Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Greg Parker

Hartogs' report

64 posts in this topic

[...]

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.

Lunacy?

We should be amazed as to what "other amateur researchers" determine is a "CIA program, lifelong, or momentarily?"

Most who have read H&L, remain agnostic, they wouldn't be surprised if its true but, eh? Been that way for 15 years that I'm aware of. Especially after careful reading and analysis of the 1964 WCR. So I doubt your lunacy gambit, Greg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

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.

Lunacy?

We should be amazed as to what "other amateur researchers" determine is a "CIA program, lifelong, or momentarily?"

Most who have read H&L, remain agnostic, they wouldn't be surprised if its true but, eh? Been that way for 15 years that I'm aware of. Especially after careful reading and analysis of the 1964 WCR. So I doubt your lunacy gambit, Greg...

Two Marguerites is not lunacy?

Claiming that the Bronx zoo photo is compatible with the description of Oswald as looking like a kid from a Nazi concentration camp is not lunacy?

Claiming that the Frankenstein photo was used by the FWST (it wasn't) and that it depicted LEE Oswald because he would be recognizable to locals - even though the photo is so tainted and faked, it it not even recognizable as human (thus being dubbed Frankenstein) is not lunacy?

Insisting that McBride was right about dates, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not lunacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to see why Greg Parker is working so hard to declare John Armstrong and me (and David and Steven) lunatics?? Click the link below!

HarveyandLee.net

You won't get cooties, though Parker wants you to believe you will. He pretends to get viruses, even though no one else does.

Why would ANYONE--much less "Super Member" Greg Parker-- work so hard attempting to discredit one little researcher like John Armstrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to see why Greg Parker is working so hard to declare John Armstrong and me (and David and Steven) lunatics?? Click the link below!

HarveyandLee.net

You won't get cooties, though Parker wants you to believe you will. He pretends to get viruses, even though no one else does.

Why would ANYONE--much less "Super Member" Greg Parker-- work so hard attempting to discredit one little researcher like John Armstrong?

You are calling me a l-i-a-r - which is against forum rules. It also ignores the fact that I posted proof that my software detected a virus after clicking your link.

And that's another thing you have wrong. I don't work hard at this at all. It's a stroll in the park done when I need a rest from everything else that actually does take some effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please make note of the Super Member here who is working hard to discredit Youth House Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs and his book, The Two Assassins. Please note also how one-time President of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Milton Kurian, agreed with Mr. Hartogs' observations. From The Early Years of Harvey and Lee on my website:

HARVEY Oswald's continual truancy at PS 117 came to the attention of the Bureau of Attendance. On April 14, 1953 HARVEY was adjudged a "school truant," ordered to appear in court, and then remanded to the Youth House in Manhattan. Psychologist Irving Sokolow described young Oswald as a slender youngster and gave him an IQ test. HARVEY achieved a score of 118, considerably higher than the IQ score of 102 that LEE Oswald received in Ft. Worth. Probation Officer John Carro described young Oswald (HARVEY) as a small boy, a bright boy, a likeable boy, and remembered that he was extremely guarded when discussing certain areas of his life. Carro took Oswald (HARVEY) to the office of Psychiatrist Milton Kurian, who was surprised to learn that Oswald was 13 years old. Dr. Kurian said, "He appeared quite small for his age and stood no more than 4 ft 6 or 4 ft 8. He was very quiet and introverted. Oswald (HARVEY) told Dr. Kurian that he never went to school but, on occasion, his brother would substitute for him and take his place in school.

Dr. Kurian later became President of the American Psychiatric Association. Following the assassination he wrote a letter to Jackie Kennedy and told her about his meeting with young Oswald in 1953, but Dr. Kurian was never interviewed by the FBI, HSCA, or any government agency. 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."


CLICK HERE to see John Armstrong's multi-part YouTube interview with Dr. Kurian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kurian never said Oswald looked like a kid in a Nazi concentration camp - and you ignore the fact the Hartogs' contemporaneous psych report described LEE Oswald as "well built." Which we was. Short, but not malnourished.

And I note you have not attempted to explain how the boy in the Bronx Zoo photo in any way shape or form looks like an underfed Nazi concentration camp victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's get back to the point.

Despite what you may have on another page, on THIS page 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. you make it sound like the comment was made in 1953 at the time Hartogs saw Oswald. It is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems misleading to me as well.

Good luck getting anyone to correct the impression they were attempting to create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim and Greg,

I think I understand from the posts here that you are disagreeing about how Lee is portrayed during his early years in NY. Greg's point is that the Harvey and Lee website that purports to present John Armstrong's theory that there were two Oswalds, presents only one description by Renatus Hartogs when there were in fact two descriptions that the infamous Dr. penned. Those descriptions being at odds to one another.

Did anyone check to see what John Armstrong said about this subject?

From Armstrong's notes for his slide presentation at COPA (circa 1995):

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/48933/rec/21

Note that the link above starts at the beginning of the presentation and that the specific paragraph that will be important is on the next page - mid page - still discussing his Slide #2.

edit - added note

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim and Greg,

I think I understand from the posts here that you are disagreeing about how Lee is portrayed during his early years in NY. Greg's point is that the Harvey and Lee website that purports to present John Armstrong's theory that there were two Oswalds, presents only one description by Renatus Hartogs when there were in fact two descriptions that the infamous Dr. penned. Those descriptions being at odds to one another.

Did anyone check to see what John Armstrong said about this subject?

From Armstrong's notes for his slide presentation at COPA (circa 1995):

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/48933/rec/21

Note that the link above starts at the beginning of the presentation and that the specific paragraph that will be important is on the next page - mid page - still discussing his Slide #2.

edit - added note

Chris, that link has 99 pages. Do you think you might have narrowed it down a bit?

Not that matters. It's completely irrelevant whatever it says. Unless you believe the average surfer coming across the H & L site and quote in question is going to say to themselves, "gee, I wonder what Armstrong himself said about this 20 years ago? I better do some serious digging and find out because this page might be misleading."

Focus Chris. This is about one website that represent the work of John Armstrong. The quote posted here is misleading. End of discussion.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

So, let's give the hapless Mr. Parker some help by giving him an opportunity to read what John Armstrong actually wrote about Dr. Hartogs:

Dr. Renatus Hartogs

On May 1, Youth House Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs, a colleague of Dr.

Kurian's, examined Lee Harvey Oswald. Hartogs summarized his report on Oswald and

wrote, "This 13-year-old well built boy has superior mental resources and functions only

slightly below his capacity level in spite of chronic truancy from school which brought

him into Youth House. No finding of neurological impairment or psychotic mental

changes could be made. Lee has to be diagnosed as 'personality pattern disturbance with

schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies. "'32

Dr. Hartogs' physical description of Oswald as a well-built boy was consistent

with descriptions of Lee Oswald by fellow students of Ridglea West Elementary School

in Fort Worth a year earlier. It is also consistent with New York health records that re-

corded Oswald's height at 5-foot-4-1/2, less than a month after his interview with Dr.

Hartogs.

But Dr. Hartogs' physical description of the Oswald he interviewed was in sharp

contrast to the boy interviewed by Dr. Kurian, who described Oswald as a 13-year-old

youth who appeared quite small for his age, and stood no more than 4-foot-6 or 4-foot-

8 (Dr. Kurian was 5-foot-7).

In 1965 Dr. Hartogs wrote a book titled "The Two Assassins" in which his physi-

cal description of Oswald was in sharp contrast to his physical description of Oswald in

1953. The "well-built boy," as described by Dr. Hartogs in his 1953 report, was now

described as "A slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face . . . . remember thinking how

slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved chil-

dren I had seen in concentration camps."33 Dr. Hartogs' two very different physical descrip-

tions of Oswald remain unexplained and he appears to be describing two different boys.

--From Harvey and Lee, p. 59

Isn't it remarkable that, despite all the names Parker calls us ("nuts," and "lunatics" and "clowns" and so much more) he behaves more like a true lunatic than J.A. or his fans ever did--by devoting much of his life to criticizing a book he has never read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris, that link has 99 pages. Do you think you might have narrowed it down a bit?

Pages 38 & 39. Also, at top there is a search window that allows the "average surfer" to input phrases such as "Hartogs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, I don't blame you for reaching to the stars. Just imagine, nutters now looking through the "looking glass." After 50 years of defending the undefendable, 'the 1964 WCR,' you guys certainly need a change of scenery... Tis the last generation of LHO did it all by his lonesome crowd, right? But ya still need to make 'no conspiracy here, ma' hay somewhere, somehow, right... lmao!

Edited by David G. Healy

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