One more Attempt at those Darn School Records.

At long last I see the problem the Harvey and Lee Gang are having.

Before I go any further, a huge round of applause to Sandy for actually attempting to lay out the theory in a sane fashion - ie without the hysterical rhetoric, the schizophrenic circles and arrows and the throughly disorienting and demented mix of fonts, colors and sizes. 

Here is what Sandy came up with:

Sandy Larsen wrote:Michael, Chris, Mathias,
I will try to make it a simple task for you and others to clearly see that Oswald attended two different schools simultaneously during the Fall semester of his 8th grade school year, 1953/54.
Following are what the two school records indicate:

Public School #44, New York City
8th Grade, Fall Semester
Days Present:  62 + 5 half days
Days Absent:  3 + 8 half days
Times Late (Tardy):  1
Total Days of School = 62 + 5 + 3 +8 = 78 days
This information is highlighted in yellow in the upper school record, below.
 
Beauregard Junior High School, New York City
8th Grade, Fall Semester
Days Present:  89 days
Days Absent:  1 day
Tardy:  0
Total Days of School = 89 + 1 = 90 days
This information is highlighted in yellow in the lower school record, below.

We can firstly note that a semester is half a school year and that high schools have "marking periods" or "quarters" which usually equal two semesters of 18 wees each. 18 weeks x 5 days per week = 90 days approx in each high school semester.

In the United States, the K–12 school calendar is determined by the individual states, and in some cases by the local school district, so there is considerable variation. The academic year typically consists of two 18-week semesters, each divided into two nine-week marking periods (or quarters) or three six-week marking periods, and constituting 170 to 186 instructional days (with an average of 180).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

In Oswald's case, the total number of school days was indeed, 180.

If we looks at the Beauregard record, you can see this and get to a 180 by adding the days absent to the "re-ad" figure.

Again- "re-ad" is simply short for "re-adjust" or "add in" - you do that by noting the number of days available in the balance of the school school year after absences. This is NOT necessarily the same as the number of days attended. The number of days attended can only be assumed as representing that figure if the student was at that school the entire school year, That was not the case with Oswald. This method only applies at Beauregard.

Moreover... 

I submit that the Beauregard records copy over the data from PS 44 and that Sandy has miscalculated the NY records.

The real figure is

62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy + 8 half day absences = 71.8 days --- the exact figure we find on the Beauregard records.

Additionally... if we add Sandy's NY 78 and his Beauregard 90 days... we get... the total number of "re-ad" days of 168 as shown on the Beauregard record. 

In short... Oswald spent most of one semester in PS 44 and one and a bit semesters at Beauregard. This is what the records reflect - when read correctly. 

This whole thing hinges on Mr Head changing his mind about what "re-ad" meant when in fact, he got it right the first time.  Mr. Head was not however a teacher at Beauregard so his umming and ahhing over the meaning is understandable. What's not understandable is any sane person wanting the facts, to keep ignoring the meaning which best makes sense of the records by making the figures add up correctly.

There is no overlap. Oswald did not attend the fall semester at Beauregard for 89 days (or whatever the claim is). He had one day absent, leaving 89 other available days he could have attended - had he actually been enrolled.

In fact - the damn date of enrollment is on the records... which by itself would raise flags for any sane person trying to find a doppelganger because that start date does not square with the theory. It squares with the reality.

sandy larsen wrote:And the obvious reason you guys won't actually use what is at that link to debunk Oswald simultaneously attending two schools is that it DOESN'T debunk it. It doesn't explain it.

So whenever Jim presents the evidence, all you guys do is post that link. The link that proves nothing.

This is Sandy following Jim's example of how to this i.e. stamp his little feet and declare it proves nothing.

Well, then, two can play that game. Jim's links prove nothing!

Why? Because I so so. 

Is this any way to to arrive at the facts, boys? No no no.


We want a dispositive outcome, do we not?

Stamping feet and making vacuous declarations does prove something - it proves you have no real argument with what I posted, but, you are declaring you will never admit it. 

I will make one amendment after re-reading  Mr Head's explanation of the figures - he did not really change his mind as I thought, but simply added further information.


Both statements are correct. The "re-ad" figure does represent the number of school days (after absences) in a given year and it it DOES also represent the total number of days attended by Oswald. I had originally assumed (possibly catching the disease from Jimbo) that Head was talking strictly about Beauregard - but he isn't - he is simply references days at school - which could be at any school and any number of schools.  So what the total shows is the combined total of days attended between PS44 and Beauregard. 

The figures do incorporate PS44 data as I previously showed and which Sandy and Jim have assiduously avoided addressing. 

62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy + 8 half day absences = 71.8 days --- the exact figure we find on the Beauregard records.

As shown here



Proof that the figures are combined from the two schools.

But keep stamping your feet and refusing to address it because it's a "link". No one is actually fooled by that nonsense. 

But I do thank you for pushing me on this. I will update the information in my book for any future editions.

sandy larsen wrote:It proves nothing because it makes false assumptions, leads to false answers, and is generally incoherent.

One example is this equation of Greg's:


62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy + 8 half day absences = 71.8 days --- the exact figure we find on the Beauregard records.

Add those numbers and see if you get "71.8 days." You won't.

Greg get's close to that number (72.5) if he treats a "half day" as literally  0.5 days. For example, he treats 5 half days as 2 1/2 days. Greg doesn't understand that "half day" really means "partial day." If a child was late for the first class, he would be marked as tardy. If he came in after the first class, or left before the last class, he would be marked as absent one "partial day." The reason the school used the phrase "half days" instead of "partial days" is because half days could be abbreviated in the records. For example, being absent "5/2" days meant that the student was absent for parts of 5 days. (The abbreviation is "5/2.") (See EDIT below.)

So in the equation above, when adding up the total number of days, "5 half days" should be treated as 5, not 2 1/2.

So why was Greg happy to do the equation the way he did? Because it adds up to 72.5, which is close to the number 71.8, which is a number he found on the record. Unfortunate for Greg, 72.5 is not 71.8, and the 71.8 is located on the record on a row that has nothing to do with the Fall semester of 1953 that we are talking about.

There is more, but I will spare you.

EDIT: I need to re-examine my remarks about "half days." I may be wrong about that.

False assumptions? The only false assumptions being made are by the Harvey and Lee crowd - that being that Mr Head's comments about the figures representing the number of school days attended was referring only to attendance at Beauregard. In fact, he says no such thing. He clearly states that they represent "a total listing of the school days in any given school year". So... nothing in that should make anyone conclude he is referring only to Beauregard, We also know that the number of absent days has to be added on because the "re-ad" days are only 168 and Head himself states it must not fall below 170, with the average or norm being 180. so adding those absent days back on, we get 168 + 12 = what Sandy? That's 180 -- 180 -- the total number of days available in that school year. 

I have NOT used half days as .5 of a day to arrive at 2.5. Where is that in my calculations? 

Let's start by leaving off the last figure I used - the 8 half day absences.

62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy = 71 days. 

Beauregard has simply added .8 to indicate 8 partial/half days. 

If it was added up with "normal" math, those part days still count as "whole" school days for calculating the number of school days available, so really, it should be 71+8= 79. Which of course, would be YOUR figure had you remembered to add in the one day "tardy".

Beauregard is just showing the same thing with there 71.8 - it is just a different way of showing it. If you still cannot see that this has been taken from the PS 44 records, you are truly in the thrall of a cult.

False answers? Again - that would be you. You left off the "tardy" day for ps 44, claimed I counted some days as half days in my calculations when I didn't and you completely ignore or misread what Head said. 

Clearly the figure of 71.8 is the same as your miscalculated figure taking into account that ( a ) the 71.8 is NOT meant to be the result of a calculation such as yours - but merely showing that their were 71 days PLUS 8 "Other" days (giving a total of 79) and ( b ) YOUR calculation of 78 inexplicably left out the "tardy" day, so it should in fact also be 79. Whichever way you slice it, the 71.8 figure is lifted from PS 44 records.

Generally incoherent? I'm happy to wear that and try and fix it, if there is some consensus on it. Is anyone else having trouble following my arguments? Please feel free to say so.

Meanwhile if you want to know what real incoherence looks like, simply read David Joseph and his former side-kick Steve Gaal posts in my threads at the ed forum. They represent the Gold Standard in incoherence. Just sayin'.

Other examples that you want to spare readers?  Oh pleaseeee! don't be so noble. Do give us those other examples. How else will you save readers from my misinfo?

greg parker wrote:

sandy larsen wrote:It proves nothing because it makes false assumptions, leads to false answers, and is generally incoherent.

One example is this equation of Greg's:


62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy + 8 half day absences = 71.8 days --- the exact figure we find on the Beauregard records.

Add those numbers and see if you get "71.8 days." You won't.

Greg get's close to that number (72.5) if he treats a "half day" as literally  0.5 days. For example, he treats 5 half days as 2 1/2 days. Greg doesn't understand that "half day" really means "partial day." If a child was late for the first class, he would be marked as tardy. If he came in after the first class, or left before the last class, he would be marked as absent one "partial day." The reason the school used the phrase "half days" instead of "partial days" is because half days could be abbreviated in the records. For example, being absent "5/2" days meant that the student was absent for parts of 5 days. (The abbreviation is "5/2.") (See EDIT below.)

So in the equation above, when adding up the total number of days, "5 half days" should be treated as 5, not 2 1/2.

So why was Greg happy to do the equation the way he did? Because it adds up to 72.5, which is close to the number 71.8, which is a number he found on the record. Unfortunate for Greg, 72.5 is not 71.8, and the 71.8 is located on the record on a row that has nothing to do with the Fall semester of 1953 that we are talking about.

There is more, but I will spare you.

EDIT: I need to re-examine my remarks about "half days." I may be wrong about that.

False assumptions? The only false assumptions being made are by the Harvey and Lee crowd - that being that Mr Head's comments about the figures representing the number of school days attended was referring only to attendance at Beauregard. In fact, he says no such thing. He clearly states that they represent "a total listing of the school days in any given school year". So... nothing in that should make anyone conclude he is referring only to Beauregard, We also know that the number of absent days has to be added on because the "re-ad" days are only 168 and Head himself states it must not fall below 170, with the average or norm being 180. so adding those absent days back on, we get 168 + 12 = what Sandy? That's 180 -- 180 -- the total number of days available in that school year. 

I have NOT used half days as .5 of a day to arrive at 2.5. Where is that in my calculations? 

Let's start by leaving off the last figure I used - the 8 half day absences.

62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy = 71 days. 

Beauregard has simply added .8 to indicate 8 partial/half days. 

If it was added up with "normal" math, those part days still count as "whole" school days for calculating the number of school days available, so really, it should be 71+8= 79. Which of course, would be YOUR figure had you remembered to add in the one day "tardy".

Beauregard is just showing the same thing with there 71.8 - it is just a different way of showing it. If you still cannot see that this has been taken from the PS 44 records, you are truly in the thrall of a cult.

False answers? Again - that would be you. You left off the "tardy" day for ps 44, claimed I counted some days as half days in my calculations when I didn't and you completely ignore or misread what Head said. 

Clearly the figure of 71.8 is the same as your miscalculated figure taking into account that ( a ) the 71.8 is NOT meant to be the result of a calculation such as yours - but merely showing that their were 71 days PLUS 8 "Other" days (giving a total of 79) and ( b ) YOUR calculation of 78 inexplicably left out the "tardy" day, so it should in fact also be 79. Whichever way you slice it, the 71.8 figure is lifted from PS 44 records.

Generally incoherent? I'm happy to wear that and try and fix it, if there is some consensus on it. Is anyone else having trouble following my arguments? Please feel free to say so.

Meanwhile if you want to know what real incoherence looks like, simply read David Joseph and his former side-kick Steve Gaal posts in my threads at the ed forum. They represent the Gold Standard in incoherence. Just sayin'.

Other examples that you want to spare readers?  Oh pleaseeee! don't be so noble. Do give us those other examples. How else will you save readers from my misinfo?

Sandy Larsen's reply to a request to read the above:

Sandy Larsen wrote:I've looked at Greg's threads responding to HARVEY & LEE threads here numerous times. And have found nothing about the school records that is credible. I am no longer going to do that... at least not regarding the school records. If any Armstrong critic sees something of Greg's worthy of being posted here, they will have to do it. I'm done.

And yet, apart from making false claims about my work on this, such as claiming I turned some full days into half days, Sandy has had virtually zero to say about this work. His main rebuttal is just t repeat that it's wrong without explaining why it is wrong. Nor has he taken steps to correct his omission of one tardy day in his calculations.


Sandy Larsen's "Education" Forum bio:

I was born in Payson, Utah on Nov. 18, 1955. I received both a
BS and an MS degree in Electrical Engineering at Brigham Young
University. I cofounded New Wave Instruments with a friend of
mine in 1984 and later bought him out. I married late in life
and had my one and only child when I was 55. I am a lifelong
seeker of truth, and in fact that seems to be my hobby.

Seems since joining the "education" Forum, Sandy has abandoned his old hobby and taken up a new one. What to call this new hobby though? Suggestions?

First suggestion would be a bigger hat. You have to consider the blood flow.
Then sit back and watch him mangle the unit diaries.
Tough to give up tour old hat.
Even if it's a twat hat.

I think the folk at the ed forum are having some difficulty following me because they have been blinded by Mr Head - especially in regard to the figure of 71.8 - which Head claimed was Lee's average grade.

If you look at the heading it comes under, the first word is "total". I can't read the second word, but it doesn't matter. Totals and averages are too different things and no one would list an average in a column marked "total".

My point is that the figure does not present a number in and of itself. It represents two whole numbers that need to be added together.  I explained upstream what those numbers represent and that they come from the PS 44 records - not Beauregard.

To further clarify, in Australian Rules football, there are two types of goals - a "normal" goal and a "behind" gaol. A normal goal is worth 6 points and a behind is worth one. So if a team has 6 goals and 8 behinds, it will show on the scoreboard as 6.8. But 6.8 is not their score. The figures have to be added together. So it is really 6 x 6 + 8 X 1 = 44. 

And that is how this number needs to be looked at. The decimal point is merely separating two separate figures that need to be added together, so it is 71 + 8 = 79. Again - that figure is from PS44 records - not Beauregard and that alone kills to two boys at two schools nonsense.

Here is an Australian Rules Football scoreboard to demonstrate:

http://www.tecnovision.com.au/images/Software%20G.jpg

You can keep your $1000 Sandy. I'd much rather you just showed some common sense. 

Jim Hargrove wrote:The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

FFS!


As I have already explained multiple times, the 168 is the total number of days that needed to be re-ad[ded] to the absentee days to get the number of days available in the school year. 168 would only represent the days Oswald attended if he had been enrolled the whole school year.

Hargrove has never previously made the argument he makes here because he had no fucking idea what he was talking about with these records, He has HAD to make that argument now in a belated attempt to combat the reality I laid out.

DING DING DING and Splash!
Bullseye Greg.
Another rabid dunk tank clown goes down.
Nice throw.

greg parker wrote:

greg parker wrote:

sandy larsen wrote:It proves nothing because it makes false assumptions, leads to false answers, and is generally incoherent.

One example is this equation of Greg's:


62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy + 8 half day absences = 71.8 days --- the exact figure we find on the Beauregard records.

Add those numbers and see if you get "71.8 days." You won't.

Greg get's close to that number (72.5) if he treats a "half day" as literally  0.5 days. For example, he treats 5 half days as 2 1/2 days. Greg doesn't understand that "half day" really means "partial day." If a child was late for the first class, he would be marked as tardy. If he came in after the first class, or left before the last class, he would be marked as absent one "partial day." The reason the school used the phrase "half days" instead of "partial days" is because half days could be abbreviated in the records. For example, being absent "5/2" days meant that the student was absent for parts of 5 days. (The abbreviation is "5/2.") (See EDIT below.)

So in the equation above, when adding up the total number of days, "5 half days" should be treated as 5, not 2 1/2.

So why was Greg happy to do the equation the way he did? Because it adds up to 72.5, which is close to the number 71.8, which is a number he found on the record. Unfortunate for Greg, 72.5 is not 71.8, and the 71.8 is located on the record on a row that has nothing to do with the Fall semester of 1953 that we are talking about.

There is more, but I will spare you.

EDIT: I need to re-examine my remarks about "half days." I may be wrong about that.

False assumptions? The only false assumptions being made are by the Harvey and Lee crowd - that being that Mr Head's comments about the figures representing the number of school days attended was referring only to attendance at Beauregard. In fact, he says no such thing. He clearly states that they represent "a total listing of the school days in any given school year". So... nothing in that should make anyone conclude he is referring only to Beauregard, We also know that the number of absent days has to be added on because the "re-ad" days are only 168 and Head himself states it must not fall below 170, with the average or norm being 180. so adding those absent days back on, we get 168 + 12 = what Sandy? That's 180 -- 180 -- the total number of days available in that school year. 

I have NOT used half days as .5 of a day to arrive at 2.5. Where is that in my calculations? 

Let's start by leaving off the last figure I used - the 8 half day absences.

62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy = 71 days. 

Beauregard has simply added .8 to indicate 8 partial/half days. 

If it was added up with "normal" math, those part days still count as "whole" school days for calculating the number of school days available, so really, it should be 71+8= 79. Which of course, would be YOUR figure had you remembered to add in the one day "tardy".

Beauregard is just showing the same thing with there 71.8 - it is just a different way of showing it. If you still cannot see that this has been taken from the PS 44 records, you are truly in the thrall of a cult.

False answers? Again - that would be you. You left off the "tardy" day for ps 44, claimed I counted some days as half days in my calculations when I didn't and you completely ignore or misread what Head said. 

Clearly the figure of 71.8 is the same as your miscalculated figure taking into account that ( a ) the 71.8 is NOT meant to be the result of a calculation such as yours - but merely showing that their were 71 days PLUS 8 "Other" days (giving a total of 79) and ( b ) YOUR calculation of 78 inexplicably left out the "tardy" day, so it should in fact also be 79. Whichever way you slice it, the 71.8 figure is lifted from PS 44 records.

Generally incoherent? I'm happy to wear that and try and fix it, if there is some consensus on it. Is anyone else having trouble following my arguments? Please feel free to say so.

Meanwhile if you want to know what real incoherence looks like, simply read David Joseph and his former side-kick Steve Gaal posts in my threads at the ed forum. They represent the Gold Standard in incoherence. Just sayin'.

Other examples that you want to spare readers?  Oh pleaseeee! don't be so noble. Do give us those other examples. How else will you save readers from my misinfo?

Sandy Larsen's reply to a request to read the above:

Sandy Larsen wrote:I've looked at Greg's threads responding to HARVEY & LEE threads here numerous times. And have found nothing about the school records that is credible. I am no longer going to do that... at least not regarding the school records. If any Armstrong critic sees something of Greg's worthy of being posted here, they will have to do it. I'm done.

And yet, apart from making false claims about my work on this, such as claiming I turned some full days into half days, Sandy has had virtually zero to say about this work. His main rebuttal is just t repeat that it's wrong without explaining why it is wrong. Nor has he taken steps to correct his omission of one tardy day in his calculations.


Sandy Larsen's "Education" Forum bio:

I was born in Payson, Utah on Nov. 18, 1955. I received both a
BS and an MS degree in Electrical Engineering at Brigham Young
University. I cofounded New Wave Instruments with a friend of
mine in 1984 and later bought him out. I married late in life
and had my one and only child when I was 55. I am a lifelong
seeker of truth, and in fact that seems to be my hobby.

Seems since joining the "education" Forum, Sandy has abandoned his old hobby and taken up a new one. What to call this new hobby though? Suggestions?

Brigham Young?  I think Larsen's 'magic underwear' may have cut off circulation to his balls and his brain but at least his university education and his location might just explain why he has a propensity to believe in utter bullshit.

The merry-go-round continues.

Sandy Larsen wrote:Tracy,

The school records are easy to read, and they show that Oswald attended two schools simultaneously during the Fall semester of 8th grade. You guys just want to believe they are being misread. And you won't debate over them or even try to explain how to read them any other way... because you can't. So instead you point to a page on Greg Parker's website. Which also doesn't explain how to read them in a different way that is coherent.

As I keep saying, you have just the exhumation to hang onto.

 

You and the rest of the Gang whine and complain that no one debates this with you because it doesn't count unless it is posted right under your nose at Misinfo Central aka the Ed Forum. 

Your ONLY rebuttal is "Parker's wrong" and is "incoherent" (like I am the one who posts 50,000 word data dumps in 8 different fonts, 7 different colors and 4 different sizes, complimented with color coded arrows and circles and incomprehensible side notes).


If you are so OBVIOUSLY right and I am so OBVIOUSLY wrong, it should be a breeze to copy and paste my post over there and show, point by point, where I am wrong.

Otherwise, you are just another coward hiding behind some nonsensical bullshit about not being able to debate cos it's not right under your fuckin' nose.

Do it, Sandy. Be meticulous. Be transparent. Deliver on your words that my explanation is wrong. Point by fuckin point and not just provide another 50000 word data dump that not even fuckin Tom Hume can decode.

Sandy Larsen wrote:Jim,

Clearly the number in the Re-Ad column has to represent the actual number of days attended, for the reason you gave. But even if Tracy were right, that it represents the number of available school days, would that bolster his (or Greg's) argument in any way? I can't see that it would.

Jim Hargrove wrote:Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

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

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

Which is it? It is the former. It can in most cases also be the latter.

If Oswald had attended Beauregard for the entire school year, then Head would be correct when he said, "this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year." But since we know he was not in attendance at Beauregard for the entire school year, it is only the first part of Head's statement that applies - that is that it represents "(when added to days absent) the total listing of school days for a given school year." So we have 12 + 168 = the magic figure of 180 with some of that total transferring over from the PS 44 records.

With this, you get...
-The numbers adding up.

-Common sense prevailing with records transferring so no disadvantage accrues.
-Head's statement untangled and applied correctly

With H & L disregarding part of Head's statement, you get
-The numbers not adding up.
-NO records transferring, with consequent disadvantage to the student.
-Head's statement applied as if Oswald had been at Beauregard the whole school year.
-No explanation for the start date on the record.
-No explanation as to why the FBI missed what they claim is the obvious interpretation and therefore allowing the cat out of the bag.
-No explanation as to why only John Armstrong could see the "duel" records, and why now, only those who "believe" in his theory can see it.

Here's a little experiment to try: take the two sets of records to different people wit no dog in this fight - preferably teachers, but at least people smart enough to interpret basic forms. Do not flag the issues. Do not provide Head's explanation. Give them nothing but the raw data and that there were 180 days in that school year and see what they come up with.

Jim Byron wrote:But there is no “Byron Junior High” in New York and, according to the New York Historical Society, there never was.  Since there are PS 44s in four or five of the five New York City boroughs, how would Beauregard have received information from an incorrectly identified school?  John wrote: “Perhaps a false name for the school was provided so that Beauregard school personnel would be unable to obtain Oswald's New York school transcripts by mail.”

Or perhaps once again, you guys just get it wrong.

Technically - no Byron Jr High. But that was just a common abbreviation of it's full name - PORT BYRON Junior High....http://www.pbcschools.org/News/2013-14/140414_allcounty_festival.cfm

Obviously that is not the school he went to, so if it is listed on a Beauregard form, it is in error (so far, no hits in MFF for "Port Byron" and no google hits for "port byron ps 44" except in your bible, so I would like to see a link to this form when you can provide it). The problem you have is that according to you, schools and other public entities never made errors. The one exception to you was the FBI - who made errors by not completely wiping all traces of two Oswalds.

So what are you options with this if you are going to stick to your normal routine and claim "no error"?

You can...
claim this as proof that there was a third Oswald...

claim the school board forged the record for unknown reasons

claim the FBI forged the record for unknown reasons.

------------------------------

I will deal with other matters later. Have more pressings things to attend to until for the next several hours.

jim hargrove wrote:So... Mr. Parker informs us that there is a Port Byron in New York State.  Port Byron is about 280 miles NNW of New York City.  And there is no Port  Byron Junior High school, much less a PS 44 Byron Jr. High.  Today, in Port Byron there is only AA Gates Elementary and Dana-West Jr.-Sr. High. Mr Parker's discovery, which I've known about for 20 years or so, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  There is also a Port Byron in Illinois.  Why doesn't Mr. Parker talk about that?

In 1935 the Port Byron High School was destroyed by fire. As a result, a new and centralized school needed to be built. This change closed 23 smaller schools. The new Port Byron Central High School was built in 1937 on Church Street. 


The High School on Church Street was replaced with a more modern school on Maple Avenue in 1990. All three schools were now on one campus. A year later the high school was dedicated and named in honor of Dana L. West.
http://www.pbcschools.org/AboutUs/History/index.cfm

sandy larsen wrote:I couldn't understand Greg's reasoning right away, so I decided to deal with what I'm quoting here first, and then go back and try to figure out what Greg is talking about.
I don't have any really bright people around me, but I'm smart enough to "interpret basic forms." If I look at the Beauregard record while keeping in mind a school year consists of 180 days, here is what I see:
[list="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(53, 60, 65); font-family: Roboto,"]
[*]I see no 180s on the record, but the 12 and 168 for 1954/55 stand out because they add up to180. Since 12 is the number of days absent, 168 must be the number of days present, because together they add up to the total number of school days, 180.

Therefore, the "Re-Ad"  column is used for recording the number of days present.
 

[*]Looking at the same "total" row for school year 1953/54, I see 5 days absent and 179 days present. I add the numbers and get 184 for the total number of school days.

Therefore, there were 180 school days in the 1954/55 school year, but 184 school days in the 1953/54 school year.

[/list]

I don't know what Greg expects me to learn from that other than what I concluded. I don't understand why he says that the "Re-Ad" number can represent either the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period. It is obviously the latter.
Of course, the two numbers will be equal if there are zero absences, because the student will have attended every school day available. But the fact will remain that the Re-Ad column represents the number of days attended, not the number of days available to attend.
 
Now I will go back and try to figure out Greg's reasoning.

You're OVER thinking. Which is the same mistake Head made.

Let's tackle it in smaller bytes.

But before that, let's finally acknowledge that Head admitted he was guessing when he labeled his explanation an "interpretation".

Again - that's an admission that he was guessing.

His first instinct however was to simply state that the "re-ad" figure "represents the total listing of the school days for a given school year."

Okay. Stop there Mr Head, because now is where you are about to over-think it Mr. Head obviously is now realizing that for this to be true, the figure would need to be at least 170 (but most likely 180), and he can't figure out why it shows only 168. So... instead of realizing that the number of absences had to be added on, he jumped to the wrong conclusion that they must actually represent days attended. But as I have repeatedly pointed out - that only works if you have attended that school the whole school year. HE OVER-THOUGHT IT. 

If he stopped at his initial statement that it was the total number of AVAILABLE days in a school year (as opposed to actual days ATTENDED) and thought about it a bit more, he may have worked out that the absences made up the shortfall.  That is 12 days absences + 168 OTHER available days - 180.

If you still don't get it, I officially give up trying to explain because I don't know how to simplify it any further.

Pardon the intrusion here, but I suggest that Tracy start another Harvey & Lee poll to allow tin foil hat cultists to expose themselves for all to see. Consider it a type of census to identify and mark imbeciles. I would expect the number of "believers" to be higher this time around compared to the poll conducted a couple years ago, because The Education Forum and other asylums like Deep Politics run off good people and serious researchers while attracting other like-minded lunatics who are addicted to outlandish conspiracy theories and otherwise howl at the moon. Kind of a reverse refining process where the valuable portion is driven off and the slag remains behind.
 
I think it's wonderful, myself. Even deluded freaks need a home, a place of their own. EDF and Deep Foo Foo fit the bill.
 
I personally don't care what people like Hargrove, Josephs and Larson think. They have never produced anything of value—and they never will. They're just producers of worthless cut & paste opinions. The only value I find in visiting places like these anymore is when I need a good, hearty laugh.

Let them debate themselves. Masturdebators, they.

Maybe we shouldn't cast our pearls before Larsons, I mean swine.

Stan, no need for a new poll  In 20 years they have gained 1 new member.
As a theory it's so embarrassing that they will only discuss it between themselves. Point out the stupidity and you will be banned... so they can debate you.

H&L is the herpes of JFK research. You can sooth the itch but it always returns.

Sandy Larsen wrote:I've thought about this for a while, and I now believe there is a third interpretation of "Re-Ad" that is the correct one.

The number of days a child is absent may be useful to teachers and parents, but it's not particularly important to school administrators. Schools generally get funded based upon the total number of days attended by all the school's pupils. For example, if 500 students attend 89 days on average in a semester, the schools will be funded for 500 x 89 = 44500 pupil-days of attendance. If attendance decreases, then so does funding.

Under our (not Greg's) current interpretation of Re-Ad, if a student is transferred from another school half way through the semester, the funding would drop significantly because it would show that the student attended only half the number of school days. This could result in administrators discouraging re-admissions into their schools.

I believe that the Re-Ad number is the number of days a student attends his current school, plus the number of days he attended at the school he transferred from. I believe that Re-Ad stands for "Re-Admission," and is named that way because of this practice of transferring attended school days.

"Re-Ad" is short for "Re-Admission," which is short for "School Days Attended across Re-Admissions."

We seem to be finally on the same page because this is the interpretation I have being trying to get across all along by repeating that the the Beauregard records incorporate transferred records from PS 44. 

All that remains now is for you to admit that this shoots the H & L interpretation of two boys at two schools simultaneously right in the butt. 

Nothing wrong with doing backflips when the evidence forces it. Have done my share.

Sandy Larsen wrote:I didn't say that the Beauregard school record shows that Oswald received some transfer days from PS 44 (or any other school). I said that it is a possibility. There is no way to tell if Oswald received any transfer days, and if so, how many.

However, the fact (as the record shows) that Oswald passed two classes at Beauregard that semester proves that the number of transferred days could not have been very many. This is corroborated by the fact that Oswald attended enough days at PS 44 to pass all his classes there. (For clarification of this paragraph, read my question for Greg below. It's more straightforward.)

Tell me this Greg: How would it be possible for Oswald to attend PS 44 long enough to pass his classes there (which he did), and still have enough time left in the semester to transfer to Beauregard and pass even more classes there (which he also did)?

 

P.S. Mathias: Read what I highlighted in red in Greg's response above. That is an example of a person doing what you said... interpreting data in a way intended to conform to his per-conceived beliefs. Greg does that, I do not.

Gawd, here we go again.

Sandy,


1} I really don't know what you mean when you say, I didn't say that the Beauregard school record shows that Oswald received some transfer days from PS 44 (or any other school). I said that it is a possibility. 


Oswald doesn't receive "transfer days". It is a clerical transfer on paper only for the reason you previously gave: to avoid loss of funding and ( 2 ) you never used the qualifier "possibility". The closest you got to any qualifier was in saying "I believe..." You can believe something is a fact or you can believe something is a possibility. You didn't say which it was.

2) You incorrectly infer something from a fact which you actually should qualify as nothing more than a (needs-based) belief.  Passing two classes is not "proof" regarding the number of transfer days.  The number of days transfered on paper is determined solely by the number days Lee was enrolled at PS 44. It's almost like you have been chastened for your heresy and you are now backpedaling as fast as you can.

3 ) I don't have to tell you, Sandy. I know it's possible. I went to more schools than Oswald did and passed every test I have had, regardless of how long or how little time I had, And i'm no smarter than Lee was.

4 ) What the hell are you babbling about? I spent how long patiently explaining what the records reflect? You finally appeared to see it the same way, and to acknowledge it in this reply to Mathias:

sandy larsen wrote:Just to set the record straight, I am not interpreting the meaning of "Re-Ad" in a way to support my H&L opinion. I don't work that way.

And, for the record, the way I do interpret "Re-Ad" does not support my H&L opinion. (Which proves that my prior paragraph is true.)

I for one, held out some hope for you at that stage that you were indeed capable of changing your mind.

Now you're back to throwing in inexplicable bullshit into the mix about Oswald having "transfer days" and even more bullshit about what his passing tests "proves".

Who got to you in the time between your reply to Mathias and following post? Were you threatened with excommunication?

As for me... there are few as open-minded as I am. Don't ever cast aspersions that I fit anything into preconceived beliefs. I don't have a theory to fit anything into. Not my fault the two Oswald theory doesn't hold up.

greg parker wrote:

Sandy Larsen wrote:I've thought about this for a while, and I now believe there is a third interpretation of "Re-Ad" that is the correct one.

The number of days a child is absent may be useful to teachers and parents, but it's not particularly important to school administrators. Schools generally get funded based upon the total number of days attended by all the school's pupils. For example, if 500 students attend 89 days on average in a semester, the schools will be funded for 500 x 89 = 44500 pupil-days of attendance. If attendance decreases, then so does funding.

Under our (not Greg's) current interpretation of Re-Ad, if a student is transferred from another school half way through the semester, the funding would drop significantly because it would show that the student attended only half the number of school days. This could result in administrators discouraging re-admissions into their schools.

I believe that the Re-Ad number is the number of days a student attends his current school, plus the number of days he attended at the school he transferred from. I believe that Re-Ad stands for "Re-Admission," and is named that way because of this practice of transferring attended school days.

"Re-Ad" is short for "Re-Admission," which is short for "School Days Attended across Re-Admissions."

We seem to be finally on the same page because this is the interpretation I have being trying to get across all along by repeating that the the Beauregard records incorporate transferred records from PS 44. 

All that remains now is for you to admit that this shoots the H & L interpretation of two boys at two schools simultaneously right in the butt. 

Nothing wrong with doing backflips when the evidence forces it. Have done my share.

jim hargrove wrote:A few problems....  There are no PS 44 records published in the Beauregard file, and the one indication of "PS 44" is misnamed "Byron Jr. High."  Since there are multiple PS 44s in the various NYC boroughs, how would the Beauregard know where to get the data?  And if it somehow it  did get the data, why does the first semester line indicate none of the PS 44 courses Oswald attended?

1) No one said there were PS 44 "records" published in the Beauregard records. The number of days he was enrolled at ps 44 were incorporated into the "re-ad" figures. 

2) Ah yes, Byron Jr High. Since you obviously do not believe this to be an innocent clerical error, perhaps you can explain it's significance - particularly how it advances your cause. Simply pointing to anomalies and hinting darkly that this must mean something may be enough for the ed forum, but it doesn't wash here. So was it Harvey at Byron? Lee? A hitherto unknown "other" doppelganger - perhaps a failed sperm experiment that got terminated? Or was it a lie added to the record by the FBI because...[.... fill in the blank....]

3) How did Beauregard get the data relating to PS 44? You're kidding? The Oswald's couldn't have told them which school he attended? In absence of it coming the Oswald's, it could not have come from the School Board central records?