• 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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Greg Parker

Hartogs' report

64 posts in this topic

The H & L website states

In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe. http://harveyandlee.net/School/School.htm

The same webpage follows that claim with a

As this claim is not cited, could someone please provide the citation?

The same page follows with the Bronx Zoo photo taken just prior to Youth House. That kid is not malnourished and iirc, Hartogs actually described Oswald as "well built".

So... I really would love to know where the (non) quote, non cited statement from the H & L site comes from.

Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The H & L website states

In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe. http://harveyandlee.net/School/School.htm

The same webpage follows that claim with a

As this claim is not cited, could someone please provide the citation?

The same page follows with the Bronx Zoo photo taken just prior to Youth House. That kid is not malnourished and iirc, Hartogs actually described Oswald as "well built".

So... I really would love to know where the (non) quote, non cited statement from the H & L site comes from.

Anyone?

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Greg,

You mean to tell me that the person who wrote that sentence in red had the gall to not even source where they got that "information" from?

Not surprising, actually.

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The H & L website states

In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe. http://harveyandlee.net/School/School.htm

The same webpage follows that claim with a

As this claim is not cited, could someone please provide the citation?

The same page follows with the Bronx Zoo photo taken just prior to Youth House. That kid is not malnourished and iirc, Hartogs actually described Oswald as "well built".

So... I really would love to know where the (non) quote, non cited statement from the H & L site comes from.

Anyone?

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Greg,

You mean to tell me that the person who wrote that sentence in red had the gall to not even source where they got that "information" from?

Not surprising, actually.

--Tommy :sun

Well, they do leave you assuming they must be referencing Hartogs' psych report - but alarm bells ring because no quote marks means it is not a direct quote - and indeed, such wording eludes me in the report.

The other alarm bell is that if you google the wording (or even just a phrase from the whole) the only google results are all H & L.

If the report is not the source, and no one else on the planet has ever published those words and put them in Hartog's mouth, where o where is coming from?

I'm not going to say anyone has made it up. I am offering to allow them to show the evidence. But if they can't, I guess everyone can draw their own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Greg,

That observation you seek citation for is included at the end of Armstrong's folder for Rentus Hartogs, MD that is archived online at the Poage Library.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/po-arm

Armstrong provides an photocopy of the pertinent pages of Hartog's own book

http://www.worldcat.org/title/two-assassins/oclc/9552877?referer=di&ht=edition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Greg,

That observation you seek citation for is included at the end of Armstrong's folder for Rentus Hartogs, MD that is archived online at the Poage Library.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/po-arm

Armstrong provides an photocopy of the pertinent pages of Hartog's own book

http://www.worldcat.org/title/two-assassins/oclc/9552877?referer=di&ht=edition

In that case, Chris the wording by Armstrong or his underling is entirely misleading.

In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe.

In April, 1953, Hartogs described LEE as "well built" in his report on the truant.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0055b.htm

We also see that Armstrong claims that the obviously well-nourished Lee Oswald seen in the Bronx Zoo photo taken in March 1953 is the same boy who Hartogs claimed looked like a child from a Nazi concentration camp a month later. This kid (and later on, adult) just morphs into whatever anyone says and no one is supposed to notice.

Here is LEE Oswald at the Bronx Zoo

Bronx-zoo.jpg

I don't think I need to show what the kids in the concentration camps looked like.

The duplicity in using Hartogs' later words from his error-ridden book as if they were from the contemporaneous psych report should be obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

you asked:

So... I really would love to know where the (non) quote, non cited statement from the H & L site comes from.

Anyone?

I merely provided the link.
Are you asking why Dr. Hartogs' later biography/case studies published in 1966 are at odds with his Report from 1953?
I don't know.
It's clearly not something Armstrong invented. It's what Hartogs wrote.
In the pertinent folder at Poage, we find both the report and an abstract from Hartog's book (I provided the catalog link for the book to show that it was, in fact, authored by Hartog and because there was no reference data for it in Armstrong's folder).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

firstly, thanks for providing the info. I do appreciate it. My point was that this wording on the H & L site In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe. makes it sound like this was the description used by Hartogs on the date of the interview. "Hartogs interviewed Oswald... April 1953 AND described him as...." The website should make it clear that quote comes from the 1966 book - not the original psych report. It further should also be honest and state what the psych report said ("well built"). It is therefore duplicitous in 2 ways... by wording so as to suggest the quote was contemporaneous AND by omitting the actual contemporaneous wording which states virtually the opposite to the book.

I hope that's clearer.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

firstly, thanks for providing the info. I do appreciate it. My point was that this wording on the H & L site In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe. makes it sound like this was the description used by Hartogs on the date of the interview. "Hartogs interviewed Oswald... April 1953 AND described him as...." The website should make it clear that quote comes from the 1966 book - not the original psych report. It further should also be honest and state what the psych report said ("well built"). It is therefore duplicitous in 2 ways... by wording so as to suggest the quote was contemporaneous AND by omitting the actual contemporaneous wording which states virtually the opposite to the book.

I hope that's clearer.

.

Also from the Harvey and Lee website, this time on the EARLY LIVES OF HARVEY AND LEE PAGE:

On May 1, Youth House Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs examined Oswald. In his book, The Two Assassins, Hartogs described Oswald (HARVEY) as "a slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face....I remember thinking how slight he seemed for his 13 years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps."

Sheesh! An admin here shuts down the Harvey and Lee thread, and so you just open up new H&L attack topics! How typical of your desperation to try and discredit Harvey and Lee. Now, of course, you have to try and discredit Hartogs, along with anyone else providing evidence there were two different people sharing the identity of “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

You sure seem far more anxious to criticize Harvey and Lee than to “Reopen the Kennedy Case.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea when I first posted in this thread that there was an “agenda”. I’ve never really been very good at subtle nuances and I apologize for that.

As for Dr. Renatus Hartogs, he seems to be an opportunist of the worst kind.

FBI Report dated 12/2/63

“DR. RENATUS HARTOGS advised that he is the Chief Psychiatrist for the Youth House of New York City, and, in this capacity, conducts psychiatric interviews of many children and youths…”

“…he realized that from the terminology used in the psychiatric report that he himself had conducted the interview of OSWALD. He stated that the specific phrases used in the psychiatric report of “potentially dangerous” and “incipient schizophrenia” are phases that are peculiar to his type of analysis, and he knows no other psychiatrist who uses them.”

Then he goes on that after “further reflection” he remembers the “extremely cold, steely eyes.”

In Dr. Hartogs’ summary, in the 1953 Report, the second sentence reads “No finding of neurological impairment or psychotic mental changes could be made.”.

Dr. Hartogs doesn’t tell the FBI that he knows Oswald’s physical description but it’s the wording in the article he read that reveals to him that it was his report. Alas, the wording he refers to is not even in the report -that wording seems to have been added by some sensationalistic news author. I’m going to try to track that story down but I haven’t found it yet. I assume it was a printed news story.

Let me state, for the record that I have no interest in bashing anyones theories and I am no scholar of “Harvey and Lee” but I recognize that LHO was being “doubled”.

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original story cited by Hartogs seems to have been a NY Post article dated 11/30/1963 that quotes "our other sources" as saying that the Probationary Report contained wording that indicated that Oswald had schizophrenic tendencies and that he was potentially dangerous. I cannot find the actual article, only subsequent paper's reporting.

The timing is curious, Hartogs is interviewed by the FBI on 12/2/1963 three days after the newspaper article was written but it would seem that the FBI would have known Hartogs involvement a lot earlier. So I'm not sure why Hartogs even has to tell the FBI about how he knew he had written the report. They already knew that, didn't they?

Was Hartogs report a plant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Dr. Renatus Hartogs, he seems to be an opportunist of the worst kind.

Hartogs was a serious scumbag.

In 1975 a jury found him guilty of malpractice because he had been convincing his female patients to have sex with him as part of their "therapy".

No intellectually honest person would take anything said by such a man seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had no idea when I first posted in this thread that there was an “agenda”. I’ve never really been very good at subtle nuances and I apologize for that.

Chris, everyone here and I mean everyone, has an agenda. It doesn't have to have a negative connotation. I have stated a number of times what my agenda is:

1. to clear the table of all the garbage that makes a mockery of the case

2. to deconstruct the official version of events

3. to place on the table as much new evidence as possible

It's a three-pronged approach at arriving at a set of facts that can get the case reopened.

As for Dr. Renatus Hartogs, he seems to be an opportunist of the worst kind.
FBI Report dated 12/2/63
“DR. RENATUS HARTOGS advised that he is the Chief Psychiatrist for the Youth House of New York City, and, in this capacity, conducts psychiatric interviews of many children and youths…”
“…he realized that from the terminology used in the psychiatric report that he himself had conducted the interview of OSWALD. He stated that the specific phrases used in the psychiatric report of “potentially dangerous” and “incipient schizophrenia” are phases that are peculiar to his type of analysis, and he knows no other psychiatrist who uses them.”
Then he goes on that after “further reflection” he remembers the “extremely cold, steely eyes.”
In Dr. Hartogs’ summary, in the 1953 Report, the second sentence reads “No finding of neurological impairment or psychotic mental changes could be made.”.
Dr. Hartogs doesn’t tell the FBI that he knows Oswald’s physical description but it’s the wording in the article he read that reveals to him that it was his report. Alas, the wording he refers to is not even in the report -that wording seems to have been added by some sensationalistic news author. I’m going to try to track that story down but I haven’t found it yet. I assume it was a printed news story.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8590

Also see the Youth House section of volume one of my book.

Let me state, for the record that I have no interest in bashing anyones theories and I am no scholar of “Harvey and Lee” but I recognize that LHO was being “doubled”.

Recognizing he was being doubled is all you can take from a first pass at the evidence. You are on safe and sane ground.

Not that I necessarily agree with the breadth of it that you might be suggesting. Most have rational, non-conspiratorial explanations - one being that some in this community have a tendency to over-reach on the evidence they allude to.

And positing a lifelong CIA program involving doppelganger boys and mothers is borderline lunacy.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Dr. Renatus Hartogs, he seems to be an opportunist of the worst kind.

Hartogs was a serious scumbag.

In 1975 a jury found him guilty of malpractice because he had been convincing his female patients to have sex with him as part of their "therapy".

No intellectually honest person would take anything said by such a man seriously.

and the above is relevant with what he told the FBI 12/3/1963, 12 years earlier? Intellectually honest person, any suggestions as to whom you might mean? John Armstrong for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original story cited by Hartogs seems to have been a NY Post article dated 11/30/1963 that quotes "our other sources" as saying that the Probationary Report contained wording that indicated that Oswald had schizophrenic tendencies and that he was potentially dangerous. I cannot find the actual article, only subsequent paper's reporting.

The timing is curious, Hartogs is interviewed by the FBI on 12/2/1963 three days after the newspaper article was written but it would seem that the FBI would have known Hartogs involvement a lot earlier. So I'm not sure why Hartogs even has to tell the FBI about how he knew he had written the report. They already knew that, didn't they?

Was Hartogs report a plant?

There was something screwy about that whole thing. But above and beyond that, as Martin Hay pointed out, and as should be clear from my book based on other material, Hartogs was a scumbag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Dr. Renatus Hartogs, he seems to be an opportunist of the worst kind.

Hartogs was a serious scumbag.

In 1975 a jury found him guilty of malpractice because he had been convincing his female patients to have sex with him as part of their "therapy".

No intellectually honest person would take anything said by such a man seriously.

and the above is relevant with what he told the FBI 12/3/1963, 12 years earlier? Intellectually honest person, any suggestions as to whom you might mean? John Armstrong for example?

Hartogs was a serial l.i.a.r. See volume one of my book.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0