Dear Sandy

Fri 19 Jun 2020, 12:38 am

It is so easy to lie about what someone else has written when they cannot directly confront you. There is a word for that sort of thing. Cowardice.

Of course, if you had an ounce of integrity, you would cut and paste what I I have written about the issues you mention.

Since you have avoided doing that and have taken the easy way out by lying, I'll do it here for you.

Evidence for two Oswalds:
School records indicate that Oswald took classes full time at Public School 44 in NYC. For the very same period of time, other school records indicate that Oswald took classes part time at Beauregard Junior High in NO.
Greg Parker's analysis:
Oswald cannot attend two schools at the same time. Therefore the school records for one of those schools must have a semester's worth of clerical errors in it.
Sandy Larsen's analysis:
There are two possibilities. Either Greg Parker is right, or there are two Oswalds attending the two schools. If this were the only evidence pointing to two Oswalds, I would agree with Greg Parker and say there is only one Oswald. But there is a lot of other evidence pointing to two Oswalds, too much to call it all clerical errors. I therefore conclude that, while Greg may be right on this one point, it's more likely that he is wrong.

Nowhere did I ever claim clerical errors were to blame.

I have consistently stated that you are all misreading the records to suit your theory.

Head was obviously uncertain about what "re-ad" meant because he had two completely different explanations for it.

The re-ad figure is simply the balance of days available after days absences.

So... if you have 12 days absence and 168 days in the re-ad column... you have a total school year of 180 days. It ain't rocket science.

In the above scenario, if the person had enrolled at that school for the whole school year, then indeed, 168 days is the total number of days in attendance.

But if the student only enrolled part way through the year, you would need to know the date they started in order to calculated days attended.

But no matter what the case, and even if I were to agree with Greg Parker, what he has done cannot be called a debunking. It is merely an opinion.

No Sandy. That is how the records are read. Get over it.

An opinion is when you look at a photo and declare the person has an impossible 13 inch head.

There is a vast difference.

Fri 19 Jun 2020, 10:43 pm

Bravo Greg
The way the H and L filters choose to present their " evidence" is almost as dubious as the " evidence" itself ..
What does it say about a " theory" if the propitiators of said " theory" use every possible shoddy underhanded method; blatantly lying and misrepresenting the position of the so called " naysayers"
Im not trying to be melodramatic here but I was genuinely appalled to see what Armstrong did with Dorothy Marcus testimony..and DeSallete from Bolton Ford.
Baggins is reduced to goading Jeremy into " debate" ..using the old " data dump and run" tactic . swamping everyone in teams of irrelevant trivia about school records.
I bet if you looked through the records of Oswald's contemporaries you'd find similar discrepancies.
By attempting to transform such discrepancies into evidence of a double doppelganger project Baggins and his cohorts resort to alchemy that would make ol' Fulcanelli turn green
Maybe it was Nicholas Flamel who was in charge of the Oswald Project..come to think of it theres another blatant example of Baggins intellectual dishonesty..nowhere in his HSCA testimony does Wolcott mention anything about doppelgangers..it's the Oswald( singular) project.. not a double doppelganger project with a Cecil B DeMille cast size of participants.
Quite honestly I'd be more inclined to believe a 15th century Parisian alchemist conjured HARVEY to life...

Fri 19 Jun 2020, 11:48 pm

alex wilson wrote:Bravo Greg
The way the H and L filters choose to present their " evidence" is almost as dubious as the " evidence" itself ..
What does it say about a " theory" if the propitiators of said " theory" use every possible shoddy underhanded method; blatantly lying and misrepresenting the position of the so called " naysayers"
Im not trying to be melodramatic here but I was genuinely appalled to see what Armstrong did with Dorothy Marcus testimony..and DeSallete from Bolton Ford.
Baggins is reduced to goading Jeremy into " debate" ..using the old " data dump and run" tactic . swamping everyone in teams of irrelevant trivia about school records.
I bet if you looked through the records of Oswald's contemporaries you'd find similar discrepancies.
By attempting to transform such discrepancies into evidence of a double doppelganger project Baggins and his cohorts resort to alchemy that would make ol' Fulcanelli turn green
Maybe it was Nicholas Flamel who was in charge of the Oswald Project..come to think of it theres another blatant example of Baggins intellectual dishonesty..nowhere in his HSCA testimony does Wolcott mention anything about doppelgangers..it's the Oswald( singular) project.. not a double doppelganger project with a Cecil B DeMille cast size of participants.
Quite honestly I'd be more inclined to believe a 15th century Parisian alchemist conjured HARVEY to life...

"The Oswald Project" - if anything existed at all - was not an official project with a specific project name. In fact, naming a project after the main participant in said project would be unprecedented in the history of the CIA.

My impression is that Wolcott used the term in testimony as shorthand to explain the transfer of a small amount of money. People do that sort of thing to save lengthy and convoluted explanations.

Oswald may or may not have been used at the time in some very low level way.

Although there are discrepancies in the records of this case, it is probably not correct to say the New York/Beauregard school records fall in that category. The issue with those is a straight up misreading of the records. Specifically by trying to claim that the "re-ad" figure represents the total number of days of attendance. That is just a plain wrong interpretation.

As you and I have discussed before, it represents the total number of days left in a school year after accounting for days absent. It can also represent the total number of days attendance -- but only if the student was enrolled for the entire school year.

Sat 20 Jun 2020, 12:20 pm

Dear Sandy wrote:Greg Parker uses circular logic in his H&L arguments and this is a perfect example of that. I'll explain.
Here is Greg Parker's line of reasoning:
There cannot have been two Oswalds and I'll tell you why:
[list="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(53, 60, 65); font-family: Roboto,"]
[*]If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling.

[*]But it is known that Oswald attended a different school at that time.

[*]Since there was only one Oswald, he could not have attended Stripling.

[*]Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records. Oswald did not attend Stripling.

[*]And therefore there was only one Oswald.

[/list]
Parker has to assume (in #3) that there was only one Oswald in order to conclude that there was only one Oswald. This is a well-known logical fallacy.

What did I say previously about making up my arguments for me? You're being very mischievous.

My argument by the numbers, if I must:

1. Kudlaty said nothing about it until approached by the H & L recruitment team
2. Kudlaty had an undeclared long-time friendship Jack White
3. The Texas Attorney General was only able to get any school records from the FW School District Office via the FW police.
4. Nothing similar was done to confiscate records from New York or New Orleans despite your claim that those records overlapped.
5. Archival records were not stored at the school. But even if they were, the FW School District would still have had records - yet nothing about Stripling was in the material obtained by the AG
6. Any school administrator who gave up records belonging to the School District without copying them or at very least, obtaining a receipt, has no business being in that position
7. Anyone interested in the facts, and not a recruitment drive, would have questioned Kudlaty closely about why he never got a receipt, and never followed up the return of the material (unless of course, he was "in on it" and knew the reason it was being taken, and that it would never be returned)
8. The newspaper stories are relying on Robert's 1959 statement as being correct, when it was was not. Robert's memory was very fallible as amply demonstrated by none other than Mr Armstrong himself, in regard to Lee watching "I Led 3 Lives".

Dear Sandy wrote:I read Greg's Parker's post and I stand corrected on this one point. I thought it was Greg who claimed that the Beauregard school record problem was due to a clerical error. But that was someone else. (Which is a shame for Greg because the clerical error explanation at least is a possibility that would be relevant if true.) His explanation has to do with the way he interprets the Re-Ad field.
I don't recall now how Greg's interpretation of that number helps his side of the argument. I just recall that it didn't make much difference, and that the clerical error idea was better and would have been my choice if I were arguing Greg's side.
What I do recall from years ago is that I studied both Greg's and Jim's interpretation of the Re-Ad number and it was clear to me that Jim got it right. Not that it makes much difference.
Anyway, I admit that I remember that one thing incorrectly.

You don't recall how the correct reading of the "re-ad" figure affects the calculations?

Okay. I'll be patient and explain again.

According to you, the "re-ad" figure is the total number of days in attendance. This is an impossibility in Lee's case as it overlaps with the New York school records. The only alternatives are ( a ) an error in the records or ( b ) two Oswalds using the same name and history, You obviously opt for the latter.

According to me, neither of those options is correct because the "re-ad" figure is NOT the total number of days in attendance. It is the total number of school days over and above the number of absent. Going from memory here, but IIRC, Lee had 12 days absence at Beauregard. That left 168 other school days. That is NOT the not the number of days he attended. So the total number of school days at Beauregard that school year was 12+168=180 - the exact number of days that most schools aimed for.

To calculate the days Lee actually attended, you obtain his start date at the school and work out how much of the school year at Beauregard he'f already missed - then add on his days of absenteeism and deduct the total from the 180 days.

Dear Sandy wrote:Greg was trying to get a little dig in on my position on the so-called 13 inch head. Problem is, my position isn't and hasn't been for years that that photo must have been altered. In fact, I was the person here who first (AFAIK) explained how the 13 inches was a perspective illusion. (I and some other member came up with this solution at the same time.) And I posted this old mug shot of Paul Newman to show that 13 inches wasn't unusual:

LOL!

You posted that on Nov 29, 2017 after being corrected by SEVERAL of the other 13" Head Forum Members.

Prior to finally admitting your error, you had posted comments such as this:

Dear Sandy Nov, 27, 2017 wrote:Andrej,

What do you mean you can't measure the head height "from a front view such as this?" Of course you can.

The top of his head is at 5' 9" = 69". The bottom of his chin is at 4' 8" = 56" .

The height of his head is therefore 69"- 56" = 13" .

This ridiculous head height should put all height measurements in question. Obviously somebody has tampered with that photo.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/?do=findComment&comment=365108

If you had been paying attention to the only forum actually trying to get to the facts, you could have saved making such an idiot of yourself. I Tried to help you out in April of that year.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy

You and the others of course, would have been in big trouble from Jack White for this heresy. Jack maintained until his passing that the head was 13 inches. I wonder how you would have all reacted to being chastised by such an outstanding member of the Conspiriocracy? I don't know about the others, but given the cowardice you have shown in not directly quoting me but instead, attempting to stuff straw arguments in my mouth, I think you would have buckled and gone back to being a true believer in not only doppelgangers - but doppelgangers with encephalitis.

OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE HAS TAMPERED WITH THE PHOTO!!!! Should go on your headstone...

Sun 21 Jun 2020, 2:17 am

Sandy, I have absolutely no doubt that you are a fundamentally decent, honest guy.
If I've ever offended you personally I apologise. There's no malice behind what I write. How could there be? I don't know you.
My intent is to satirise your arrogance, closemindedness and hypocrisy.
Im sorry Sandy that's just how i see it. Read your messages back. The insufferable smugness and arrogance.. not a good look for someone whose almost always wrong.
ImI fucking pissed off at the doppelgang because I feel like I was duped by the H and L gang, how can anyone possibly make an informed decision when only so much of the evidence is presented? I first discovered H and L in the Assassination Anthology Jim DiE edited .I was entranced by the whole idea. The book itself i found practically unreadable. A 1000 page sales pitch as opposed to a serious historical study. So much evidence distorted or omitted..or contorted to fit the doppelganger template .
And the evidence that was presnted was manipulated and further distorted. Almost beyond recognition
One of the pieces of evidence I found most convincing was Myrtle Evans testimony.
Here was someone who knew Marguerite apparently saying the woman she saw on TV wasn't the Marguerite she remembered.
Do you honestly think Armstrong was justified in leaving the killer line out?
" But of course it was Margie"
When I discovered that I realised I wasn't dealing with a researcher but with a salesman.
Likewise the interviews Armstrong and White conducted with Schubert, DaRouse etc.
This was a salesman very cleverly massaging memories .
Making the interviewees feel as if their memories possessed some profound historical significance. As if their memories were the key to unlocking one of THE great mysteries of the age
Memories are fragile and easily manipulated. To try to view them through the dualistic prism of black/ white, truth/ lies is to grossly misunderstand how memory works
Armstrong, was enraptured with the idea of two Oswald's. He forced, cajoled, distorted the evidence to fit his chosen scenario.
Sandy, I grew up amongst Russian speakers. Defectors, dissidents, ex KGB agents, British intelligence analysts, some of the most renowned and respected linguists and academics of their day. If you want to join the forum I'll send you a PM with the names .I don't want to say anything publicly at this stage but what I found out, from first hand sources too, unimpeachable first hand sources too, suggested to me that Prof Petrov, Yale professor of not, was not exactly what you might call reliable when it involved certain things .
I know this subject intimately and what I didn't know i asked. I asked some of the most highly regarded experts. Not only linguists and academics but contemporary intelligence professionals. Insiders. Individuals intimately acquainted with the sources and the methods.
H and L broke virtually ALL the cardinal rules of intelligence operations. If it was real, if H and L existed and if the operation actually happened the Soviets would almost certainly have known about it. The mission would have been scrubbed or Harvey , pardon me HARVEY, would have been arrested the instant he set foot on the Motherland. Arrested, interrogated then deported.
By 1959 the Americans knew all of the past decades missions were compromised. An operation of this unprecedented scale would have most certainly been discussed by Angletons and Philbys. At the time the putative doppelganging took place Philbys had a fucking office out at Langley...
Initially I approached my sources as a believer. I wanted them to tell me H and L was entirely possible. ImI being absolutely sincere Sandy, I desperately wanted H and L to be true
It's an intoxicating proposition, imbued with romance and spy mystique. At first glance it seems to tie up all the imponderables, all the loose ends in a suitably dramatic fashion. I can fully understand the attraction.
Oswald wasn't just a patsy, but he was involved in one of the most Machiavellian cold war operations ever undertaken
The mastoidectomy and the ridiculous central premise render all the other, albeit fascinating minutia moot
Why launch an impossibly convulted decade long double doppelganger project just to have an Eastern European orphan masquerade as an American marine defector? Oswald s job wasn't to blend in. Sandy, why was it necessary to carry out this mindbogglingly double doppelganger project? What unique skills did Harvey possess? According to the book he left the Eastern Block as an infant. I'm not being faceitous..thin t about it. A well trained American would have been a far better candidate for a young disaffected American. The tests Col Folsom spoke about and Oswald's date with Rosalyn QuinnsQ aunt are good indications of a young American who'd received language training. Oswald didn't need to be a native speaker..
Oswald was nowhere near a native speaker anyway
Nowhere near. Reading his letters and listening to him speak imI absolutely certain of that . I'm certain he didn't write the Walker letter either..but thatst another story.
The real historical Lee Harvey Oswald was a young man with certain skills and aptitudes that made him attractive to US intelligence.
A natural aptitude for languages amongst them
What possible advantages could an Eastern European have over a properly trained American?
What advantages would have been worth an almost unimaginably intricate decade long project?
Your HARVEY left Hungary/ Soviet Union as an infant. He could have no possible insights into the culture. Anyway they weren't looking for someone to blend in. They were looking for a young apparently disaffected American.
The historical Oswald was a perfect candidate.
The anomalies in the school records etc are perfectly explicable. There's nothing unique about them
The Oswald's were a nomadic family, anomalies in the records suggest nothing untoward; except for people who want to make them untoward.
I know Jack White is widely respected figure; almost venerated in fact, but his work makes me shiver and break out into a cold sweat.
His research was the absolute anthesis of serious historical research.
Quite simply he and Armstrong didn't know what they were looking at.
I'm sorry to say my suspicion is that they specifically avoided people who DID know.
Out of beguiling loose ends and seemingly sinister looking anomalies they wove a tapestry designed specifically to appeal to people with an in built aversion to governmental agencies.
You accuse Jeremy of resorting to logical fallacies.
I disagree strongly.
Sandy, it's impossible to argue rationally with people who make a mockery of the very basic tenets of epistemology.
H and L operates in a Dreamworld devoid of reason, rationality and I'm afraid to say intellectual honesty.
ImI sorry to say I took your highhanded patronising attitude personally.
Like too many others your outrage, feigned or not, was ( and I'm afraid still is) highly selective.
You had no problems with Clark declaring H and L disbelievers as vermin etc.
As an European who lost family members in the Holocaust I found the allusion utterly despicable.
Clark should have been instantly banned. Likewise you had no problems with Joseph's vitriolic attacks with him and Baggins declaring Greg was a paid disinformation agent.
Think about that . Someone paid to disseminate falsehoods about the assassination of your President.
Likewise Sandy y find your presentations of GregsG arguments highly disingenuous at best
Moral equivalence it may be; but to my mind moral equivalence is better than moral bankruptcy.
Yes Oswald was impersonated. Yes Oswald had a relationship with one or more American intelligence agencies. Yes there are some fascinating anomalies in the extant records
Trying to fit it all into the H and L straightjacket, having each topic hijacked and reduced to non sequiturs about the American born LEE just makes the truth even harder to discern
I don't believe Jimbo Baggins believes a word of it
His attitude, his perpetual goading as if he is in some possession of some great cosmic truth.
His sly underhanded tactics. He's the Willy Loman of assassination research. Trying desperately to sell a badly flawed product. Baggins has built a 20 year career on logivlo fallacies. Sandy,I always try to examine my own beliefs with at the very least the same candour I reserve for the beliefs of others. You should try it sometime. I find it intriguing that your outrage is always reserved for people who just happen to disagree with you. As I said before I couldn't give a fuck if Clark, Baggins, Fetzer or Jeffries agreed unequivocally with everything I said. I'd do absolutely everything to disassociate myself from them .
I suppose you see no problems with Baggins pimping a vapid piece of hackwork written by one of those August scholars from OIC and published by Fetzers Moon Rocks Books?
I know I'm probably contributing to the general divisiveness, but satire is a potent tool. Reading the sneering duplicitous bullshit Baggins spews out just makes me so angry
To see someone who obviously doesn't give a fuck about anything except pimping his discredited horseshit make a mockery out of a subject I care a great deal about, while you continue to misrepresent the work of someone I respect greatly, someone who's research has opened my eyes and brought us to the very cusp of solving it .. I don't particularly enjoy being unpleasant; it's not in my nature, but reading some of the shit youvey passed off as research I figured silence would imply consent.
I apologized to Chris Davidson because I was mistaken.
I believe Chris is wrong but I don't for a second doubt his motives
Sandy, you seem to labour under the somewhat misguided apprehension that yourey so much smarter than the rest of us.
Youve a nasty habit of talking down to people "You don't understand the evidence" etc, giving the back of your hand to dentists and bankers
Probably to linguists, academics and historians too
I have to be honest, I have little respect for your intellect. You present yourself as the absolute anthesis of a serious unbiased historian
I joined here because the people here have the honesty to admit when theyre mistaken
I find intellectual dishonesty, spreading propaganda, cavorting with so called revisionists and open holocaust deniers ( hello Don. ) utterly reprehensible.
Sandy, look honestly at what Clark, Baggins, Joseph's and yourself hay said about Greg and others.
Openly stating he's paid to lie about the assassination.
Joseph's sending Bernie Laverick abusive PMs .
Everything I've said here is tongue in cheek.
I make no apology. Satire and parody is a valid form.
When you're attempting to argue with people who habitually distort or twist the evidence it's very hard to do anything else.
Greg, what do you figure Baggins and cos response will be when they discover what we're working on? Whats the odds a doppelganger Prusakov will be summoned from the same doppelganger netherworld that disgorged poor Harvey...pardon me HARVEY...

Sun 21 Jun 2020, 11:17 am

Greg, what do you figure Baggins and cos response will be when they discover what we're working on? Whats the odds a doppelganger Prusakov will be summoned from the same doppelganger netherworld that disgorged poor Harvey...pardon me HARVEY...

There won't be any response, Alex.

H & L research and real research have about as much in common as marbles does with quantum physics.

We have already seen Sandy's reaction to valid analysis of the Kudlaty story. According to Sandy, any reason that Kudlaty must be wrong, actually constitutes circular reasoning. This has the flow-on effect of saying that any research or analysis that goes against H & L is logically flawed.

It is such an outlandish and illogical position that it goes against the very basis of scientific inquiry because it makes H & L research unfalsifiable, thus rendering it as a matter of faith.
--------------------------------
Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Example

"Jim" (not his real name) has tiny, invisible unicorns living in his anus. Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment.

But Jim's brother recalls seeing invisible unicorns on TV around the same time that he himself was constipated, so he believes Jim must have become constipated as well. Other kids in the neighborhood also recall seeing the invisible unicorns on TV and when questioned at length on the subject, finally recalled that it was Jim who was constipated and forgot all about his brother. They all agreed that the Unicorns escaped through the ether and caused Jim's anal blockage. Unfortunately the medical records proving all of his got confiscated by the MIB.

Did you know someone had the hide to point out that

-You can't see something that is invisible
-There is no evidence in any medical journals of tiny invisible unicorns causing constipation in humans
-Memory is a tricky thing. Here, memories of Jim's brother being constipated seem to get lost and then magically transferred to the constipation being Jim's all along. It only took a few hours of intense "discussion" on the subject for these memories to shift to the "correct" position.

The problem with the above analysis is of course that it constitutes circular reasoning and it is not even remotely possible to arrive at that analysis unless you start with the conclusion conclude that Jim's brother was the one with constipation and not Jim.

That is how it rolls according to Sandy.

Dear Sandy is a godamn genius. Just ask him. And therefore all non H & L evidence and analysis constitutes circular reasoning.

An invisible unicorn told me.

Sun 21 Jun 2020, 11:06 pm

It's called Whack A Mole, Alex. When a mole pops its head out of the hole saying what about this and it's whacked, another one does the same thing from another hole. And so on...

It's never going to end. Look at the recent Davidson posts on this forum. Nothing you ever say will change his mind about the sheer silliness of his theory that 67% of the frames were removed from the Z film. The same with Larsen, Josephs, Butler and others.

You ought go over to the Ed Forum. Davidson is now saying there that the simple fluffing of Kennedy's hair in the wind before 313 is due to some mysterious and missed bullet whizzing by. He even made one of his "talented" (as you gave him credit for) GIF's "proving" this.

Sun 21 Jun 2020, 11:56 pm

I disagree profoundly with what he's attempting to do. Z film alteration is right up there with H and L in my opinion.
But I can respect his obvious mathematical talent.
Like H and L alteration arguments boil down to a question of epistemology.
Both habitually use the " It's fake" card as their universal get out of jail free , do not pass Go and do not collect £200
It makes it almost impossible even to frame an argument, never mind start one
I remember the threads you refer to; and it must have been beyond frustrating to try and argue rationally with 8 foot women and three legged dwarves on Elm Street.
Whatever you think about his arguments, and I've made my position very clear I was wrong attacking Chris personally.
I don't doubt his motivation and as someone whose depressingly unmathematical( despite having tried) I can respect his obvious ability.
Also theres always the prospect, however remote it may be, that he might be right.
Obviously you understand the technical aspects far better than me and thus have a firmer grasp of the argument he's trying to make. I can also understand your frustration.

Mon 22 Jun 2020, 12:19 am

I've never read more than a few sentences of any of his posts. Not interested in the alteration arguments, but beyond that, I found his material incomprehensible - not solely because of the math. My disinterest is based in a firm belief that the argument is unwinnable by either side.

And yes, the H and L gang relies on a growing list of logical fallacies - and when they fail, a reversion to whack-a-mole. But despite that, there are real answers to their bullshit. Those answers need to be laid out so that H & L does not become part of the canonical metahistory alongside the already long list of false narratives and witnesses that have crept into the public consciousness.

So let 'em play whack-a-mole. If they weren't doing that, who knows what else they might get up to?

Mon 22 Jun 2020, 12:37 am

By Armstrong you're right!!
Imagine the havoc Jimbo B or Armstrong forbid Butler might wreak if any proper research subject ever grabbed their attention?
The Garrison investigation for example...
Before you could say " cutting edge sperm experiments "Ol'Jimbo would have the most doubles roaming around the French Quarter since the night in '74 when Ollie Reed, Richard Harris and Keith Moon visited New Orleans to celebrate Richard Burton's birthday...

Mon 22 Jun 2020, 7:15 pm

alex wilson wrote:Why launch an impossibly convulted decade long double doppelganger project just to have an Eastern European orphan masquerade as an American marine defector? Oswald s job wasn't to blend in. Sandy, why was it necessary to carry out this mindbogglingly double doppelganger project? What unique skills did Harvey possess? According to the book he left the Eastern Block as an infant. I'm not being faceitous..thin t about it. A well trained American would have been a far better candidate for a young disaffected American. The tests Col Folsom spoke about and Oswald's date with Rosalyn QuinnsQ aunt are good indications of a young American who'd received language training. Oswald didn't need to be a native speaker..
Oswald was nowhere near a native speaker anyway
Nowhere near.

The defection was central to the doppelganger scheme. According to Armstrong (H&L, p.10), there was no point sending an American to the Soviet Union because he would speak Russian with an accent, and that would reveal the dastardly plot. So who did they send? Why, they sent someone who spoke Russian with an accent. It's as though Armstrong didn't even try to think this stuff through.

The idea behind the doppelganger scheme was to send someone who was able to understand Russian, so that he could eavesdrop on what was going on around him. According to Armstrong, this meant that the defector needed to be a native speaker of Russian. But of course you don't need to be a native speaker to be able to understand what's being said around you. You'd need a decent level of Russian, but you certainly wouldn't need to be a native speaker. All you'd need is the level of competence that you might have if you were, to pick an example at random, an American who had learned Russian for a few years in his teens and early twenties.

It looks as though John Butler was right all along. There were three Oswalds:
1 - The eastern European refugee who was a native speaker of Russian and therefore was over-qualified for the defection.
2 - The American who didn't understand Russian at all and therefore was under-qualified for the defection.
3 - The American who learned Russian for a few years in his teens and early twenties, and was ideally qualified for the defection because he understood Russian well enough (at least by the end of his trip), despite speaking with an accent and making grammatical mistakes. In other words, the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

Well done, Mr Butler! Thanks to your outstanding critical thinking skills, you've solved the mystery! There were three Oswalds after all.

If you look at the evidence that's put forward to show that Oswald was a native speaker, it's mostly misrepresentation (hey, there's a surprise). When Witness A says that Oswald spoke Russian, Witness A isn't necessarily saying that Oswald was a native speaker, or even that Oswald spoke more than a smattering of Russian. If, as is often the case, Witness A doesn't know a word of Russian, he or she won't have a clue how good or bad Oswald's Russian is.

To illustrate that point, here's a brief autobiographical interlude. Years ago, I went on a business trip to Germany with a colleague who spoke only English (although he did know two German phrases: "Achtung, Schweinhund!" and "Jawohl, mein Führer!"). Anyway, I was able to order meals and drinks and taxis and so on, due to a one-year evening class I'd taken years earlier. That was, and still is, pretty much the limit of my German. According to my colleague, I "could speak German". But anyone who actually knew a decent amount of German (let alone a native speaker) certainly would not say that I "could speak German", unless they were being polite, which is obviously the case with some of the Russian-speaking expatriates who had met Oswald after he had been in the Soviet Union for two and a half years. Oswald's Russian was "just perfect"! What they mean is: considering he was an American, non-native speaker, his Russian was pretty good.

(Handy hint: if you're trying to create a good impression with German people, it's best not to use the phrase "Jawohl, mein Führer!")

Once you take out the witnesses who clearly couldn't tell how good Oswald's Russian was, and the witnesses who were actually saying that his Russian was pretty good for an foreigner, you aren't left with much evidence that Oswald was a native speaker. But there is plenty of evidence that he wasn't.

It's clear that Oswald frequently made grammatical mistakes in Russian. How does this fit in with the idea that the defector was a native speaker? Was the eastern European refugee doppelganger a bit rusty after having spent most of his life in the USA? But this native Russian-speaking defector was still rusty and making plenty of grammatical errors and speaking with an accent even after having refreshed his knowledge by living among other native speakers for over two and a half years. How is that supposed to work? If that isn't strong evidence that the defector was not a native Russian speaker, what is?

If a native speaker's Russian is so imperfect that plenty of people (even non-native speakers like Ruth Paine) noticed and remarked on his frequent grammatical errors and his accent, why bother with the long-term doppelganger scheme at all? If you're happy to send to the Soviet Union someone who makes obvious grammatical errors in Russian and speaks with an accent, why does the chosen defector need to be a native speaker? A non-native speaker would do just as well, wouldn't he? They could have saved the bother and expense of the long-term doppelganger scheme and chosen someone like, ooh, I don't know, let's pick an example at random: the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

Alternatively, if the long-term doppelganger scheme requires the defector to be a flawless Russian speaker, as Armstrong claims in his book, how do you explain the grammatical mistakes and the accent?

Armstrong really didn't think it through. It's the essence of his theory, and it was just guesswork.

I wouldn't be surprised if the H&L boys try to switch tracks, just as they did when they realised they couldn't get away from the problem with the mastoidectomy defect ("It was actually the other imaginary doppelganger who had the operation! No, I don't need to provide any evidence for that! Er ... Stripling! Bolton Ford!"). They'll probably claim that the doppelganger scheme didn't actually require the defector to be a native Russian speaker after all.

But if the long-term doppelganger scheme doesn't require the defector to be a flawless Russian speaker, which the defector clearly wasn't, then the scheme was redundant, a waste of who knows how many people's time for more than a decade. Can anyone see a way out of this dilemma for the H&L gang?

Tue 23 Jun 2020, 12:06 am

Can anyone see a way out of this dilemma for the H&L gang?

Son't they get issued cyanide pills for these type situations?

Tue 23 Jun 2020, 10:54 am

I have never been interested in this theory. I've remained silent on the issue. I think somewhere along the way, early on maybe Armstrong or whoever it was locked eyes on Jack Whites work on the different faces of Oswald or whatever and ran with it. All I know is that now it's just one almighty piss take. As everyone here has said, where's the logic in all of it? There are some mighty mischievous so called researchers about, but Lee the frikkin' doppleganger Harvey takes the piss more than anything else in this case by a long long way, in my humble opinion.

Tue 23 Jun 2020, 3:53 pm

Bravo Mark Stevens!! Bravo ,sir!!
That was as good a forensic debunking of the Stripling palabum I've read in a long time.
Mr Stevens really got down to the nitty gritty, ignoring the usual background noise .
Swinging Sandy and Doc Norwood as the chorus ..if only Sophocles was around to see this..
Most impressively of all Mark kept his cool, he didn't rise to the bait.
IMHO all the H and L gang have left is trying to bamboozle everyone, loosing them in the endless H and L minutia.
Hoping to disguise the fact the central premise is a crock, the mastoidectomy disproved the theory 20 years before it even became a fucking theory!!
I have to confess it's impressive,, in a strange twisted way . adherence to a cult that was debunked 20 years before it became a cult!!
Armstrong deserves an honoured place in the Hucksters Hall of Fame.. alongside Ron Hubbard, Ol' Charlie Ponzi and the gang over at Trine Day Towers..

Thu 25 Jun 2020, 10:21 am

It's not really a fair fight though, is it?

Jeremy, Mark and Tracy vs Jimbo, Sandy the Swingiest and the John Butler Trio. Not even with the backing of their manager, Prof Norwood.

Thu 25 Jun 2020, 8:22 pm

It's the fairest fight since the Anglo Zanzibar War!!
A war that lasted all of 25 minutes, and saw the Royal Navy bombard the Sultan of Zanzibar's harem..

A free Germicidal UV Lamp and copy of Trine Days shockingly controversial new book about the assassination of Julius Caesar " I was the Bride of March!!!"*the first person to guess who is playing the Royal Navy...answers to krism@plademic@zambia.com
* Thanks to her psychic advisor and Trine Days resident astrologer, Malcolm Toosdy, Juddufki reveals for the very first time tbe truly amazing story of her ancestor Antonia Vary Bakerus Octavian's secret lover and participant in a secret asp related bioweapon project...

Sat 27 Jun 2020, 1:20 am

Dear Sandy wrote:Some H&L critics have stated several times that Stripling Assistant Principal Frank Kudlaty was a friend of Jack White's and that that is how Armstrong/White was able to talk Kudlaty into lying. Of course, that on its face is a ridiculous notion given Kudlaty's credentials, and given that there is no evidence indicating that he was a l.i.a.r.
But now I find out from John Armstrong's letter that Jack White didn't even know Kudlaty on a personal level... at least not before the video of Kudlaty was filmed. He had just seen him around at a college where they both had attended in the 1940s. (See what I bolded, below.)
It's amazing how low some H&L critics will stoop in attempts to discredit Harvey & Lee.

No dear Sandy... that is what Jack White said in 2007. "Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate."

Until he was informed that this created a conflict of interests. When that shit his his fan, Mr White walked the story backwards faster than a retreating Frenchman at war. His story then became I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

So which story is the truth?

Jack White story 1 (a friend of mine since the 1940s)
Jack White story 2 (had not seen him in 50 years)
John Armstrong story (Jack didn't know Kudlaty at all except by name from college days)

Dear Sandy needs to do some basic checks before falsely accusing anyone of making stuff up. Jack White was the liar here. Why? Simple. This is not about protecting the "truth" it is about protecting the tenets of a cult by any means available - including making shit up on the run.

Jack White, Feb 10, 2007 vouching for his bestest bud: "Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty."

My reply:

"Impeccable honesty" is a bit like a virgin birth. Takes a great deal of blind faith to believe anyone capable of it.

But speaking of honesty, since you say above, you were involved in those interviews, should not your friendship with Kudlaty have been disclosed to readers of "School Daze"? Perhaps such disclosure was made in Armstrong's book? If so, it would show Armstrong does have integrity.

I am curious about one thing concerning that friendship. Did Frank tap you on the shoulder during your time at the HSCA and let you know then that he had handed over Oswald files to the FBI and that they were never returned? If not, when did your friend come forward?

White's reply on Feb 11, 2007: I was not present when John interviewed Frank Kudlaty. I don't know where you got that idea. At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. John's book gives an accurate account of Kudlaty's story. At the time of the interview Frank did not know that John and I knew each other. Kudlaty HAD NO IDEA THAT HIS STORY WAS IMPORTANT TILL JOHN INTERVIEWED HIM. I don't know where you got your wrong information.

Ooops. White's best bud whose integrity and honesty he could swear by has suddenly been relegated to a mere acquaintance who he hadn't actually seen in fifty years. How do you suppose it's possible to swear by the honesty of an acquaintance not seen in 50 years?

My response to White disclaiming being present for the Kudlaty interview and questioning where I got the idea he was in fact present:

I got that idea from you, Jack, when you said, "I was present for many of his interviews given above in example 1". Example 1 included the Kudlaty interview.

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

This is the way these snake oil salesmen operate. They are as slippery as eels. White knew he was trapped and tried to lie his way out of it, We see the same sneaky slipperiness here here with the refusal to acknowledge the misattribution made with a witness statement and the utter refusal to accept they are wrong about the Beauregard records.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong/?do=findComment&comment=313056

Sat 27 Jun 2020, 4:20 pm

Jack White story 1 (a friend of mine since the 1940s) close friend or decades
Jack White story 2 (had not seen him in 50 years) acquaintance not seen for decades
John Armstrong story (Jack didn't know Kudlaty at all except by name from college days) not personally known to each other but did go to same college

This is way past being farcical. Thanks to Mark Stevens, we now have a 4th version - this from Armstrong circa 1994.

"Mr. Kudlaty's memory of that event is on the enclosed tape recording. He currently resides in Waco, Texas and, coincidentally, is a friend and former classmate of Jack White's at TCU."

So the first two versions... Armstrong 1994 and White 2007, both state unambiguously that White and Kudlaty had been friends for a long time.

The second two versions, one each from White and Armstrong have one purpose and one purpose only - trying to negate/deny that friendship once they realized how bad a look it is for them to have an undeclared friend of a co-founder of the cult as a main witness.

Sat 27 Jun 2020, 10:59 pm

Geez Greg, how they supposed to keep a myth alive if they can't get a gnat in flea's handbag past you? Lighten up for Armstrong's sake!

Fri 03 Jul 2020, 1:04 pm

Dear Sandy @ the \"Education" forum wrote:I used the word "multiple" because I didn't know at the moment how many corroborating witnesses there are. I've seen the numbers five and six, and you say two at best. I knew only that there are more than one, and so I wrote "multiple." "Multiple" means "more than one."

While some dictionaries do include your definition, not all of them do and most people reading your words in context, would take this definition.

"Multiple" consisting of, having, or involving several or many individuals, parts, elements, relations, etc.; manifold. In other words, will most often be taken to mean "several".

On the other hand, "more than one" means "more than one". If that is what you meant, that is what you should have said.

If I can do A then I should be able to do B?

Well sure, but if I did B then I wouldn't be able to do A.

This was in response to an inquiry about answering actual questions.

It translates as "If I answered questions, I wouldn't be able to obfuscate."

Well then, there is nothing further for us to discuss regarding Stripling. Because I think that an eyewitness stating that he gave the school records to the FBI is very good evidence, some that an attorney would love to have in defending a case. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

Let us hop into the H & L Time Machine and go back to an imaginary trial at the start of 1964. Let us further imagine that Lee HARVEY Oswald was not murdered and he is the one on trial. His Attorney is John ("Hallelujah Pass") Armstrong, the attorney of choice for most doppelgangers. His defense of HARVEY is simple. Prove he was set up by his doppelganger on behalf of the CIA. But first, he has to somehow prove HARVEY is in fact a doppelganger. Kudlaty is on the stand for the defense.

Armstrong: You deliver Meals on Wheels, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: That is correct.

Armstrong: You go to church every Sunday, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Of course!

Armstrong: You always buy cookies off the Girl Scouts, do you not?
Kudlaty: Why, yes I do.

Armstrong: And help old ladies across the road?
Kudlaty: Sometimes before they even realize they want to cross!

Armstrong: Have you ever rescued a cat from a tree, Mr Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Well... um... no. But I'm working on it!

Armstrong: How is your memory, Mr. Kusdlaty? Do you recall what you did, yesterday?
Kudlaty: Yes! I was trying to throw the neighbor's cat up unto a tree so I could practice my rescue techniques!

Armstrong: Very good. Do you recall what you did on November 23rd, 1963? Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Kudlaty: Yes!

Armstrong: So if anyone suggested that you were lying or misremembering what you did on that day, they would be sadly mistaken? Would that be the case?
Kudlaty: Indubitably!

Armstrong: No further questions. Your witness, Mr Wade.

Wade: Mr. Kudlaty, Isn't it true, and remember you are under oath here, isn't it true that archived school records are not kept at the school but the at District Board office?
Kudlaty: Um. Yes.
Wade. Could you speak up a bit please Mr Kudlaty so that the members of the jury may hear?
Kudlaty: (beads of sweat now popping) Yes.
Wade. Thank you. No further questions for this witness, Your Honor.

Fri 03 Jul 2020, 2:02 pm

greg_parker wrote:

Dear Sandy @ the \"Education" forum wrote:I used the word "multiple" because I didn't know at the moment how many corroborating witnesses there are. I've seen the numbers five and six, and you say two at best. I knew only that there are more than one, and so I wrote "multiple." "Multiple" means "more than one."

While some dictionaries do include your definition, not all of them do and most people reading your words in context, would take this definition.

"Multiple" consisting of, having, or involving several or many individuals, parts, elements, relations, etc.; manifold. In other words, will most often be taken to mean "several".

On the other hand, "more than one" means "more than one". If that is what you meant, that is what you should have said.

If I can do A then I should be able to do B?

Well sure, but if I did B then I wouldn't be able to do A.

This was in response to an inquiry about answering actual questions.

It translates as "If I answered questions, I wouldn't be able to obfuscate."

Well then, there is nothing further for us to discuss regarding Stripling. Because I think that an eyewitness stating that he gave the school records to the FBI is very good evidence, some that an attorney would love to have in defending a case. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

Let us hop into the H & L Time Machine and go back to an imaginary trial at the start of 1964. Let us further imagine that Lee HARVEY Oswald was not murdered and he is the one on trial. His Attorney is John ("Hallelujah Pass") Armstrong, the attorney of choice for most doppelgangers. His defense of HARVEY is simple. Prove he was set up by his doppelganger on behalf of the CIA. But first, he has to somehow prove HARVEY is in fact a doppelganger. Kudlaty is on the stand for the defense.

Armstrong: You deliver Meals on Wheels, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: That is correct.

Armstrong: You go to church every Sunday, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Of course!

Armstrong: You always buy cookies off the Girl Scouts, do you not?
Kudlaty: Why, yes I do.

Armstrong: And help old ladies across the road?
Kudlaty: Sometimes before they even realize they want to cross!

Armstrong: Have you ever rescued a cat from a tree, Mr Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Well... um... no. But I'm working on it!

Armstrong: How is your memory, Mr. Kusdlaty? Do you recall what you did, yesterday?
Kudlaty: Yes! I was trying to throw the neighbor's cat up unto a tree so I could practice my rescue techniques!

Armstrong: Very good. Do you recall what you did on November 23rd, 1963? Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Kudlaty: Yes!

Armstrong: So if anyone suggested that you were lying or misremembering what you did on that day, they would be sadly mistaken? Would that be the case?
Kudlaty: Indubitably!

Armstrong: No further questions. Your witness, Mr Wade.

Wade: Mr. Kudlaty, Isn't it true, and remember you are under oath here, isn't it true that archived school records are not kept at the school but the at District Board office?
Kudlaty: Um. Yes.
Wade. Could you speak up a bit please Mr Kudlaty so that the members of the jury may hear?
Kudlaty: (beads of sweat now popping) Yes.
Wade. Thank you. No further questions for this witness, Your Honor.

Suddenly, Armstrong jumps to his feet!

Armstrong: I object, your Honor!
Judge Joe E. Brown: On what grounds, Mr Armstrong?
Armstrong: I have here in my hand a sworn statement from my chief investigator, Mr Jack White.

Armstrong hands document to the judge

Armstrong: As you can see your Honor, Mr White is a close personal friend of Mr Kudlaty and is willing to vouch for him!
Judge Joe E. Brown: (Eyes raised). Objection dismissed, Mr Armstrong. But I would like some clarification from the witness myself. Mr. Kudlaty, who actually owns the records of Fort Worth Schools?
Kudlaty: The School District. They belong to the School District.
Judge Joe E. Brown: So before anyone could hand over any school records, even to the Federal Government, without a subpoena, it would have to be with the express permission of the School District Office?
Kudlaty: Yes, I think that sums it up.
Judge Joe E. Brown. The witness is dismissed.

Fri 03 Jul 2020, 2:27 pm

greg_parker wrote:

greg_parker wrote:

Dear Sandy @ the \"Education" forum wrote:I used the word "multiple" because I didn't know at the moment how many corroborating witnesses there are. I've seen the numbers five and six, and you say two at best. I knew only that there are more than one, and so I wrote "multiple." "Multiple" means "more than one."

While some dictionaries do include your definition, not all of them do and most people reading your words in context, would take this definition.

"Multiple" consisting of, having, or involving several or many individuals, parts, elements, relations, etc.; manifold. In other words, will most often be taken to mean "several".

On the other hand, "more than one" means "more than one". If that is what you meant, that is what you should have said.

If I can do A then I should be able to do B?

Well sure, but if I did B then I wouldn't be able to do A.

This was in response to an inquiry about answering actual questions.

It translates as "If I answered questions, I wouldn't be able to obfuscate."

Well then, there is nothing further for us to discuss regarding Stripling. Because I think that an eyewitness stating that he gave the school records to the FBI is very good evidence, some that an attorney would love to have in defending a case. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

Let us hop into the H & L Time Machine and go back to an imaginary trial at the start of 1964. Let us further imagine that Lee HARVEY Oswald was not murdered and he is the one on trial. His Attorney is John ("Hallelujah Pass") Armstrong, the attorney of choice for most doppelgangers. His defense of HARVEY is simple. Prove he was set up by his doppelganger on behalf of the CIA. But first, he has to somehow prove HARVEY is in fact a doppelganger. Kudlaty is on the stand for the defense.

Armstrong: You deliver Meals on Wheels, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: That is correct.

Armstrong: You go to church every Sunday, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Of course!

Armstrong: You always buy cookies off the Girl Scouts, do you not?
Kudlaty: Why, yes I do.

Armstrong: And help old ladies across the road?
Kudlaty: Sometimes before they even realize they want to cross!

Armstrong: Have you ever rescued a cat from a tree, Mr Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Well... um... no. But I'm working on it!

Armstrong: How is your memory, Mr. Kusdlaty? Do you recall what you did, yesterday?
Kudlaty: Yes! I was trying to throw the neighbor's cat up unto a tree so I could practice my rescue techniques!

Armstrong: Very good. Do you recall what you did on November 23rd, 1963? Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Kudlaty: Yes!

Armstrong: So if anyone suggested that you were lying or misremembering what you did on that day, they would be sadly mistaken? Would that be the case?
Kudlaty: Indubitably!

Armstrong: No further questions. Your witness, Mr Wade.

Wade: Mr. Kudlaty, Isn't it true, and remember you are under oath here, isn't it true that archived school records are not kept at the school but the at District Board office?
Kudlaty: Um. Yes.
Wade. Could you speak up a bit please Mr Kudlaty so that the members of the jury may hear?
Kudlaty: (beads of sweat now popping) Yes.
Wade. Thank you. No further questions for this witness, Your Honor.

Suddenly, Armstrong jumps to his feet!

Armstrong: I object, your Honor!
Judge Joe E. Brown: On what grounds, Mr Armstrong?
Armstrong: I have here in my hand a sworn statement from my chief investigator, Mr Jack White.

Armstrong hands document to the judge

Armstrong: As you can see your Honor, Mr White is a close personal friend of Mr Kudlaty and is willing to vouch for him!
Judge Joe E. Brown: (Eyes raised). Objection dismissed, Mr Armstrong. But I would like some clarification from the witness myself. Mr. Kudlaty, who actually owns the records of Fort Worth Schools?
Kudlaty: The School District. They belong to the School District.
Judge Joe E. Brown: So before anyone could hand over any school records, even to the Federal Government, without a subpoena, it would have to be with the express permission of the School District Office?
Kudlaty: Yes, I think that sums it up.
Judge Joe E. Brown. The witness is dismissed.

Armstrong again leaps to his feet objecting.

Armstrong: I object again, your honor!
Judge Joe E. Brown: On what grounds this time?
Armstrong: (looking through the 11,568 files on his desk which includes twenty-seven 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as evidence. Pulls one of the glossy pictures out and waves it around). My client, your honor, clearly does not have a thirteen inch head as this photo depicts him as having!
Judge Joe E. Brown: Dismissed!
Armstrong: Beauregard! Skaggit! Bolton Ford! Vasectomy scar! (White gingerly leans over and tugs at the forelock of Armstrong, while whispering in his ear)
White: It was a mastoidectomy, Mr Armstrong, sir.
Armstrong to White: How the devil is that going to stop him producing further doppelgangers???!!!

Fri 03 Jul 2020, 4:40 pm

greg_parker wrote:

greg_parker wrote:

greg_parker wrote:

Dear Sandy @ the \"Education" forum wrote:I used the word "multiple" because I didn't know at the moment how many corroborating witnesses there are. I've seen the numbers five and six, and you say two at best. I knew only that there are more than one, and so I wrote "multiple." "Multiple" means "more than one."

While some dictionaries do include your definition, not all of them do and most people reading your words in context, would take this definition.

"Multiple" consisting of, having, or involving several or many individuals, parts, elements, relations, etc.; manifold. In other words, will most often be taken to mean "several".

On the other hand, "more than one" means "more than one". If that is what you meant, that is what you should have said.

If I can do A then I should be able to do B?

Well sure, but if I did B then I wouldn't be able to do A.

This was in response to an inquiry about answering actual questions.

It translates as "If I answered questions, I wouldn't be able to obfuscate."

Well then, there is nothing further for us to discuss regarding Stripling. Because I think that an eyewitness stating that he gave the school records to the FBI is very good evidence, some that an attorney would love to have in defending a case. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

Let us hop into the H & L Time Machine and go back to an imaginary trial at the start of 1964. Let us further imagine that Lee HARVEY Oswald was not murdered and he is the one on trial. His Attorney is John ("Hallelujah Pass") Armstrong, the attorney of choice for most doppelgangers. His defense of HARVEY is simple. Prove he was set up by his doppelganger on behalf of the CIA. But first, he has to somehow prove HARVEY is in fact a doppelganger. Kudlaty is on the stand for the defense.

Armstrong: You deliver Meals on Wheels, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: That is correct.

Armstrong: You go to church every Sunday, Mr. Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Of course!

Armstrong: You always buy cookies off the Girl Scouts, do you not?
Kudlaty: Why, yes I do.

Armstrong: And help old ladies across the road?
Kudlaty: Sometimes before they even realize they want to cross!

Armstrong: Have you ever rescued a cat from a tree, Mr Kudlaty?
Kudlaty: Well... um... no. But I'm working on it!

Armstrong: How is your memory, Mr. Kusdlaty? Do you recall what you did yesterday?
Kudlaty: Yes! I was trying to throw the neighbor's cat up unto a tree so I could practice my rescue techniques!

Armstrong: Very good. Do you recall what you did on November 23rd, 1963? Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Kudlaty: Yes!

Armstrong: So if anyone suggested that you were lying or misremembering what you did on that day, they would be sadly mistaken? Would that be the case?
Kudlaty: Indubitably!

Armstrong: No further questions. Your witness, Mr Wade.

Wade: Mr. Kudlaty, Isn't it true, and remember you are under oath here, isn't it true that archived school records are not kept at the school but the at District Board office?
Kudlaty: Um. Yes.
Wade. Could you speak up a bit please Mr Kudlaty so that the members of the jury may hear?
Kudlaty: (beads of sweat now popping) Yes.
Wade. Thank you. No further questions for this witness, Your Honor.

Suddenly, Armstrong jumps to his feet!

Armstrong: I object, your Honor!
Judge Joe E. Brown: On what grounds, Mr Armstrong?
Armstrong: I have here in my hand a sworn statement from my chief investigator, Mr Jack White.

Armstrong hands document to the judge

Armstrong: As you can see your Honor, Mr White is a close personal friend of Mr Kudlaty and is willing to vouch for him!
Judge Joe E. Brown: (Eyes raised). Objection dismissed, Mr Armstrong. But I would like some clarification from the witness myself. Mr. Kudlaty, who actually owns the records of Fort Worth Schools?
Kudlaty: The School District. They belong to the School District.
Judge Joe E. Brown: So before anyone could hand over any school records, even to the Federal Government, without a subpoena, it would have to be with the express permission of the School District Office?
Kudlaty: Yes, I think that sums it up.
Judge Joe E. Brown. The witness is dismissed.

Armstrong again leaps to his feet objecting.

Armstrong: I object again, your honor!
Judge Joe E. Brown: On what grounds this time?
Armstrong: (looking through the 11,568 files on his desk which includes twenty-seven 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as evidence. Pulls one of the glossy pictures out and waves it around). My client, your honor, clearly does not have a thirteen inch head as this photo depicts him as having!
Judge Joe E. Brown: Dismissed!
Armstrong: Beauregard! Skaggit! Bolton Ford! Vasectomy scar! (White gingerly leans over and tugs at the forelock of Armstrong, while whispering in his ear)
White: It was a mastoidectomy, Mr Armstrong, sir.
Armstrong to White: How the devil is that going to stop him producing further doppelgangers???!!!

Dear Sandy Images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQGjiS32K8h8TAniVbfUb7o1qLXTGJPbNMEHA&usqp=CAU

Judge Joe E Brown

Judge Joe E Brown: Mr Armstrong, please rise. You do understand that it is too late for an insanity plea and that anyway, you have to make a case for your client's insanity, not your own? Sit down Mr Armstrong. Mr Oswald, would you please stand? Are you satisfied with your defense counsel?
Oswald: Well, Your Honor,, I did axe for a New York lawyer, a Mr Abt I think it was, but those Secret Service guys who looked after my wife, they recommended Mr Armstrong here.
Judge Joe E Brown: Sit down, Mr Oswald. This trial is adjourned for 24 hours while I consider a mistrial.

Sat 04 Jul 2020, 2:06 am

UNITED ARTISTS PICTURES PRESENT

IN ASSOCIATION WITH SANDOZ LABORATORIES

MO BAGGINS LARRY BUTLER AND SWINGING CURLY LARSEN

in

DOPPELGANGING DIMWITS

Screenplay by Orson Fez
Stunts and Mr Baggins body double Don Jeffries
Produced and directed by Leni Riefenstahl
For Deutsche Doppelganging Dummkopfs

Scene- the lavatory of the David S Lifton Courthouse
A recess during the CAPA mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald
For some unfathomable reason Messrs Simpich and Schapf decided not to call the 3 13 inch headed Stooges as witnesses..
So Mo Baggins decided to take matters into his own hands ..Quite literally

Mo ( talking into his cellphone) " Right I've got it oh hairy balls of Ba'al....when they start talking about Mexico City I send Butler in, yes oh
Orgasm of Osiris we managed to get him to put on the dress..but Curly here spent 2 fucking hours trying to get him to go to the annual Brigham Young Polygamy- A- Thon .no I didn't ask .. right I've got it oh pre ejaculate of Pan..the moment they mention Mexico City I send Butler in
Butler( bursting out of an adjacent cubicle looking like a post menopausal Ethel Rosenberg on stilts)
" Mexico City..Mexico City..my name is Sylvia Durex and I slept with a puny malnourished Hungarian who told me that a bullnecked all American had been doppelganging him for the past decade"
Seeing Larry Butler Curly Larsen's 13 inch hat starts spinning..
Curly" wanna see the size of my IQ sweetheart? Apart from Great Aunt Zebedees pig ive the biggest IQ in my family..all 3245 of us . including the pigs .. wanna go polygamying with me"
Mo Baggins groans
" Listen oh menstrual cycle of Cyclops I'll have to call you back..im standing up to my ankles in piss with a horny Mormon cowboy in a 13 inch hat whose trying to chat up the missing fucking link here.."
Turns to Curly..
No " Look Curly its not some 11 year old milkmaid its Larry..wearing a dress... remember the plan? Infiltrate the trial? Show them all the proof?"
Curly ( looking puzzled) I thought we were going to Mexico City I put on my special hat"
Larry " Mexico City!! Im HARVEY and I didn't put a Durex on when I bullnecked Sylvia..I followed this doppelganger round the toilets for a decade"
Mo( exasperated) " For the love of Lifton listen!!" ( Pulls a hammer out his pants and belts Larry on the head)
Larry " Ow! So I didn't go doppelganging down to Mexico and Sylvia didn't make me wear a Durex? What about the Lee Harvey Oswald facemask?"
Curly " Yes No what about the facemask? Which doppelganger wore the facemask and which doppelganger didn't?"
Larry " Hey that's like poetry and stuff..I know a poem too.. about the man from Condrucket"
Curly" Hey I know that .something about if his ear was a cunt he'd fuck it ..that's on the first page of the Joseph Smith Sex Education Manual..we read it when we reach the age of consent..but im so smart I read it a year before..on my 5tb birthday in fact..wanna go polygamying?"
Larry " What's polygamying? Is that like polyfilla? Putting sticky stuff into cracks?"
Mo( beard bristling like an auto erotic Ayatollah) " Sticky stuff in cracks you say? Wanna go polygamying with me instead? Fuck Mexico City"
Larry " Mexico City!! So this bullnecked Hungarian put a Durex on his sylvia and spent a decade doppelganging me"
Chaos follows.. bristling beards 13 inch hats spinning as Mo and Curly chase Larry round the toilets..
Suddenly the door bursts open and the lavatory attendant rushes in
" Keep the noise down!! Wynne Johnson is about to testify!! ( Spots Larry in his dress)
" With my superior skills and my sharp eye id recognise you anywhere!! You look exactly like Chris Davidson's enhancement..but Sarah I thought you were dead!! Or did they fake your death!! That's it you've been hiding out in the same CIA safe house as the guy who murdered Hendrix and Mary Meyer..I can't wait til I tell my new friend Pat about this .I might ask him to come to the house for a sleep over"
Another voice..slurred and masculine
" Brian? You're not in that lavatory are you? Pretending to be an attendant again? You know what the social services said? About going back on the register?"
Brian " but mommies!! ItsI so unfair!! ImI trying to solve the Kennedy assassination and out the Military Industrial Congressional Complex singlehandedly and all people seem to be bothered about are a few shallow Graves"
FIN..
Disclaimer- the above was meant for satire only.
Join Mo Larry and Curly next week for HIJINKS WITH HARVEY

Mon 20 Jul 2020, 5:04 pm

Dear Sandy @ the \"Education" forum wrote:Hate to burst your bubble Mark, but the "H&L" theory doesn't need either Stripling or the Hungarian boy to be true. There's plenty of other strong evidence for it.

Where have I heard that before?

I think it follows every demolition.

H & L doesn't need the things we have just spent 2015 pages and 4997 spam hours spamming. We also have XYZ.

Dear Sandy

Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy

Re: Dear Sandy