Dear Jim

First topic message reminder :

Mr Jack White defended Mr Kudlaty's honesty on the basis of having been a friend of 50 years. 

That this friendship was never declared is a classic conflict of interest.

But instead of simply admitting an error in not declaring that 50 year friendship, Mr White decided to walk his initial statement backwards by stating he had not actually seen the man since college 50 years earlier until bumping into him at a sporting event and that he had not even been in the same classes at college.

Mr White failed to see the awkward position he was now in.

Admit a conflict of interest... or admit he did not know Kudlaty at all well enough to vouch for his honesty.

Or maybe he did see his predicament, but in true 13 inch head fashion, not only failed to acknowledge one or the other, but from that point on, tried to have it both ways... maintaining Kudlaty's honesty whilst denying any longstanding friendship despite that being his initial claim.

As for Kudlaty's recovered memories of handing the FBI Lee's non-existent records...the problems are manifest.

To obtain the Fort Wort records, the Texas Attorney General had to have the Fort Worth Police to obtain them - not from individual schools because schools are not archival facilities, but from the Fort Worth School District offices.




No Stripling records were included. Because Lee Oswald never went there.

Additionally, as pointed out to you by Tracy, no one in his position would hand over original records, let alone not obtain a receipt. 

Apparently Kudlaty was so incurious about the disposition of the non-existent records that he handed over to imaginary agents that in all those intervening decades,  he never once checked the WC volumes for them, or even just did a search for a mention of his name or of the incident itself.

But I suppose we can get around some of these issues by simply adding Jesse Curry (he referred the request for the records to his Fort Worth counterpart), The Fort Worth Police Dept and of course, the offices of the Texas AG and the FW School District to the list of those involved in the made-up Oswald Project.

Dear Jim wrote:I see. So both you and Greg Parker believe that the U.S. Marine Corps in its medical reports allowed recruits to make estimates of their own height and weight, and even allowed recruits to “exaggerate” their physical characteristics?  Do you know how stupid that sounds?

No wonder you NEVER, EVER make Mr. Parker's arguments here.  You just post a link with a few dismissive comments and hope no one takes the time to actually read the nonsense you have linked.

Dear Jim, the whole idea of a link - as you well know from all the links to the hardlylee.nut website you provide, is to save making the argument right there. I'm sure Jeremy and Tracy would be willing to call a truce on the links if you also agree to stop linking to your hardlylee.nut site. Sounds fair to me, what say you?

Here is the thing, height and weight, even when measured by the Marines using approved measuring methods, are still only approximations.

Height measurement is taken by:
The Marine will stand with their back against the wall, heels flat on the deck, shoulders back, with arms to the side in a relaxed manner, and head straight forward. For use in height/weight tables, height measurement will be recorded to the nearest inch. If height fraction is less than ½ inch, round down to the nearest inch. If height fraction is ½ inch or more, round up.
http://www.militaryspot.com/marines/height-and-weight-requirements-marine-corps

The whole idea of the measurements is to ensure fitness standards. Those standards cease to be important when you leave, so who cares? But you can prove me wrong by providing a photo of Oswald taken on exit  from the Marines against a height chart showing him to be 5' 11".  Can't find one? Why not? They took one on entry so by your logic, there must also be a similar photo on exit. Produce it!

While we are here, is it really your position that in order to hide the literally fantastical OSWALD PROJECT from the public, the authorities decided to show HARVEY's record of entry to the Marines, but LEE's record of exit? Wow. Either the authorities were really dumb fuckers. Or you are. Or you think your readership is. 

Now that you've had your little distraction, are you ready to tackle the questions around the alleged Striplings witnesses? How long do you think you can keep this chicanery up for?

Oh dear. The Fez has jumped in with his usual straw man to knock over.

Dear Fez, are you bucking for own thread here? Feeling left out? Jealous? Tough. You don't deserve your own thread. I may as a well have a thread on the Wicked Witches flying monkeys.

No one but no one said the Marines did not take photos against height charts. That is just you setting up your strawman. Clearly they did. 

Now produce the photo on exit. You know. The photo against a height chart showing he was unequivocally 5' 11".

greg_parker wrote:Oh dear. The Fez has jumped in with his usual straw man to knock over.

Dear Fez, are you bucking for own thread here? Feeling left out? Jealous? Tough. You don't deserve your own thread. I may as a well have a thread on the Wicked Witches flying monkeys.

No one but no one said the Marines did not take photos against height charts. That is just you setting up your strawman. Clearly they did. 

Now produce the photo on exit. You know. The photo against a height chart showing he was unequivocally 5' 11".

Or is it as RCD suggests, that you are again going to the 13 inch head claim?

If that is the case, then boy, when you decide to make a fool of yourself, you don't do it in half measures.

I'm trying to think of ANY advantage of having a marine with a 13in head in a potential sniper situation. The best i can come up with is target practise for the enemy.
If the Fez disagrees with this, well, he ain't gonna learn what he don't wanna know.

steely_dan wrote:I'm trying to think of ANY advantage of having a marine with a 13in head in a potential sniper situation. The best i can come up with is target practise for the enemy.
If the Fez disagrees with this, well, he ain't gonna learn what he don't wanna know.

 

No, come to think of it, target practice sounds pretty cool.

"Sir, we have men targeting every window of the 6th floor, but there are men in nearly every window and our intel is that only one is a shooter - we just don't know which one."

"God damnit, have you learned nothing from the H & L apostles? Shoot the guy with the fucking watermelon-sized head, you moron!"

Well done @steely_dan. We now know that LEE not only had otitis media and a mastoidectomy, he also had encephalitis. But weirdly, it was spermbro, HARVEY who felt the weight, causing his shoulders to slope like a Winter Olympics slalom course.  I guess that is typical of almost-identical-but-not-always CIA spermbro's?

greg_parker wrote:Well done @steely_dan. We now know that LEE not only had otitis media and a mastoidectomy, he also had encephalitis. But weirdly, it was spermbro, HARVEY who felt the weight, causing his shoulders to slope like a Winter Olympics slalom course.  I guess that is typical of almost-identical-but-not-always CIA spermbro's?

I nicked this...

D'ya think Dr Hargroves regrets starting the thread?
Peace.

steely_dan wrote:

greg_parker wrote:Well done @steely_dan. We now know that LEE not only had otitis media and a mastoidectomy, he also had encephalitis. But weirdly, it was spermbro, HARVEY who felt the weight, causing his shoulders to slope like a Winter Olympics slalom course.  I guess that is typical of almost-identical-but-not-always CIA spermbro's?

I nicked this...

D'ya think Dr Hargroves regrets starting the thread?
Peace.

There's a special place in Hell according to H & L Holy Scripture, for those who fuck up to the extent that Baggins fucked this up.

I think it's along the lines of spending eternity plucking the unibrow of fake Marguerite. But there are levels to the punishments available.  It's possible this one is a tad harsh.

Dear Jim wrote:Oh, goodie.  Someone is actually stating right here the silly argument made on Mr. Parker’s site.  That way, we can judge the quality of Mr. Parker's argument for ourselves.  Let’s take a look at the EVIDENCE, shall we?
The 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list LHO’s height as 5’11”. That’s two inches taller than the Oswald measured on the slab in the Dallas Morgue, and none of these measurements are self-reported.

Dear Jim, you keep making assertions and then labeling the assertion as "evidence".

Let’s take a look at the EVIDENCE, shall we?


The 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list LHO’s height as 5’11”. That’s two inches taller than the Oswald measured on the slab in the Dallas Morgue, and none of these measurements are self-reported.

None of these measurements are self-reported?  Let's put aside your absurd position that anyone claimed Oswald self-reported his height during his own autopsy. Your assertion that his height on exit was not self-reported is just that - an assertion. Documents showing the height listed as 5' 11" is only evidence that the height was  list as 5' 11" - it is not evidence of how the height was obtained.

Reminds me of how earlier in the thread, you cited Armstrong's assertion that the FW school records only got transferred to microfilm in the mid-60s as proof that the records were still at Stripling.

Unfortunately that assertion by Armstrong and you is not only NOT evidence - it is at complete odds with the fact that the records were obtained from the school district in 1964.

And no - no one was claiming the rules on rounding up and down accounted for the two inch discrepancy. That was just for your edification (as was a youtube video posted some time ago showing how people grow and shrink throughout the day) to show that the rigidity of your 5' 9" and 5' 11" measurements is entirely misplaced. 

The default position is that the measurement on exit from the Marines was self-reported until you can provide proof that it was wasn't.  

Or perhaps you could attempt to explain why they photograph on entry but not on exit, since you insist the circumstances of the recording make no difference. 

And btw, can we get you to explain why the FBI left evidence of HARVEY entering but LEE exiting? You sure do like to cherry-pick what you reply to. 

And then don't forget to go back and address the issues with the Stripling (non) witnesses.

greg_parker wrote:Well done @steely_dan. We now know that LEE not only had otitis media and a mastoidectomy, he also had encephalitis. But weirdly, it was spermbro, HARVEY who felt the weight, causing his shoulders to slope like a Winter Olympics slalom course.  I guess that is typical of almost-identical-but-not-always CIA spermbro's?

Dr Butler has made the amazing discovery that Harvey had an extra eyebrow which was higher than the other two.
This is over guys! No wonder we couldn't tell them apart.

Appologies. It was Lee.

Just reading the latest from them. It shows one thing and one thing only. They have all blown their fuses. So much so that Mark has thrown his hands in the air and given up. I guess they'll claim that as a scalp. Any normal group of people would be feeling the humiliation heaped upon them through their own unwillingness to engage in any meaningful discussion of their witnesses and evidence. Not to mention their embarrassing efforts to avoid such discussion. 

Seriously, they should all be booted after this performance. A mix of weak kneed cowards, buffoons, mama's boys, slimeballs and damaged egos.

They have absolutely no shame,Greg. They will just carry on as if nothing happened. Shame on the mods there for letting this garbage theory pollute their forum.

Vinny wrote:They have absolutely no shame,Greg. They will just carry on as if nothing happened. Shame on the mods there for letting this garbage theory pollute their forum.

No shame at all.



i see Denny Zartman has jumped into a defensive role after Baggins' foul. 

Let's see how DZ goes in what is a very tricky position at a crucial time in the match.

 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
I think everyone who has been following this thread will agree with Mark.

I'm following this thread and I don't agree with Mark.

Okay. What did Mark say? 
1. This is one of the most impossible threads I've been a part of in my 25 years on discussion boards/forums.
How on Earth can Danny know if this is one of the most impossible threads Mark has encountered in 25 years? The H & L cult is truly gifted in the mystic arts.


2. I was foolishly going to chime in regarding the head size, I figured what would be the point though?
Instead of actually addressing my statements, the H&L group would just claim "what about the school records."
If one foolishly attempts to discuss the records the reply is "explain the witnesses then."
If one foolishly attempts to discuss the witnesses the reply is "what about the 13 inch head."
If one foolishly attempts to discuss that the reply is "well explain the dental records then."At no point is any real attempt at discussion made. It is just a vicious cycle of redirecting the flow of discussion.
If Danny disagrees with the above being the MO of his comrades, he should have no trouble producing some examples of where they have answered direct questions with direct answers - that are actually responsive to the question. I'll be generous and give them a pass if he can demonstrate just a handful of times they've done this.

  3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
It's been a disgraceful performance. Don't the 'Harvey and Lee' believers appreciate how their behaviour makes them look?

It seems to me that two questions should be considered:
[list="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(53, 60, 65); font-family: Roboto,"]
[*]Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald at some time prior to June 3, 1960?

[*]Does one believe that someone was attempting to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in the days and weeks prior to November 22, 1963?

[/list]
If the answer to number 1 is "No", then how does one explain J. Edgar Hoover's memo of June 3, 1960 where he writes:

And Denny shows his chops with his own attempt to change the topic. But at least he wisely avoids trying to defend the disgraceful performance of his team.

  Quote
"Since there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11510#relPageId=836

And right on cue, Denny pulls one of the favorite plays of the H & L Cult - take a quote out of context and then claim it means XYZ. 


But at least Denny accurately quotes what he takes out of context,

Here is what on the H & L website: 
"In January 1960, five months after Harvey Oswald "defected" to the Soviet Union, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate"  

Does Denny approve of this dishonesty with the removal of not just context, but the qualifier?


There is a big difference between the possibility that x happened and the certainty that x happened.

Moreover, if you drill down into the free-flowing memos that Hoover was basing his comments on, you will find they trace back to an interview between Kaack and Marguerite in which she advised Lee had taken his birth certificate with him. After that, it turned into to a game of Chinese Whispers concerning Lee and his birth certificate (and the fact that he was at that time "missing"). It all culminated in Hoover's paranoia producing the possibility that some else might be using the BC, But there was never any justification or basis for that possibility. It was a case of 

Lee took his birth certificate + Lee is "missing" = someone else might be using his birth certificate.

The Hoover memo is a big fat NOTHING BURGER being presented as a crown jewel by fucking scumbags.


If the answer to number 2 is also "No,", then how does one explain the multiple instances of Oswald possibly being impersonated in Dallas and in Mexico City just prior to the assassination, including the sighting of Oswald at the Dallas Furniture Mart where he was observed driving away?
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m2.htm
If the answers to either/both 1 or 2 are "yes, I do believe Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 and/or in 1963", then in my opinion that person should lay off calling the Harvey and Lee theory nonsense. You may not personally believe that Oswald had an exact double shadowing him since childhood, but clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.

How do we explain how someone was POSSIBLY impersonated?  

And there it is. That's how these guys play. Pretend they don't have to prove anything, never look too closely at their own evidence and just collect as much "evidence" as possible, with most of it being mutton dressed as lamb. 

Not up to anyone else but YOU to prove each individual sighting.

The Dallas ones during Oct/Nov were mostly of Larry Crafard who was definitely not deliberately impersonating anyone. The ones that weren't Larry were most likely random young men, reported after the assassination by a mix of cranks and well-meaning but mistaken citizens.

Oswald never went to Mexico City as I will show at some stage. His name and backstory though may have been used in some unrelated (to the assassination)  operation. 

The NO attempt to buy trucks at Bolton Ford? That was someone named "Oswald". Despite what your cult leaders tell you, no first name was ever mentioned. Oswald did have some interesting relatives in that city...

So... your diversion, like Hoover's Memo is also a big NOTHING BURGER.

If you really want to demonstrate good faith, why don't you try answering the questions the rest avoid like the plague? 

H&L is the finishing school for rank hypocrites. Thankfully, it's ultra exclusive.

I haven't been reading much over there, but reading about it here I am reminded of the question I've asked myself when I have read about it over there (in the past) and that is, "What are they distracting from with all these silly circus acts?". Usually it's Prayer Man, but then again, maybe they just do it because they're nuts.

Nutters, and I mean both conspiracy and Loners are everywhere in this case. Then there's the "taking the piss" types, followed by the tragic Brian Doyle types, who seemed unhinged, delusional or both. I wish they'd all bugger off.

The thread has produced a record of sorts. Prior to RCD's participation Bernie Laverick sat unchallenged as the target of the most sustained emoticon attack ever seen. Not any longer. 
Take a bow Mr Dunne. You now hold the record. For posterities sake...here's the moment you raised the bar by having the sheer audacity to expect an answer to a question.





   

 


If i may, i'll add one of my own in congratulations.

steely_dan wrote:H&L is the finishing school for rank hypocrites. Thankfully, it's ultra exclusive.

This from a guy who wished for his opponents to be banned.


Posted 21 minutes ago
  10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Pitts' revised recollection now merely corroborates one small aspect of a different four-decades-old recollection: someone named Oswald lived at a house near Stripling school. It forms a small part of a flimsy tapestry of weak evidence. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, quantity beats quality.

Jeremy,

Thank you for catching a mistake that I made in an earlier post.  I have returned to what I wrote, and it was sloppy writing on my part to suggest that Bobby Pitts actually recalled Oswald attending Stripling.  The point that I was attempting to express was that the composite testimony of the eyewitnesses identified (in parentheses) in the sentence you have identified clearly point to Oswald as a student at Stripling in 1954-55.  But I acknowledge my error in syntax, and I'm glad that you pointed it out.  I stand corrected on a poorly written sentence.

At the same time, you are aware that on multiple occasions on this thread, I have clarified the exact testimony provided by Bobby Pitts, namely that he resided next door to Oswald on Thomas Place in Forth Worth in a location directly across from Stripling Junior High School.  While he was not a fellow student at Stripling, Pitts' recall is important for two reasons:  (1) he explicitly recalled Oswald living at 2220 Thomas Place and (2) the time frame was during the academic year 1954-55.  Those revelations are corroborated by other eyewitnesses.

You are correct when you write above that Pitts' testimony is part of a large tapestry of evidence.  But you are badly mistaken in suggesting that the evidence is "flimsy."  To the contrary, it is a substantial body of evidence that has been set forth in great detail on this thread.

I simply cannot understand why you feel so threatened by the Harvey and Lee evidence that you would spend this much time with your screeds.  You may not be aware of it, but your tract writing actually calls more attention to the thoughtful posts of Jim Hargrove, Sandy Larson, and David Josephs, wherein the ocular proof in documents and images is thoughtfully presented.  The views of this thread now exceed 13,000.  In your writing, you come across as an embittered, unhappy, and angry person.  You need to be more respectful of fellow JFK researchers because we all share the same goal:  the pursuit of the truth. 

James

To quote Mark. Lollerskates!

So Jim does not even read Mark's post but proceeds to dump his so called evidence there. Quite disrespectful.

What have we concluded hmmmmm.... that you have issues with evidence and proof Jim Hargrove, and that you cry to the admins at EF and are a complete and utter twat. 

Then again that's old news.........so the point of me posting

steely_dan wrote:H&L is the finishing school for rank hypocrites. Thankfully, it's ultra exclusive.

One would hope this was "tongue in cheek" from Dr Larsen.
Fat chance.

Posted 13 minutes ago
  2 hours ago, David Josephs said:
  2 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:
I like evidence that withstands scrutiny without the demand made upon me to depend on a dozen other things in a pattern for it to be true.  If it can’t stand alone, how does one justify dependence upon it to show a pattern?

Guess you never put together a puzzle where one piece gives you no real clue about the entire image, but it fits and helps make the image complete...

Without that piece yet with all the others, the picture is still easily seen...  only not by you   :up

Maybe that's the problem...  you look to solve complicated equations by trying to find where it says 1 + 1 = 2 so you can understand it...

 

David,

I'm pretty sure that the reason most, if not all, H&L critics don't believe in it has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with ideology. Ideologues choose what to believe first and then cherry pick evidence to support their beliefs, while ignoring evidence that opposes their beliefs. When forced to face up to opposing evidence, they simply rationalize it away.