr. Fithian: "The next time or times that you saw him were during training at a camp in the Everglades, various places in the Everglades, in early 1960, 1961 period?"
Marita Lorenz: "Yes."
Mr. Fithian: "And after that you saw him at the Safehouse the second time?"
Marita Lorenz: "Yes."
Mr. Fithian: "What makes you so sure of the dates. Within a year of the first meeting in the Safehouse and the meeting at the camps in the Everglades, is there anything else you could match that up with?"
Marita Lorenz: "The photographs, the events that took place. the photographs that Alex (Rorke) took. Everywhere we went Alex took pictures."
Mr. Fithian: "This was prior to the Bay of Pigs?"
Marita Lorenz: "Yes, April, 1961, was the Bay of Pigs."
Mr. Fithian: "And you are sure you saw him (Oswald) before April, 1961."
Marita Lorenz: "Yes, because Alex took the pictures."
Mr. Fithian: "And the whole purpose of the training was to somehow participate or help in the Bay of Pigs.
Marita Lorenz: "Yes."
Mr. Fithian: "Did you see Oswald at any time in the intervening two years between early 1961 prior to April of 1961 and the September-October Safehouse meeting in 1963?"
Marita Lorenz: "No, but Frank (Sturgis) kept in touch with me. Alex kept in touch with me."
Mr. Fithian: "Mrs. Lorenz, has your attorney explained what perjury before a congressional committee is all about?"
Marita Lorenz: "That is right, yes."
Mr. Fithian: "In any way do you want to change your testimony on these dates?"
Marita Lorenz: "No, I do not."
Mr. Fithian: "There is adequate documentary evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not indeed return from the Soviet Union until June of 1962.
Marita Lorenz: "I don't know about that."
Mr. Fithian: "Therefore you could not have met him at the Safehouse in 1960, you could not have seen him in the Everglades in 1960 and 1961, and you could not have taken a picture in those areas and could not have a picture for the dates of that time."
Marita Lorenz: "No?"
Mr. Fithian: "It is not possible."
Marita Lorenz: "I don't know about that."
Mr. Fithian: "Now can you explain to the committee why you gave us this false information as far as dates?"
Marita Lorenz: "I did not give you false information."
Mr. Fithian: "Mrs. Lorenz, I went over your testimony very carefully a moment ago and you assured me that you met Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the Bay of Pigs."
Marita Lorenz: "I did."
Mr. Fithian: "On two occasions."
Marita Lorenz: "Yes."
Mr. Fithian: "Lee Harvey Oswald was in Russia during that entire period."
Marita Lorenz: "I do not know that. I did not know that. The Lee Harvey Oswald that I met was the same in that picture, the one in the Safehouse. the same one that Frank knows. I do not know where he was according to your information. I do not know. I never read up on anything about these theories that are coming out about him."
Mr. Fithian: "This is not a matter of theory."
Marita Lorenz: "I know I am telling the truth. If you don't want it, that's too bad, you know. I am here to gain nothing, you know. Nothing. Nothing at all. You are trying a homicide investigation that should be solved, you know. Don't dispute me or put me on trial."
Mr. Fithian: "Only if we can have full and truthful testimony."
Marita Lorenz: "You have got it. You have it from me. I don't know about the other people. I have nothing to lose and nothing to hide-nothing.
Mr. Fithian: "And it is your testimony that you are certain that the person you met at the Safehouse and at the camps of the Everglades is the same person that you met in Dallas."
Marita Lorenz: "Yes, it is."
Mr. Fithian: "Do you have any explanation for how we come up with two Lee Harvey Oswalds during this period?"
Marita Lorenz: "I have no explanation. I know the man I met; he was a creep. I didn't like him. I don't have to be here at all. I have nothing to gain.
Mr. Fithian: "Thank you. That is all."

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Now, can anyone come up with a plausible reason why those masterminds would have set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when they had a simpler and far more obvious alternative?

It's obvious that Mr. Bojczuk doesn't know much about the book he works so hard to discredit.    

As John A. wrote nearly two decades ago in the opening pages of Harvey and Lee (emphasis added):

The use of twins allows an intelligence agency to place "one person" in different
places at the same time. The first twin could be involved in an illegal or clandestine
operation, while the second twin was in a different location with people who could
provide an alibi if necessary. If the first twin was identified by witnesses as having
committed a crime, then he/she could be apprehended by authorities. When questioned by
authorities, the first twin would simply provide the names of witnesses who were with
his twin in a different location when the crime was committed. When authorities
interviewed those witnesses, and verified the story, the first twin would be released. Unless
the authorities knew about the second twin, it would be very difficult to charge the first
twin with a crime. In a professional and carefully planned covert operation no one would
realize what had happened, and both twins would walk away.

A similar operation could involve one of the twins, "C" (criminal), committing
a crime while the second twin, "P" (the Patsy), was in a different location and knew
nothing about what has happening. Twin "C" would commit the crime in the presence
of witnesses, but twin "P" would be identified as the culprit and subsequently arrested.
"P" would adamantly deny any involvement in the crime, but with numerous witnesses
placing him at the scene of the crime his denials would not be believed. If the crime
was serious, and the "Patsy" was killed before he had an opportunity to tell authorities
about his twin, then the truth about the crime might never be known.

An operation involving twins or "doubles," if carefully planned, is almost sure
to succeed. The use of twins has provided intelligence agencies with "plausible
deniability" for years, and allowed them to deny involvement in illegal operations.
"Plausible deniability" is an important part of all CIA operations, and was a term often
used by CIA Director Allen Dulles to explain away troubling situations.  [H&L  pp. 8-9]

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mark Stevens destroyed the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school, an essential element of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense.

Jeremy,

Mark did nothing of the kind.  He simply reaffirmed the notion of Harvey and Lee.  He used this photo of Lee Oswald:

I agree this is Lee Harvey Oswald.  But, Harvey looks differ from Lee's enough and that difference is unmistakable when closely examined.

This is why almost all of the photos of Lee were either destroyed or altered into Harvey.  Some could not because they had been published in newspapers or yearbooks.

They look enough alike and if no one was paying attention they could pass for each other.  In memory, that association would come closer in appearance.  If you have problems with facial recognition you can consult the ID characteristics I developed some years back for individual character traits. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Isn’t it remarkable that the H&L critics active here never, ever debate the H&L evidence right here on the JFK assassination debate section of the Education Forum.

It isn't remarkable at all, because it isn't true.

"Never, ever"? Plenty of people have debated this nonsense "right here" in numerous threads over many years. Unfortunately for Jim, almost no-one finds it convincing.

The double-doppelganger nonsense has, of course, been discussed elsewhere too. Look at all the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points mentioned here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-debunked

Jim has been invited to join that forum. I'm sure he will if he thinks his evidence can stand up to questioning.

Quote

nothing significant about H&L has been disproved.

I can do that too:

• Nothing significant about alien abductions has been disproved!
• Nothing significant about the faked moon landings theory has been disproved!
• Nothing significant about the flat earth theory has been disproved!
• Nothing significant about the lizard people has been disproved!

When it comes to proof and disproof, it's important to understand that it's up to Jim to prove his claims, but it isn't up to critics to disprove them. All we need to do is show that a plausible alternative explanation exists for a particular claim.

This raises an interesting question. How many 'Harvey and Lee' talking points need to be disposed of before the theory becomes worthless? I'd suggest that disposing of any significant claim will invalidate the theory as a whole.

Once Mark Stevens disposed of the Stripling evidence, for example, did that discredit the whole theory? After all, one essential part of the theory is the claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended that school, and Mark has shown that no good evidence exists to support that claim.

Or what about the evidence that the body exhumed from Oswald's grave in 1981 had undergone a mastoidectomy? It is an essential part of Armstrong's chronology that the doppelganger who underwent the mastoidectomy was not the one who was buried in the grave. That claim has been absolutely disproved. Surely that alone makes the theory worthless.

Since there is no good evidence that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, and it is certain that no Oswald doppelganger was buried in Oswald's grave, does the theory still exist?

Quote

Here is a quick synopsis of the EVIDENCE that one LHO attended Stripling

Here we go again. As soon as I pointed out that Jim is like a religious fundamentalist, ignoring criticism and instead repeatedly quoting holy scripture, he vomits up more holy scripture.

If Jim thinks he can revive the nonsensical claim that a non-existent Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, here's where he should do it:

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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Then Jim produces something worth discussing:

Quote

one of the major advantages of doubling political operatives is total DENIABILITY for any and every action taken by either player.

At last, we have a sort of answer to the question I asked earlier: why did those CIA masterminds use doppelgangers when there was no need to use doppelgangers? According to holy scripture, it's because doppelgangers provide deniability.

But deniability is a solution to a non-existent problem. Without doppelgangers, there would be nothing that needed to be denied.

All Jim's CIA masterminds needed to do was recruit an American and get him to learn Russian. They would never even have considered the possibility of setting up a long-term doppelganger scheme, would they?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/26/2022 at 2:56 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy Larsen said:

We've had numerous H&L threads on this forum since I joined several years ago and I don't recall any debunking of what Jim H. has posted.

 

On 5/26/2022 at 2:56 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mark Stevens destroyed the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school...

 

LOL, the only thing Mark Stevens did is what LNers always do... he just said that each piece of evidence was wrong. That is what H&L critics typically do and then they call it a debunking! Ha ha!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

When it comes to proof and disproof, it's important to understand that it's up to Jim to prove his claims, but it isn't up to critics to disprove them. All we need to do is show that a plausible alternative explanation exists for a particular claim.

 

This proves what I said is true. The only thing these anti-H&L people need to do is say each point of evidence for the H&L theory is mistaken... and then claim they've debunked the theory. There is ALWAYS an alternative explanation that a critic can give. They can just say the evidence is a typographical error, or a person's memory is wrong, etc.

Regardless, what a critic can't do is explain how it is that there are so many incidences of these so-called mistakes pointing to there being doppelgangers. Why is it so many people -- including family members -- thought that LHO went to Stripling Junior High? Why is it the vice principal of Stripling recalls the FBI taking the records of LHO? Why his teacher there recalls him, and on and on and on?

Oh, they are all just mistaken, so says the anti-H&L folks. And so the theory has been debunked.

Ha! What nonsense this is?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh, they are all just mistaken, so says the anti-H&L folks. And so the theory has been debunked.

Ha! What nonsense this is?

Exactly! 

Six different news reports from the daily paper covering Stripling School over a period of more than 40 years were all wrong that LHO attended Stripling, and no one ever pointed out the “error” and printed a retraction.

Robert Oswald was wrong when he swore LHO attended Stripling.  

Robert Galindo, the principal of Stripling School, was wrong when he told John A. that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.  

Stripling student Fran Schubert was wrong when she said, in a YouTube video, that she saw LHO walk home to 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from Stripling

The assistant principal of Stripling School completely made up his story that he gave LHO’s Stripling records to the FBI!

A post “destroying” all the evidence above is what Jeremy Bojczuk called the “classic example” of H&L debunking!!  If that's the best they've got, they've got nothing at all.  

Of course, Mr. Bojczuk will post hundreds of links to places he pretends debunk Harvey and Lee, though it can't be done here.

What a hoot!

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jim Hargrove

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Six different news reports from the daily paper covering Stripling School over a period of more than 40 years were all wrong that LHO attended Stripling, and no one ever pointed out the “error” and printed a retraction.

Robert Oswald was wrong when he swore LHO attended Stripling.  

Robert Galindo, the principal of Stripling School, was wrong when he told John A. that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.  

Stripling student Fran Schubert was wrong when she said, in a YouTube video, that she saw LHO walk home to 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from Stripling

The assistant principal of Stripling School completely made up his story that he gave LHO’s Stripling records to the FBI!

Thank you for nicely summarizing it. Indeed, every one of these people was either mistaken or misremembering. See how easy that was?

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Thank you for nicely summarizing it. Indeed, every one of these people was either mistaken or misremembering. See how easy that was?

 

LOL, admission of guilt straight from the horse's mouth!

Sure thing Jonathan... using your line of reasoning, every single piece of evidence means the opposite of what it shows. Voila... what the evidence shows is debunked!  😋

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

the only thing Mark Stevens did is ... he just said that each piece of evidence was wrong.

No, Mark didn't just declare that each piece of evidence was wrong. He examined each piece of evidence and explained why it was inadequate.

For each of the supposed eye-witnesses to an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling, Mark showed one or more of the following things:

• The witness was mistaken.
• The witness contradicted his or her own statements.
• The witness contradicted elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative.
• The witness didn't actually know Oswald at the time.
• The witness didn't actually attend Stripling himself.
• The witness was interviewed several decades after the event.

Most of the witnesses cited by John Armstrong in his book, and by Jim Hargrove repeatedly in this forum, fall into more than one of those categories.

Mark also pointed out the limited amount of evidence for a doppelganger at Stripling. The supposed witnesses cited by Armstrong are only a tiny minority of those who would have encountered the doppelganger at Stripling.

He also pointed out that one witness in particular who might be expected to have remembered Oswald, did not do so. Mrs Bratton, who taught at Stripling at the time the Oswald doppelganger was supposed to have been there, later wrote about the Oswald family but somehow failed to mention his attendance at Stripling.

In addition to dealing with Armstrong's witnesses, Mark provided a plausible explanation for the repeated mentions in the local newspaper. The paper simply recycled the material in its files, as newspapers commonly did and probably still do. Mark provided evidence for this: several of the reports use the same form of words, and none of the reports cited any new witnesses apart from Robert Oswald.

What Mark (and others, such as Robert Charles-Dunne) did in that thread was what John Armstrong and his cult followers should have done. He examined each piece of evidence critically, and searched for weaknesses. I wonder why Armstrong didn't do that.

If anyone wants to look at the evidence and arguments in detail, this is where you can find it:

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

There are two points to be made here:

Firstly, it is not true that the Stripling evidence was dismissed by simply claiming that the witnesses were mistaken. Each item of evidence was examined and shown to have a more plausible explanation than that offered by Armstrong. If a more plausible explanation exists, we should accept it and discard the less plausible explanation, shouldn't we?

Secondly, the Stripling claim was an essential component of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative. Since the Stripling evidence is worthless and there is no good reason to suppose that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school, that's the end of the theory, isn't it?

Can the 'Harvey and Lee' story survive without the Stripling episode? If anyone thinks that it can, perhaps they could explain their reasoning.

How many other elements of the double-doppelganger nonsense can be sacrificed before the theory disappears in a puff of smoke? If a plausible explanation exists for, say, the Bolton Ford episode, would the 'Harvey and Lee' story survive? Or the Texas Theater episode? Or the mastoidectomy evidence from the exhumation? Or Oswald's acquisition of Russian?

All of these elements are essential parts of the 'Harvey and Lee' story, aren't they? If there is a plausible explanation for any of them, let alone all of them, how can the theory survive?

--

P.S. Jim claimed a few posts ago that I have never suggested on this forum that Oswald might have been impersonated. As it happens, I did so a couple of times on page 7 of that Stripling thread, e.g.:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/?do=findComment&comment=438949

Impersonations do not require doppelgangers. They certainly don't require long-term projects involving two pairs of doppelgangers that could never have been set up because a far simpler alternative existed.

[John Butler]

The witnesses were wrong..... The witnesses were wrong...... The witnesses were wrong....

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Firstly, it is not true that the Stripling evidence was dismissed by simply claiming that the witnesses were mistaken. Each item of evidence was examined and shown to have a more plausible explanation than that offered by Armstrong. If a more plausible explanation exists, we should accept it and discard the less plausible explanation, shouldn't we?

Secondly, the Stripling claim was an essential component of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative. Since the Stripling evidence is worthless and there is no good reason to suppose that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school, that's the end of the theory, isn't it?

Mr. Bojczuk uses more and more words simply to restate his attempts to debunk one Oswald’s Stripling School attendance by asking us to believe that 6 local newspaper articles over a period of four decades were wrong, that Robert Oswald was wrong when he swore to the WC that LHO attended Stripling, that Robert Galindo, the principal of Stripling School, was wrong when he said it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling, that Fran Schubert was wrong or lying when she said on film that she saw LHO walk home to 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from Stripling School, and that the assistant principal of Stripling School, Frank Kudlaty, completely made up his filmed statement that he gave LHO’s Stripling records to the FBI!

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Can the 'Harvey and Lee' story survive without the Stripling episode? If anyone thinks that it can, perhaps they could explain their reasoning.

Mr. Bojczuk has apparently forgotten that the FBI/Warren Commission accidentally published records indicating that, for the the year just before the Stripling attendance we are discussing here, LHO simultaneously attended schools in both New York City and New Orleans.  With the forbearance of the Ed Forum administrators, I’ll remind Mr. B. about this even though it appeared in the very post he claims “destroyed” the Stripling School evidence.  So….

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.

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

The Beauregard record obviously indicates that Harvey Oswald was a part-time student for this 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, not for Lee, but for Harvey.  Harvey’s truancy from school and his entanglement in NYC courts threatened to expose the Oswald Project.

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In addition to dealing with Armstrong's witnesses, Mark provided a plausible explanation for the repeated mentions in the local newspaper. The paper simply recycled the material in its files, as newspapers commonly did and probably still do

Anyone who even bothers to read the six Fort Worth newspaper articles (or excerpts) over the years can plainly see that they do NOT contain just recycled commentary.  New information, NOT included in the first article(s), is introduced several times.  I'm not going to post the links again.  They're all above.