Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

asking us to believe that ... were wrong

I'm not just asking you to believe that these witnesses were wrong. I gave a link to Mark Stevens' work which explains why they do not support the claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school.

None of the witnesses Jim mentions are reliable, for the reasons Mark gave in the thread I linked to. They were variously mistaken, or gave contradictory evidence, or didn't know Oswald, or didn't attend Stripling themselves. On that thread, Jim and his small number of fellow cult members were unable to overcome Mark's arguments.

Until they do so (on that thread, please), there is no good reason to believe the claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. Unfortunately, the Stripling episode was an essential element of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative.

I understand Jim's need to save face after spending more than twenty years promoting this nonsense. I appreciate that his only remaining tactic is to keep on repeating points of doctrine. But it doesn't look good when he fails to acknowledge the existence of evidence and arguments which undermine that doctrine.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in finding out whether an Oswald doppelganger actually attended Stripling merely has to follow the link and read what Mark Stevens and others have written:

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

Why didn't Jim do what Mark did, and examine Armstrong's evidence critically, looking for weaknesses? If you want to know whether a claim is true or false, that's what you have to do.

If, on the other hand, you're not concerned about whether a claim is true or false, and you just want to believe, then you do what Jim does. Don't apply any critical thought. Just accept what you're told. Ignore any evidence and arguments to the contrary.

To find out the truth about the assassination, it really is necessary to question not only the lone-gunman claims but also the pro-conspiracy claims, and especially the far-fetched conspiracy claims. The more far-fetched they are, the less likely they are to be true, as we have seen here.

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Anyone who is genuinely interested in finding out whether an Oswald doppelganger actually attended Stripling merely has to follow the link and read what Mark Stevens and others have written:

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

 

Yes, by all means read the thread linked to above if you want to see who has the stronger arguments, Jim Hargrove or Mark Stevens.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I understand Jim's need to save face after spending more than twenty years promoting this nonsense.

The insults from Jeremy Boczuk never end, and are in clear violation of forum rules.  I promote the Harvey and Lee evidence because it is the clear truth.

As I said on the previous page, 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, as claimed in the Mark Stevens post.  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 on p.12 of this thread.

As John A. wrote on our website, 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. In 1963 school records from prior years were kept at each school. In the mid-1960s school records from all Ft. Worth schools were transferred to the new Ft. Worth Independent School District where they were organized and stored

Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlay said, "I lived close to the school at that time and arrived at the school before they [the FBI agents] got there. I went into the school and located Oswald's records. In fact I found both Lee Harvey and Robert Oswald's records for Stripling. I opened Lee Harvey Oswald's folder and briefly looked over his records and noted that he had attended less than a full semester at Stripling. He had been there long enough to receive grades for a 6-week period, but not long enough to receive semester grades. I think he was in the 9th grade. I put the records back into the folder and waited for the FBI agents. When they arrived, they showed me their badges for identification and asked for the records. I told them that I had located both Lee Harvey and Robert Oswald's records and asked if they wanted both. They told me they only wanted Lee Harvey Oswald's records. After I handed the records to them, they thanked me and left. I locked up the school and went home."

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

On November 18, 1994, Jim Marrs testified before the ARRB and said, ijn part, the following:

Finally, I will leave you the story of Oswald attending W.C. Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, both his mother and his brother Robert told the Warren Commission that Lee entered junior high school in Fort Worth, and Robert specifically named Stripling Junior High School, and yet records presented by the Commission clearly show that Lee entered junior high school in New York where he and his mother had moved in August of 1952. There was no further mention of Stripling Junior High. However, just very recently we located and spoke with a Mr. Frank Kudlaty who now lives in Waco just south of here. In 1963, Mr. Kudlaty was the Assistant Principal at W.C. Stripling High School. He said that the day after the assassination, a Saturday, his principal ordered him to go to the school and provide FBI agents with records on Lee Harvey Oswald. He said he handed over a file of school records to the FBI. There is no mention of these records in the Warren Commission Report or volumes.

Mr. Kudlaty told us that this was the first time since 1963 that anyone had even asked him about these records, and lady and gentlemen, this is one of my main points. There has yet to be a true and full investigation of this case.

Since Mr. Marrs testified long before John A. interviewed Frank Kudlaty, people trying to make all the Stripling School evidence go away had better start ragging on Jim Marrs in addition to John A, but….

A funny thing about real evidence that reaches the public record is that it doesn’t go away no matter how hard you try to suppress it.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Jim Hargrove

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

As John A. wrote on our website, 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.

The top post of the following page is informative:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/page/3/

According to quotations from John Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty claimed he received a call from the Stripling principal who ordered him to meet the FBI at the school.  The principal's name was Wylie.

According to quotations from John Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty claimed he received a call from the Stripling principal who ordered him to meet the FBI at the school.  The principal's name was Lucas.

You did not read that wrong.  John Armstrong QUOTED a key witness claiming two contrary and mutually exclusive things.

When confronted with this impossibility - there weren't two different principals of Stripling at the same time - the crack H&L squad went into radio silence.

When I persisted in demanding a rationalization for this mistake, it was eventually grudgingly admitted that Armstrong had mis-transcribed what Kudlaty told him.

With all due respect, I have a higher opinion of John Armstrong than that.  

The diligent, methodical John Armstrong wouldn't cite two different principals from the same witness and not notice, would he?  

And leave the two different principals in print until it was pointed out?  

How many years later?  

Did no one in the crack H&L squad proofread?  Or notice?  

Personally, I have a hard time accepting that John Armstrong is that inept, shoddy, or lazy.  Presumably, they know better.

If the crack H&L squad cya fallback is that Armstrong is so incompetent, it doesn't exactly strengthen the quality of their argument.

So, we are assured the 40-year old memory of Frank Kudlaty is perfect, but the short term memory of John Armstrong is not.

Of course.  To admit the alternative is to forfeit the game, set and match.

To cast in stone the fact that key witness Kudlaty claimed to have been instructed by a principal who by Nov. 1963 was no longer principal.  And who in Nov. 1963 was no longer alive, hence unable to call Kudlaty or anyone.

Hell of a way to run a railroad.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

The top post of the following page is informative:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/page/3/

According to quotations from John Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty claimed he received a call from the Stripling principal who ordered him to meet the FBI at the school.  The principal's name was Wylie.

According to quotations from John Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty claimed he received a call from the Stripling principal who ordered him to meet the FBI at the school.  The principal's name was Lucas.

You did not read that wrong.  John Armstrong QUOTED a key witness claiming two contrary and mutually exclusive things.

When confronted with this impossibility - there weren't two different principals of Stripling at the same time - the crack H&L squad went into radio silence.

When I persisted in demanding a rationalization for this mistake, it was eventually grudgingly admitted that Armstrong had mis-transcribed what Kudlaty told him.

With all due respect, I have a higher opinion of John Armstrong than that.  

The diligent, methodical John Armstrong wouldn't cite two different principals from the same witness and not notice, would he?  

And leave the two different principals in print until it was pointed out?  

How many years later?  

Did no one in the crack H&L squad proofread?  Or notice?  

Personally, I have a hard time accepting that John Armstrong is that inept, shoddy, or lazy.  Presumably, they know better.

If the crack H&L squad cya fallback is that Armstrong is so incompetent, it doesn't exactly strengthen the quality of their argument.

So, we are assured the 40-year old memory of Frank Kudlaty is perfect, but the short term memory of John Armstrong is not.

Of course.  To admit the alternative is to forfeit the game, set and match.

To cast in stone the fact that key witness Kudlaty claimed to have been instructed by a principal who by Nov. 1963 was no longer principal.  And who in Nov. 1963 was no longer alive, hence unable to call Kudlaty or anyone.

Hell of a way to run a railroad.

 

RCD,

That's a helluva long way to say that Kudlaty misspoke in his first interview with Armstrong. He said his earlier boss's name when he meant to say his successor's.

The name of the principal is irrelevant. So what's your point?

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

RCD,

That's a helluva long way to say that Kudlaty misspoke in his first interview with Armstrong.

But according to Armstrong Kudlaty DIDN'T misspeak.  Armstrong mis-transcribed. 

I don't believe it for a second, but that's the current party line.  Your party.  Try to keep up.

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

He said one principal's name when he meant another.

No, he said two names, and nobody in the crack H&L squad - including the venerated author - noticed it for... how many years?  The book's been in print for 2 decades, and I pointed this out 2 years back.  Yet your crack squad boasts of top flight analytical skills.  Incongruous much?

You cannot ascertain whether the mistake was Kudlaty's (due to passage of time) or Armstrong's (with the passage of no time.)  So stop trying to pretend that you can.

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The name of the principal is irrelevant.

No, the name of the principal is irrelevant to you, because Kudlaty naming two of them undercuts the value of his story as "evidence."  As a witness, this makes him seem addled.  That you cannot see this is purely down to your own bias and self-interest.  This is how the wrong principal's name ended up being published in a book, which you defend, and about which you see nothing wrong.

So, of course, there's nothing to see here, move along.

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So what's your point?

Point?  That some people can't find their own backside with both hands.  And ignore the import of things even when pointed out to them.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On November 18, 1994, Jim Marrs testified before the ARRB and said, in part, the following:

Finally, I will leave you the story of Oswald attending W.C. Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, both his mother and his brother Robert told the Warren Commission that Lee entered junior high school in Fort Worth, and Robert specifically named Stripling Junior High School, and yet records presented by the Commission clearly show that Lee entered junior high school in New York where he and his mother had moved in August of 1952. There was no further mention of Stripling Junior High. However, just very recently we located and spoke with a Mr. Frank Kudlaty who now lives in Waco just south of here. In 1963, Mr. Kudlaty was the Assistant Principal at W.C. Stripling High School. He said that the day after the assassination, a Saturday, his principal ordered him to go to the school and provide FBI agents with records on Lee Harvey Oswald. He said he handed over a file of school records to the FBI. There is no mention of these records in the Warren Commission Report or volumes.

Mr. Kudlaty told us that this was the first time since 1963 that anyone had even asked him about these records, and lady and gentlemen, this is one of my main points. There has yet to be a true and full investigation of this case.

 

So that makes three times over a number of years that former assistant principal Frank Kudlaty has been interviewed, and has told the story of his giving Oswald's Stripling school records to the FBI. First to Jim Marrs, then to John Armstrong, and finally on video tape (I think also to John Armstrong). Each time he told the very same story. (If we don't count the name of the principal, which is irrelevant anyway.)

Hey, whatever happened to the claims of anti-H&L folks, that Armstrong charmed Kudlaty into telling his so-called "fake" story? Or that Kudlaty did it for his friend Jack White? So much for those now-debunked claims.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

The Many faces of Lee Harvey Oswald 

I will address this question to the following.  Which one of the pair is Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mssrs.

Jeremy Bojczuk

Jonathan Cohen

Pat Speers

Mark Stevens

Robert Charles Dunne

Or any other anti-Harvey and Lee fan

Lee Harvey Oswald- Left or right?

Left or right?

Left or right?

Left or right?

Left or right?

Left or right?

Left or right?

As you can see Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald had many faces.  Can you determine which is which?

Edited May 30, 2022 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

As you can see Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald had many faces.  Can you determine which is which?

Every single one of these photos is of Lee Harvey Oswald, your highly questionable photo analysis skills notwithstanding.

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Every single one of these photos is of Lee Harvey Oswald, your highly questionable photo analysis skills notwithstanding.

Jonathan, the one on the right of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th row (all the same photo) I am certain is not Oswald. That photo has no known date or location or identity of photographer, nor verification that it was Oswald other than an appearance one time illustrating a Fort Worth newspaper article about Oswald. It is not Oswald from looking at it. Since there is no information on where the newspaper got that photo and the photo obviously is not Oswald it is meaningless as evidence of anything and should not be cited in Oswald photos.

Separately, I think the photo on the left of the 3rd and 4th row also is not Oswald. That photo was published in a book by Robert Oswald, Lee: A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother (1967), in photos between pp. 96 and 97 of that book. Everyone has thought that to be a photo of Oswald but it does not look like Oswald to me and the caption does not claim that is a photo of Oswald. The caption reads: "Lee and I went squirrel hunting with Vada's brother on the Mercers' farm in February, 1958, when Lee was at home on leave from the Marines. That's my .22 rifle."

I would almost bet the farm that is a photo of Robert Oswald's wife Vada's brother, not Lee. 

In the text of the book, p. 83, Robert writes: "That same weekend, we went hunting for squirrels--Lee and I and Vada's brother."

The argument that the photo is of Lee is it is among other photos featuring Lee in a book about Lee. But what if the caption identification came from Robert (asked to go through old photos and identify them, which he did), and someone else who edited or prepared the book chose or prepared those photos, and mistakenly thought that one was a photo of Lee and included it, quoting Robert's accurate comment on the photo which does not actually claim that it is Lee in the photo? 

Neither of those two photos have anything to do with any Harvey and Lee argument. I agree with the rest of your analyses on that.

[John Butler]

16 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Every single one of these photos is of Lee Harvey Oswald, your highly questionable photo analysis skills notwithstanding.

Jonathan,

I could have predicted your response.  That's revealing of your questionable ability to recognize different people in different photos.  I based the identification of Lee and Harvey in those photos upon different facial recognition characters that Lee and Harvy Oswald have.  I'll do one so that you won't think this is just guessing or bad skills.

We will do the first set:

The left-hand photo comes from Robert Groden's The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald.  It is a cropped section of the Ferrie cadet photo showing 15 or so year old Lee Harvey Oswald.  How do we know this is Lee Oswald?  Simple.  He has missing front teeth lost during a fight.  The right-hand photo is Harvey Oswlad, about 17 years old, in a military photo provided by I believe Robert Oswald.  Notice that Harvey has all of his teeth and furthermore he took those teeth to the grave.  He is older in this photo than Lee and still has his teeth.  There are other things that can be mentioned, but the teeth are conclusive.

Harvey was the man shot at the Dallas Police station by Jack Ruby.  In 1981, Harvey was exhumed and he still had his teeth.  Who knows what happened to Lee.  

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

51 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Who knows what happened to Lee. 

I'm not going to get back into a debate about the teeth again, since this has been discussed many times previously, and numerous alternative explanations have been presented that don't involve doppelgangers. But the fact that "Harvey and Lee" adherents just shrug their shoulders about "who knows what happened to Lee" should tell everyone all they need to know about this preposterous theory.

[Greg Doudna]

Two non-photos of Lee Harvey Oswald that should be removed from the database

Actually my comment above should have been directed more at Jim Hargrove and John Butler: you frequently cite two photos allegedly of Lee Harvey Oswald that look different from other photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, as evidence for a doppelganger second Oswald who however looks very different. When those two photos prove nothing of the kind, and in both cases appear to be simple mistakes in photo identifications that ended up in print.

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

[T]he one on the right of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th row (all the same photo) I am certain is not Oswald. That photo has no known date or location or identity of photographer, nor verification that it was Oswald other than an appearance one time illustrating a Fort Worth newspaper article about Oswald. It is not Oswald from looking at it. Since there is no information on where the newspaper got that photo and the photo obviously is not Oswald it is meaningless as evidence of anything and should not be cited in Oswald photos.

Separately, I think the photo on the left of the 3rd and 4th row also is not Oswald. That photo was published in a book by Robert Oswald, Lee: A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother (1967), in photos between pp. 96 and 97 of that book. Everyone has thought that to be a photo of Oswald but it does not look like Oswald to me and the caption does not claim that is a photo of Oswald. The caption reads: "Lee and I went squirrel hunting with Vada's brother on the Mercers' farm in February, 1958, when Lee was at home on leave from the Marines. That's my .22 rifle."

I would almost bet the farm that is a photo of Robert Oswald's wife Vada's brother, not Lee. 

In the text of the book, p. 83, Robert writes: "That same weekend, we went hunting for squirrels--Lee and I and Vada's brother."

The argument that the photo is of Lee is it is among other photos featuring Lee in a book about Lee. But what if the caption identification came from Robert (asked to go through old photos and identify them, which he did), and someone else who edited or prepared the book chose or prepared those photos, and mistakenly thought that one was a photo of Lee and included it, quoting Robert's accurate comment on the photo which does not actually claim that it is Lee in the photo? 

Neither of those two photos have anything to do with any Harvey and Lee argument.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Two non-photos of Lee Harvey Oswald that should be removed from the database

Actually my comment above should have been directed more at Jim Hargrove and John Butler: you frequently cite two photos allegedly of Lee Harvey Oswald that look different from other photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, as evidence for a doppelganger second Oswald who however looks very different. When those two photos prove nothing of the kind, and in both cases appear to be simple mistakes in photo identifications that ended up in print.

 

 

Greg,

I don't know about John Butler, but Jim Hargrove and John Armstrong do not use photos to prove that there were two Oswalds. The fact that some LHO photos look like the one killed by Ruby, and other LHO photos don't, merely give support to the two-Oswald theory that has been proven in other ways.