LHO Right or Left Handed

Do we know with certainty whether Lee Oswald was right or left handed? We know the Warren Commission asked his brother Robert about this and he replied LHO was right handed and we know from the backyard pictures the holster was on LHO's right side. Is there any definitive proof one way or the other?

What about that photo showing him as a soldier on the range shooting right handed?

JFK Case wrote:What about that photo showing him as a soldier on the range shooting right handed?

What about proving that the photo is actually of Lee.

greg parker wrote:

JFK Case wrote:What about that photo showing him as a soldier on the range shooting right handed?

What about proving that the photo is actually of Lee.

Hint: a former Marine named David C Stuart says he is the person in the photo. 

Stuart enlisted in the Marine Corps in January 1957, and was stationed in 
San Diego, CA. 

He was a member of First Battalion Platoon 113. 

He claimed back in 2012 that he has the Platoon 113 yearbook from 1957, which has the photo with his name listed. 

I believe him. It does not look like Oswald to me.

The claim it was Oswald was not made by the authorities. The claim was another bogus claim by Groden -- and supported by another fake researcher, Gary Mack. But the family of Stuart sent the yearbook to Lancer and a number of credible researchers, including an early member here (no not the preacher with the shrunken nuts), confirmed seeing it and confirmed it was Stuart.

Groden and others of his ilk have shitloads of shit they need to be held to account for. The years wasted on all the wild goose chases and false leads is staggering.

And continues... because here I am making a third post setting the issue straight.

Interesting. I had no idea that someone came forward and said it was himself and not LHO.

Groden seems to be a highly overrated researcher. Many treat him as if he was a star.

Okay, I must confess, that I am sleep deprived this week.  The first thing that sprang to mind upon reading this thread was the scene from The Princess Bride where both the Dread Pirate Roberts and Inigo Montoya show their expert ability to fight with a sword with either hand.

Moving back to the actual subject here, I have two questions.  Having asked every possible question about LHO to document his childhood, wasn't it documented somewhere else outside of Mrs. Oswald's testimony?  Didn't the Warren Commission ask any of his old teachers whether he was right or left handed?  Was his handwriting ever analyzed to see if he appeared to be left or right handed?  Didn't the Marines document anything about his handedness?  

The world isn't made for left handed people even now, but back then he would have major issues in school learning to write cursive left handed to meet the standards unless one of his teachers knew enough to teach a left handed person.  So many people of that general era wound up with lousy handwriting because they were left handed and either had to figure out how to make it work OR were forced to write with their right hand.  I just figured some friend, some old teacher, somebody would have said something?  Of course, he could have been ambidextrous.  I know left handed people who eat with their right hands.  I also know my mother could write with both hands.  She actually wrote better with her right, but her left handed script was also beautiful.  It just looked way different.  If I hadn't seen her do it, I would never have guessed that the same handwriting came from the same person.

And my other question may not be appropriate to ask here, so if not please disregard.  I'm still learning which sources are considered more accurate by the majority of the research community.  I know this varies depending on whether or not you think LHO was the lone assassin or believe that there was a conspiracy, but I can't be the only person with this question.  How do you - maybe each you, personally - determine which sources to trust?  

For example, in this thread it mentions Robert Groden & Gary Mack.   I read that Robert Groden was considered a photographic expert on the case, and I read that Gary Mack was a serious researcher whose opinions may have changed later in his life.  I don't know if either statement is accurate.  This is simply what I have read, but I'm just wondering how you guys determine what makes a researcher a valid source, a good source with question marks, or somebody to completely disregard?

DaniDanz wrote:And my other question may not be appropriate to ask here, so if not please disregard.  I'm still learning which sources are considered more accurate by the majority of the research community.  I know this varies depending on whether or not you think LHO was the lone assassin or believe that there was a conspiracy, but I can't be the only person with this question.  How do you - maybe each you, personally - determine which sources to trust?  

For example, in this thread it mentions Robert Groden & Gary Mack.   I read that Robert Groden was considered a photographic expert on the case, and I read that Gary Mack was a serious researcher whose opinions may have changed later in his life.  I don't know if either statement is accurate.  This is simply what I have read, but I'm just wondering how you guys determine what makes a researcher a valid source, a good source with question marks, or somebody to completely disregard?

My approach:
Don't trust anything and verify everything. Nobody is 100% foolproof.
Seek out the facts first. The evidence.
That's your foundation.
Don't accept anything as a given.
Be curious and trust your instincts.
How does a person's body of work stack up against the facts?
Some score high to damn near perfect.
Some score very low.
Speculation is OK as long as it is clearly identified as such.
After awhile, you develop confidence in certain people/sources.
If my confidence in a person/source is high (like it is with core ROKC members) I pay very close attention.
The reason my confidence is high with certain/people sources is that they provide references to support their thought processes and conclusions.