Question About Harvey, Lee, and the "Two Marguerites"

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

So in this case when Kudlaty stated “that would be an interesting path to go down” he’d be referring to a potential lead to investigate on why no Stripling records were entered into evidence.

 

Unfortunately Tom, your line of reasoning following your initial post on this topic is based on a false premise. (That Kudlaty was talking about Armstrong's files.) A premise you came up with only because Mark didn't hear the word "should" in Kudlaty's statement. (Listen to 1:42 thru 1:51 in the interview.]

(Unless you think that Kudlaty was telling the interviewers that Armstrong SHOULD have something in his files.)

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mark then urged Jim to actually confront the arguments and examine the evidence critically instead of simply repeating the now-debunked claims.

 

How does a person argue against the contention that a witness is mistaken? Any witness may be mistaken. The argument against it is understood... without any comment.

Same thing with the argument that a document is erroneous.

90% of anti-H&L arguments are along those lines.

Which often works fairly well on a case by case basis. But doesn't hold up in a "totality of the evidence" basis.

Plus I find it disturbing when a person, because of his biases, decides what to believe first and then seeks evidence to support his belief. And ignores evidence that doesn't. A practice that I consider to be intellectually lazy if not dishonest. But I think it is quite a common practice. I try very hard not to fall into it, though I'm sure I do at times.

 

[Mark Stevens]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Everything in my post is true and without conflation. In it I clearly differentiated between what Kudlaty said and my remarks. Unlike Mark, I didn't leave out anything of importance, other than my transcript only paraphrasing things the interviewers said, which I did in order to save myself from having to transcribe it.

You absolutely conflate what Kudlaty says and you even do it in this post I'm quoting. You take statements Kudlaty made at various points of the interview and put them into one paragraph as though he just said all those things verbatim. 

Merriam-Webster states this as the definition of conflate:

Quote

to combine (things, such as two versions of a text) into a composite whole

You combined multiple things he said into a composite whole, that's the literal definition of conflating.

Quote

I encourage everybody to listen to the first couple minutes of the interview (at least) while following along with my transcript. The reason for reading my transcript while listening to Kudlaty is because he says two or three important things very quickly and it's hard to make it out without repeating the video multiple times. I spent a fair amount of time doing that and I believe I got it down correctly. You can correct me if you find my transcript is wrong about something.

I'm confident that open-minded people will agree with my characterization of what Kudlaty said.

I haven't seen your transcript, but if it reads like your quoted portions then I doubt they will agree because as I've stated, you take statements from Kudlaty at multiple points of the interview and put them into one paragraph. I can give timestamps for things he said and you can see they are at different intervals and after different questions. I also have a transcript I made years ago and I will gladly offer it to anyone and they are free to point out any mistakes in my transcript.

Quote

This theory Mark has, that Kudlaty admitted that there weren't any Stripling records in the Stripling file when he said, "As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school?" is simply ridiculous, given that elsewhere and multiple times Kudlaty says that Oswald was a student at Stripling. If you accept Mark's theory, you'll find that much of the interview makes no sense and is full of contradictions. (Mark's emphasis added) But once you realize that, by saying "there are [no records] from the junior high school,"  Kudlaty was talking only about a PRIOR junior high records that normally would have included the elementary school records... once you realize that, then everything Kudlaty says makes sense. And this becomes perfectly clear if you listen to all the comments, including those made by the interviewers, about the procedures schools followed when transferring records.

It's not a theory, it's literally what Kudlaty says. You even quote his statement above but I will give the entire statement for better context and to make sure I don't leave out anything of importance:

Quote

how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school

I agree that Kudlaty states there were records from Stripling, but as I point out above, and numerous other times, he also contradicts himself by saying there were no records from the junior high school. You don't have to accept "my theory," you just have to watch the interview and you will see that it is in fact full of contradictions. You seem to know this, but dismiss it and come up with excuses as to why these contradictions exist. But, you do know they exist.

You can claim he meant prior junior high records all you want. But, arguing about what he meant is pretty nonsensical and moot. All we can do is agree on what he actually said, because you know, he actually said it. Neither of us can begin to know what he meant. To claim otherwise is nonsense. This is especially true when he makes no statements which would infer he actually meant prior junior high schools. He did say it was customary for elementary schools to forward records to the next school. The closest inference he makes is that the records are from the elementary school, not a prior junior high school.

Quote

One other important thing that Mark gets wrong is when Kudlaty says, "I wouldn't want to swear to that," he wasn't talking about whether Oswald attended Stripling... he was talking about HOW LONG he attended. He recalls seeing that only one column in Oswald's record was filled in, which would indicate that he completed only the first six weeks of classes.

Kudlaty's actual words as well as the preceding question (with time stamp of video for easy reference):

Quote

Interviewer 2: When you looked at the records did you by chance notice that he had grade marks, not necessarily what the grade marks were, but grade marks to indicate that he’d been there...a 6-week period in order to perceive (sic) grades…or…?

(3:30)

Kudlaty: You know that’s a…I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period. That’s the best I can remember…but that, you know…I wouldn’t want to swear to that.

"I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period." "I wouldn't want to swear to that."

Again, this is not definite. He is clearly saying he doesn't really know what he saw in spite of saying other contradictory things. As I continue to point out, the interview is full of contradictions.

Since I'm accused of "leaving out items of importance" and Sandy claims he didn't conflate anything, I'll post Sandy's quote interview portions below and then quote my transcript (with time stamps for reference). Please take a moment to see if either person left things out. Please take a moment to see if either person conflated multiple statements from various points in the interview into a single paragraph/statement.

Sandy's quotes from the interview:

Quote

If anybody wants to check this out themselves, here's the link to the Kudlaty interview. And here's the transcript of the relevant parts of the interview, Kudlaty's words only:

I went to the records file, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them in kind of a cursory way. And the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were [in that?] he didn't attend there for a full year. I put them back in the brown envelope.... The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files....

[A comment is made by an interviewer regarding their previous-nights discussion of how school records are transferred from one school to another.] ... As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school? That would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the file -- and where they came from? Did someone go to -- went to the elementary school and get them?...

To the best of my recollection, his records were incomplete and that they did not show a full year of attendance.... I believe that he had grades for one six-week period. That's the best I can remember. But I wouldn't want to swear to that.... [Kudlaty explains why he believes it was six weeks.] ... He received grades for the first six weeks....

My transcription:

Beginning of interview:

Quote

On a Saturday morning following the Kennedy assassination I received a call at home. I lived at 4225 Curzon at that time…from Mr. Wylie who was my Principal, telling me to go to school and to go to the records file and to get Lee Harvey Oswald’s records and that someone from the FBI would be there to pick them up. That’s exactly what I did. I went to school…I went to the records files, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them…in kind of a cursory way, and the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were incomplete (audio blip) and that he didn’t attend there a full year. I put them back in the brown envelope and left it on my desk and waited, oh...10-15 minutes or perhaps longer, and two gentlemen came in…showed me identification that they were FBI agents. I gave them the records and the best I remember one of them did open the envelope and kinda look in it, and they thanked me and they left, and I locked the doors and I went home and that’s about all I know about Lee Harvey Oswald.

From 1:42 in the interview, following the preceding question:

Quote

Interviewer 1: You had mentioned last night about the procedures of elementary school records.

(1:42)

Kudlaty: The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, because it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level (audio blip) a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6^th grade…and as I said last night how did that…how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?

Later in the interview (where again his "definite" claims are questionable:

Quote

(2:28)

Interviewer 1: Now, just to clarify we are talking about the records of Lee Harvey Oswald the accused assassin of President Kennedy?

Kudlaty: That’s right, uh-hmm.

Interviewer 1: And to your knowledge he did attend…Stripling Junior High School?

Kudlaty: Yes, he had to attend. I don’t…didn’t know Lee Harvey Oswald…I didn’t know he was a student there, but we wouldn’t have had a copy of (audio blip) some records for them had he not attended at least…you know even one day, we would have had a record…and that’s before…the best of my knowledge, or the best of my recollection, his records were incomplete in that they did not show a full year of attendance.

Later in the interview (his "definite" claims in full force):

Quote

(3:30)

Kudlaty: You know that’s a…I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period. That’s the best I can remember…but that, you know…I wouldn’t want to swear to that.

Kudlaty: Again…as I recall from looking at that record it would have been in the fall semester.

Interviewer 1: Of?

Kudlaty: I don’t…I can’t answer that, I don’t know.

Interviewer 2: Why do you say the fall semester?

Kudlaty: Because, the best I remember the report card started on the left hand side with courses and the grades went…the first 6 weeks was in the first column, and I remember that that…it seemed like to…I remember that column was complete and there was nothing else beyond there.

Interviewer 2: That column was complete?

Kudlaty: Uh-huh and he received grades for the first 6 weeks.

As you can see, Sandy has clearly conflated multiple portions of the interview. As you can see, I have left nothing out, regardless of it's supposed importance.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Mark Stevens
typo

[Mark Stevens]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Tom,

Just in case you didn't consequently work this out...

First, Mark left a word out in his transcript, innocently I'm sure. The part reading:

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, ...

Should be:

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you SHOULD have in your files, ...

The Kudlaty interview is divided into three videos and I believe you have to listen to more than one if you want to hear everything the interviewers said about the conversation that was had the night before.

The meaning of

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files, ...

in context is clearly

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that [one] should have in [one's] files, ...

(For those who may not know, the way Kudlaty worded it is common vernacular in America for the way I wrote it.)

I don't recall Kudlaty ever referring to Armstrong's files  or works.

 

I most definitely did not leave anything out. I most definitely did not mishear. He most definitely does not say "should." He most definitely does not say "ones files." He most definitely does say "your files."

Why you are claiming something that is just untrue is beyond me, but I believe speaks to the levels "Harvey and Lee" believers will stoop to in an effort to push their "theory."

Quote

(1:42)

Kudlaty: The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, because it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level (audio blip) a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6^th grade…and as I said last night how did that…how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?

Kudlaty interview, beginning at 1:42. Compare my transcript to the audio....

 

[Mark Stevens]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How does a person argue against the contention that a witness is mistaken? Any witness may be mistaken. The argument against it is understood... without any comment.

Same thing with the argument that a document is erroneous.

90% of anti-H&L arguments are along those lines.

Which often works fairly well on a case by case basis. But doesn't hold up in a "totality of the evidence" basis.

Plus I find it disturbing when a person, because of his biases, decides what to believe first and then seeks evidence to support his belief. And ignores evidence that doesn't. A practice that I consider to be intellectually lazy if not dishonest. But I think it is quite a common practice. I try very hard not to fall into it, though I'm sure I do at times.

The problem is that all of the "Harvey and Lee" Stripling witness are clearly and provably wrong and you know they are wrong and you continue to prop them up as evidence. Call it mistaken if you will, but you know they are wrong, you in most cases admit they are wrong and then turn around and say they are witnesses and "proof."

When case-by-case, every single witness is provably wrong, then the "totality" of the evidence is that there is no evidence that supports your theory. Every single witness you present has been shown to not actually support the "Harvey and Lee" theory. 

You know this and you continue to push the witnesses as some sort of proof. Then you pontificate about biases and intellectual laziness and ignoring evidence that doesn't support your beliefs. Dishonest indeed.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

You absolutely conflate what Kudlaty says and you even do it in this post I'm quoting. You take statements Kudlaty made at various points of the interview and put them into one paragraph as though he just said all those things verbatim. 

 

What I did is replace superfluous parts of Kudlaty's statements with ellipses (i.e. three dots, like this "...") which is a common practice when quoting someone. I was careful not to change the original meaning.

This is not conflation.

Conflation is where you merge two different things to make something new. These days it is often used to mean confusing one thing for another, for example: "The judge erred when he conflated the credit for time served with the defendant's negotiated sentence reduction."

Text conflation -- which is what you referred to -- is when two version of a writing are combined. For example, two versions of the same biblical story, as recorded in different gospels, can be conflated to create a more complete story. That new version of the story is said to be a conflation of the two originals.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

You don't have to accept "my theory," you just have to watch the interview and you will see that it is in fact full of contradictions.

 

You hear contradictions because you don't understand what he says regarding the transfer of records.

I do understand what he says regarding the transfer of records, and so I don't hear any contradictions at all.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I most definitely did not leave anything out. I most definitely did not mishear. [Kudlaty] most definitely does not say "should."

 

Yes Mark, Kudlaty definitely does say "should." He says it very quickly. I guess you have to have a fast ear.  😋

Interested forum members can check for themselves.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

The problem is that all of the "Harvey and Lee" Stripling witness are clearly and provably wrong and you know they are wrong and you continue to prop them up as evidence. Call it mistaken if you will, but you know they are wrong, you in most cases admit they are wrong and then turn around and say they are witnesses and "proof."

 

I've never said that the Stripling witnesses are wrong. What I've said is that it is possible that some of the younger witnesses are confusing Lee Oswald for Robert Oswald.

That's a far cry from being "provably wrong," as you put it.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

How does a person argue against the contention that a witness is mistaken? Any witness may be mistaken.

Any witness may indeed be mistaken, but Mark didn't just claim that the Stripling witnesses were mistaken. He gave specific, plausible reasons to believe that those witnesses were mistaken or otherwise lacking credibility. Just read Mark's first post in that thread:

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

Apart from the discussion of Kudlaty, none of the H&L supporters on this thread have even attempted to point out any problems with Mark's analysis. All we've had is the empty repetition of the claims that Mark has shown to be unsubstantiated.

As for the "totality of the evidence" argument, it really doesn't matter how many H&L talking points exist, or how many items of evidence there are, if plausible alternative explanations have been put forward for those talking points and evidence.

What we have to do is look at the H&L claims and evidence that do not (yet) have plausible alternative explanations. Are there any? If there are, do enough of them exist to justify such a far-fetched conclusion? I suspect not.

[Mark Stevens]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What I did is replace superfluous parts of Kudlaty's statements with ellipses (i.e. three dots, like this "...") which is a common practice when quoting someone. I was careful not to change the original meaning.

This is not conflation.

Conflation is where you merge two different things to make something new. These days it is often used to mean confusing one thing for another, for example: "The judge erred when he conflated the credit for time served with the defendant's negotiated sentence reduction."

Text conflation -- which is what you referred to -- is when two version of a writing are combined. For example, two versions of the same biblical story, as recorded in different gospels, can be conflated to create a more complete story. That new version of the story is said to be a conflation of the two originals.

lol @ these "debates."

What you did is conflation, conflation isn't "combining two versions of writing." Conflation is..well geez I gave the literal definition. You merged different things to make a composite whole, composite meaning "a thing made up of various parts or elements." You took various parts of Kudlaty's interview and merged them into one. We can only guess as to your rationale for doing so, since you're not typically disingenuous.

Quote

You hear contradictions because you don't understand what he says regarding the transfer of records.

I do understand what he says regarding the transfer of records, and so I don't hear any contradictions at all.

You hear contradictions as well and you've all but admitted to it, you just chose to ignore them and come up with your own "understandings" behind what people said while ignoring what they actually said. Their explanations are contrary to your "understandings" so you just come up with what they should have meant.

[Mark Stevens]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes Mark, Kudlaty definitely does say "should." He says it very quickly. I guess you have to have a fast ear.  😋

Interested forum members can check for themselves.

He must say it so fast that only you can hear it, because he most definitely doesn't say it.

I don't even know why I'm continuing to try to have a reasonable debate. I seem to forget Sandy "the truth doesn't matter" Larsen said this gem:

On 7/20/2020 at 1:39 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

You guys crack me up. You seem to think that witnesses should be accepted if their testimony is true, but thrown out if it is false.

That's right folks, just because someone isn't telling the truth that doesn't mean you shouldn't believe them and accept their testimony anyways since it backs up your pet theory. All the better is if multiple people are wrong, but they are saying the same thing. Even better to believe them... Maybe the Earth is flat after all!

You can't win with someone who uses that logic, why even bother....

Edited September 16, 2022 by Mark Stevens
fixed quote

[Karl Hilliard]

On 9/6/2022 at 4:03 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

I don't get it.

Yes it looks like the same woman, with some years and miles and weight on her. The nose and chin match up. 

Hard to see the eyes, under the glasses. Forehead hairline looks the same. 

Not a lead-pipe cinch, but I would bet on it. 

About the glasses.... The lady in the earlier photos didn't wear them obviously and she certainly does look a lot taller. One predictable response to that is [of course] --she didn't require them at that time. Some of us wear or have worn corrective lenses. I was diagnosed near sighted at the age of around 10. In recent years I had corrective surgery implants but still need reading glasses. The point is that the 1963 pictures indicate bifocals. A jump from no glasses at all to being a 6 eyes is unusual. Also it appears that the pre-1963 lady had shrunk and no one has yet addressed that observation.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/16/2022 at 1:14 PM, Mark Stevens said:

On 7/20/2020 at 12:39 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

You guys crack me up. You seem to think that witnesses should be accepted if their testimony is true, but thrown out if it is false.

 

That sentence, when taken in the context of my complete post and the conversation it is a part of, apparently can be taken two ways. Even you took it the way I meant it. I know because you intelligently replied to it