• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Sandy Larsen

Members
  • Content count

    3,137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sandy Larsen

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,347 profile views
  1. Not sure I’d make the assumption that only one of the Oswalds had truancy problems. If Dr. Kurian’s recollection of Harvey telling him his “brother” substituted for him at school, and assuming that it could only have been a school-aged kid (like the other LHO), then its pretty clear both boys would have had truancy problems. Jim, When I refer to the "truancy problems" that Pic described in his WC testimony, I'm using that phrase to mean not only the truancy but everything related to it. Like his stay at Youth House, his rebellious nature, and his being evaluated psychologically. If it was HARVEY who had those problems -- along with the truancy -- then why was Pic so familiar with it all? If, on the other hand, it was LEE who had those problems, then it would be no surprise that Pic was aware of it. Thanks for your comments on those possibilities. We agree on the viability of #3 and on the unlikelihood of #1, #4, and #5 I'm going to keep in mind the possibility of LEE being the one who was truant and in Youth House (#2). Because if that were the case, it would resolve all those Pic problems. What I need to do is weigh the Pic problems against the evidence that the Youth House boy was HARVEY and not LEE. If I can find the time, I will read all the Pic testimony while pretending that anything that refers to HARVEY was introduced by the FBI. And that there was a reason for introducing it. If I find out that, under that assumption, they went overboard and introduced way more than they needed to, then I will tend to think that the FBI didn't alter the testimony after all and that LEE was really the one in Youth House. Are we even sure that the census information came from REAL Marguerite? I don't know how the census was conducted back then. but maybe FAKE Marguerite gave information to census takers (not realizing the potential consequences of doing so) and maybe REAL Marguerite didn't. (I don't know how the census bureau tracks people down, but I'm pretty sure I haven't been counted multiple times as I should have been. I recall filling out a census form only once. I've never been interviewed by a census taker.) Here's another possibility... Those in charge of the Oswald project may have anticipated potential difficulties introduced by having two people with the same name, birth date, parents' names, etc., etc. They may have instructed REAL and FAKE Marguerite to intentionally do certain things when submitting forms, like be off on a date a little bit, use a middle name instead of a first name, a maiden name instead of a married name, and so forth. They may have been instructed to do this on most forms, but not certain other forms -- ones that needed to be accurate for whatever reason. In the event that inaccurate data caused a problem, REAL or FAKE Marguerite could just say it was a little mistake or make up some other excuse The point in doing this would be so that it wouldn't stand out to anybody going through records that there were two people with the same information, and yet allow Oswald's history to be traced (for example by the KGB).
  2. At the time of the assassination, each of the various schools in the Fort Worth Independent School District stored student records. Some years later, these collective records were transferred to district headquarters and placed on microfilm. Former Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty talks about this very issue at about the 2:50 mark in Part III of his interview with John Armstrong. Thanks for pointing that out, Jim. I already believed what the Stripling vice principal said, but didn't realize that John had asked him specifically about this issue. It's good to know because it shows that there is some possibility that the partial permanent school record in New York may have been a legit P.S. 117 record. BTW, FWIW. it doesn't matter to me whether that partial record is a legit P.S. 117 record or if it was created by the FBI. But the more we know, the more we can figure out what happened.
  3. It wasn't my attempt at semantics, Tracy. I correctly said that there is no credible evidence that Oswald was a wife beater, but that he probably hit her once. You challenged me on my use of the phrase "wife beater" and in response I showed you that I was right. Given that I said in the very same sentence (or perhaps it was the following sentence) that Oswald probably hit her, there should be no question whether I was using semantics to obfuscate anything. Well if somebody wrote it, it must have happened? What I recall reading in the testimony is that Oswald treated Marina tenderly. But I don't wish to spend any more time on this. I'll just admit that Oswald may have been mentally abusive at times. (I could point to literally anybody and say the same thing with great certainty.) And you could have done the same to your wife. But I'm not going to go around telling everybody that without solid evidence to back it up.
  4. I will list here, in chronological order, what every witness to the bruise said. Read the blue text: Marina Meets Elena Hall Date: July 1962 (Estimate according to Mrs. Hall) Location: Oswald' apartment. Mrs Hall: "black and blue over half of her face" Note: Bouhe took Marina to Elena's house. The date must be wrong because Bouhe testified that he first saw the bruise when the group went to visit Marina. That was at the end of August. White Russian Group Visits Marina Date: Late August 1962 Location: Oswald apartment. Mr. Bouhe: "black eye" Mrs. Meller: "terrible blue spot over her eye." "Under her eye was [blue] and over here [pointing].") The Oswalds Attend a Luncheon Party Date: Early September 1962 Location: Meller home. Mrs. Ford: "bruises on her face" Mr. Ford: "[bruises] on her face" That's it Tracy. They all saw Marina's bruise at the end of August and beginning of September 1952. Elena Hall said that Bouhe took her to see Marina in July, at which time she saw the bruise. But according to Bouhe, he didn't see the bruise till late August. So Elena Hall was mistaken about the month. She must have also seen the bruise in late August. Jeane de Mohrenschildt also saw the bruise, but didn't say when. She said, "We saw her with a black eye once." Notice that she said "once!" George Bouhe said he saw a "black eye" on two occasions. The first occasion is noted above. The second occasion has been discredited. First of all, he wasn't even present to see Marina's face on the occasion he describes. Second, the person who did see Marina (Mrs. Meller) made no mention of a bruise! (See this post.). I didn't list George de Mohrenschildt's testimony because he's been shown to be untrustworthy. But it should be no different than his wife's. And she specifically said they saw only one black eye. And of course I didn't list the outlier l.i.a.r, Alexander Kleinlerer. But for kicks I just looked and found that he doesn't say anything about bruises. So I repeat, they all saw Marina's bruise at the end of August and beginning of September 1952. There was a bruise just one time. Yes I read it! Of course I did. I went right to the sources and documented every time a person actually witness something for themselves. I put it in a timeline. (See it for yourself, it's in the third post of this thread.) I found discrepancies and corrected them. The discrepancies are documented in this thread. (Links to where the discrepancies are exposed are given in Posts 2 and 3.) And I analyzed what was left (also in Post 3). There was one and only one incident that caused the bruises everybody saw, according to the testimony. Everything beyond that was malicious gossip, fueled IMO by Bouhe, and possibly by de Mohrenschildt and Kleinlerer. I'm adamant about it because I've also been the target of malicious gossip. I could have had my child taken away because of that, had the CPS worker been one of those militant types. Besides that, Lee Harvey Oswald was framed and has had his name dragged though the mud. So far I haven't seen any evidence that he did anything wrong, other than probably hitting Marina once. He deserves being defended.
  5. Jeez, I wonder where they got that?? Byron, I mean.
  6. I always look for innocent explanations first. But if what I see supports a working theory of mine, I'll make a note of that. The mistake on the date is a simple error. I don't find anything sinister about that. The use of the names "Harvey" and "Ekdahl" is odd. I have no explanation. I can see a person making innocent LOOKING mistakes if they are trying to hide. For example, from creditors. Actually, I've seen that done. Use a middle name instead of a first. Use a maiden name instead of a married name. Even changing the birth date wouldn't hurt, so why not throw that in?
  7. David, I didn't read all of Pic's testimony. What did he say that got him in trouble? You say that you can't read his emotions. Maybe not in all of it. But I recall in the parts I read that he sure had a sour attitude toward his mother.
  8. I agree... it's like trying to figure out Mexico City. But the Pic characterization problem is, in my view, an isolated one that should have a simple answer. The problem is self contained... at least that's the case if it is accepted that primarily only one of the Oswalds had truancy problems, and primarily only one of the Marguerites had employment problems. I can think of only five possible explanation for Robert's mischaracterizations: My "extended family" scenario. It is actually LEE (not HARVEY) who had the truancy problem. (This doesn't explain the Marguerite employment problem. But I paid less attention to Pic's testimony regarding her, so perhaps that's not really a problem.) The FBI went to town altering Pic's testimony. (This doesn't sound so absurd considering the real possibility that Pic's testimony was largely inconsistent with the official story.) Pic was extensively coached, and did an excellent job of lying. There were two Pics. (Maybe even two Roberts). And it was the fake one who testified. Can anybody think of any other possibility that would account for Pic's wrong characterization of LEE and REAL Marguerite? IMO, #4 would have been too difficult, #5 is too ridiculous, and #2 probably doesn't work for Marguerite. That leaves #1 and #3. #3 certainly seems a lot more likely than #1. Though the alterationist likely would have had to be a professional story writer. Pic's testimony sounds very real to me. Another possibility is a combination of #2 and #3. If it is LEE who was the truant one, that would explain Pic's characterization of LHO. (This is #2.) Any problem with Pic's characterization of Marguerite could be fixed through alteration. (This is #3.) Let's call this Possibility #6. My favorites -- those that I think are feasible-- are: 3. The FBI went to town altering Pic's testimony. 6. It was LEE with truancy problems. And Pic's testimony regarding Marguerite was tweaked as necessary. I know that there is evidence that the boy with truancy problem was HARVEY. But remember, there is also evidence that the boy was LEE. Is the evidence that it was HARVEY so great that we are sure it was he who was the truant one?
  9. Jim, Robert says that Marguerite looked for a new school for Lee and that he entered P.S 44 (in Manhattan) on September 14. That implies he was attending another school prior to that. What school was that? (According to the book.)
  10. David, Yes, that is an assumption on my part. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But what about Stripling? They had a copy of Oswald's record there. Doesn't that indicate that schools do keep a copy of the record that they pass on to the next school? BTW, Greg Parker claims that schools didn't keep school records... the school district did. And that that proves that Oswald's record at Stripling could not have been taken by the FBI.
  11. Apparently you can't post a picture through G-Drive and embed the actual image into a forum post (unfortunately). And that's one of the reasons I have none of my photos stored at G-Drive. The best place for storing photos, IMO, is Blogger.com, which allows you virtually unlimited storage space for free (unless you've got super-enormous pics). Blogger, like Google Drive, is excellent (in my opinion). Thanks David. I just did some research on the topic and discovered that what we are talking about (inserting a photo hosted on another server) is called hotlinking. It's a good thing I discovered that because I was planning on using Imgur for hosting photos, but read in their TOS that they don't allow hotlinking from blogs or websites. I discovered the same to be true with Google Photos. But I could find no such prohibition with (Google) Blogger.
  12. What happened was that Marina left LHO and went to stay at Anna Meller's house. The date is uncertain but it was possibly on Monday, November 5, 1962. Probably the next Sunday the 11th, a meeting was arranged between Marina and LHO at the de Mohrenschildt's place. Marina did not want to go back with LHO and the De Mohrenschildts drove them to the Elsbeth apartment to get her things where the scene you mention occurred. This is all documented by Marina's biographer in Marina & Lee. So de Mohrenschildt was a key player in the incident. Now, you might say that McMillian can't be trusted because she is "CIA." But Marina, while she now believes in conspiracy, has not taken back anything in the book. Tracy, Well maybe the de Mohrenschildts helped move Marina's stuff. Who knows. Because George de Mohrenschildt claimed that he told Oswald he was going to take Marina to the Meller's. Which is not true. Marina had already taken a taxi there. De Mohrenschildt claimed that Oswald protested, saying, "By God, you are not going to do it. I will tear all her dresses and I will break all the baby things." When in fact Marina had already left him. De Mohrenschildt's story goes on and on, as if he was taking Marina away from Oswald. She was already gone! Then there's this: According to you, de Mohrenschildt's confrontation with Oswald occurred about six days after Marina had gone (by herself) to the Meller's. When in fact, that was the day Marina moved in with the Fords! (Mrs. Meller said that Marina stayed with her for five days.) So not only was de Mohrenschildt wrong about his taking Marina away from Oswald, he was wrong about where he took her! Assuming he even took her anywhere. This is why de Mohrenschildt's story cannot be trusted.
  13. P.S. The bruises on Marina's face were first seen around the end of August or first of September. Elena Hall said in her testimony that she saw a bruise sometime in June. But she is mistaken about the month, because Bouhe was with her at that time and yet he didn't see the bruise until the end of August or first part of September, when several others first saw it. I created a timeline in Post 3 of this thread that I invite others to see. Also an analysis. My conclusion, based on all the testimony, was that Marina's face was bruised one time, and that occurred in late August 1962. Never was another bruise seen. Two witnesses (one being Mrs. de Mohrenschildt) specifically said they saw only one bruise.
  14. Tracy, What I highlighted in red is not true. I read the testimonies of everybody who saw the bruises on Marina's face. They all saw the same bruise -- the one where nobody witnessed Oswald hitting Marina. There is no indication that any of them saw a second bruise. None of the witnesses said they saw new bruises on Marina, ever. Nobody corroberates Klienlerer's story.
  15. And then there is Alexander Kleinlerer's affidavit. His story is even more outrageous than George de Mohrenschildt's. Unfortunately I haven't seen testimony by any the other white Russians that would either corroborate or oppose what Kleinlerer said about Oswald. However, it is worth noting that Kleinlerer's story is completely different from everybody else's. He claims he saw Oswald slap Marina... not once, but twice. Nobody else saw any slapping. He goes on and on about how despicable a person Oswald was and how badly he treated his wife. Nobody else does that, not even a little. In fact, everybody who was asked, including Marina, said that Oswald wasn't a violent person. (Yet Kleinlerer claimed that both he and Marina were afraid of him.) The worse that the others said about Oswald was that he didn't socialize with them. Kleinlerer says that the others all disliked Oswald. I read most their testimonies and never got the impression Oswald was disliked. Alexander Kleinlerer's affidavit is here.