Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sandy Larsen

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,135 profile views
  1. Why do you think that the mastoid bone is evidence that there was only one Oswald? Both Harvey and Lee could have had the surgery.
  2. Let's put this in context: My wife went back to Africa a few years ago and met her two brothers for the first time in 4 years. She said that she didn't recognize them -- adults about the age of 25 - 30. That is just 4 years. Imagine a woman aging for 10 years, and putting on the weight. Would people recognize her? Tracy, nobody is saying that the Evans tried to tell the WC that Marguerite was an imposter. Ken, what you write is irrelevant as to why I invoked the Evans' testimonies, that they didn't recognize Marguerite. What happened is that Tracy asked, if the Marguerite testifying before the WC was an imposter, why didn't friends of the real Marguerite come forward and say they didn't recognize this woman? And I replied that the Evans DID come forward and say that!
  3. This is based on a fight that LHO was involved in, some witness statements and what true believers of the H&L theory think they see in photographs. There are four pieces of corroborating evidence for Oswald losing that front tooth. See it here. By all means, check out Greg Parker's alternate explanation. You'll get a good chuckle!
  4. And yet you claim Kudlaty did make up the story. So what? That doesn't automatically mean that Kudlaty would lie for Jack White.
  5. I'm not afraid of anything. I merely don't have the means to do these things. I also understand how many or most experts will deny things if they feel it threatens their careers or will result in their being shunned or mocked.
  6. No she didn't. And it is a shame that you guys keep pushing this myth. Here is what she said in context: That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair. So, I think it is you who lacks the objectivity to see that she simply was commenting on how Marguerite's appearance had changed, not that she was a different individual. Tracy, Mrs. Evans said, "That couldn't be Margie" because she didn't recognize that "old and haggard" woman. Then she said, "but of course it was" because there the woman was in the national spotlight with everyone saying it was Margie. What else could Mrs Evans say, that everybody was wrong?? No, Mrs. Evans had to accept that her old friend had changed so much that she was no longer recognizable. You originally claimed that no acquaintance of Marguerite came forward to say that this woman didn't look like the Marguerite they knew. But that is precisely what Mrs. Evans did. Nevertheless I do understand your need to interpret her "That couldn't be Margie" statement in another way so you can wave it off as nothing.
  7. If that is the case, take it to a statistician who should be able to easily prove it for you. I won't take it to a statistician because this is a simple probability problem. Taking this to a statistician would be like taking this: 1000 + 1000 = 2000 to a mathematician. Taking it to a bookie would be a better choice because bookies have a good sense of probability. Even better is to take it to a smart person with common sense (which could be statistician or a bookie, but doesn't need to be) because, while the math is trivial, estimating sufficiently precise probabilities (of Oswald's unlikely events) is the hard part. For example, my one-in-a-million estimate of the school record being a clerical error. Recall that I thought it reasonable to say that the precise number was probably between one in 100,000 and one in 10,000,000. Once you have reasonable probability estimates, you simply multiply them together to determine the probability of multiple events occurring. (The events need to be independent of each other for this to be true.) For example, suppose you throw two dice hoping to get snake eyes. Rolling a 1 (or any other number) on one dice has a one in six chance of occurring.The probability of rolling a 1 on the other dice is also one in six. The probability of rolling two ones will be 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36, or one in 36. This means that if you rolled the dice 36 times, odds are that you will get snake eyes once. Now back to Oswald... here's an example relevant to him. I've already said that the odds of his getting somebody else's grades for the fall of 1953 was one in a million. Now suppose that the odds of his accidentally getting a FAILED notation accidentally written on his dental record was one in 10,000. We can multiply these two probabilities together to determine the odds of both happening to him. Doing so gives 1/1,000,000 x 1/10,000 = 1/10,000,000,000. So the odds of both these things happening to one person -- Oswald in this case -- is only one in ten billion people. This means that if there were 10 billion people in the world, these two events could only happen to one person in the world, and that lucky person would be Oswald. But there's a problem... the population of the world in the 1960s was only 2.5 billion. Which means that it would have been improbable for those two things to have happened to Oswald or any other individual. Suppose we include one more statistic in this probability equation. How about this... what are the odds that a vice principal could be talked into lying about a student, saying that the student attended the school when in fact he didn't, and into saying that the FBI took the records and now they're lost. I'd estimate that the odds of that occurring would be about one in fifty. Multiplying 1/10,000,000,00 by 1/50 gives one in 500 billion. The population of the world would have to be 500 billion to produce one lucky sole to which these these three events happened. But, again, there were only 2.5 billion inhabitants on Earth at that time. And so it would have been virtually impossible for these three things to have happened to a single person. These three things -- two clerical errors and the corruption of a vice principal -- could not have happened to Oswald. And it's worse than that. There are many other thing that happened to Oswald that made it look like there were two of him. And that is why I say that statistically the Harvey & Lee theory is a slam dunk. There are so many things pointing to multiple Oswalds that it cannot be reasonably denied.
  8. Your experience mirrors that of the Evans' which is the people Jim was referring to. They didn't think Marguerite was not the woman that they knew-in fact they said she was. They were just surprised how much she had changed since they last saw her. People change as your experience shows. But Tracy, the only reason that I accepted that that man was my brother in law is because I was told he was. The reason the Evans talked as though that woman was really the real Marguerite was only because they were told she was. But really, I and the Evans did not recognize them and wouldn't have thought they were who they actually were had we not been told. And that was the whole point of my post. You said that if that was a fake Marguerite, surely an old friend of the real Marguerite would have come forward and said that she wasn't the real Marguerite. Which is effectively what the Evans did, and what I did about my brother in law, at first. If you don't see that then you ideology is blinding you from viewing this objectively.
  9. No, Greg Parker and others documented Jack White's coaching of Kudlaty. If Kudlaty had independently gone to the authorities (or even to Armstrong) and told a story of confiscated records, it would carry more weight. But he only told his story AFTER talking to Jack White and hearing Armstrong's thesis. Again, search here at EF and find the threads. Actually I was referring to the part of your post that I bolded when I said you were making it up. But since you bring this thing about Jack White up, let me ask you a question. Is there evidence that Kudlaty made that story up after talking to Jack White? Or are you assuming that to be the case? This was about Oswald attending Stripling, was it not? Which the WC said he didn't, But Robert testified that he did, Marguerite testified that he did, a teacher said he did, and at least one student said he did. And then Kudlaty said he did. Sure does sound like Oswald went to Stripling. Is there any evidence that Jack White coached Kudlaty? I have a hard time believing that Jack White and John Armstrong have this sort of mystical power over people's minds, especially men's. The men I know are pretty head strong. I can't think of any who'd just go along with a story like that.
  10. A lot of intelligent researcher DO believe in some variation of the H&L theory. But it doesn't matter. Truth is not a determined through polls or popularity contests. You are making that up. You are making that up. This is irrelevant. This is irrelevant. Yes, mistakes do happen all the time. Just not the many monumental ones that you say happened to Oswald. I recall at least two people who said that they didn't recognize Marguerite, as posted by Jim. What makes you think we would have heard from others? I've seen many people years later who I didn't recognize. I didn't make a big deal about it or try to get it published in a newspaper. I just figured they'd changed. I suspect that many people experience this. Case in point... my family recently attended my uncle's funeral. There was a short, old man with a long white beard sitting next to my sister. I had no idea who it was. Turns out it was her husband, the same one I'd known for almost fifty years. Boy was I embarrassed! I believe H&L because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Statistically it is a slam dunk. The people who don't believe it do so because they have a preconceived notion that something like that is too fantastic. They also wouldn't believe that the CIA assassinated foreign leaders, experimented with LSD on unsuspecting civilians, and funded their operations with drug smuggling, and that the US military had a false flag plan that would kill Americans, if there wasn't proof or widespread acceptance of them.
  11. Nobody is ignoring anything, they simply do not wish to rehash old news. What old news? Neither you nor Jeremy nor anybody else has been able to explain the school records other than saying it was a massive clerical error. (Remember, a one in a million chance of that happening. What do you think the odds of that error occurring would be?) Yes, by all means go look. You will find nothing other than the claim that school records have a massive clerical error. These H&L Deniers will have you think that these massive clerical errors happened all the time with Oswald. And -- funny thing -- they all make it look like there were two Oswalds. LOL! Which clerical error is more likely to have occurred: The wrong date was put where we see "January, 1954." A full semester of classes and grades were inserted into the record. I'd say that the odds of #1 happening are close to 100%... that is, virtually every student has at lease one error in their secondary school records. I say the odds of #2 happening are a million to one... that is, it happens to one student out of every million. (My "one in a million" odds is a very rough estimate, of course. It could really be closer to 100,000 to one or 10,000,000 to one.) #1 is a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, more likely error to have occurred. Thinking #2 occurred would be highly irrational, especially in light of all the other highly unlikely clerical errors H&L deniers would have us believe occurred.
  12. I don't understand Jeremy's accusation. Suppose you and I have two pals, each with a mastoidectomy scar. Should we conclude that therefore they are the same person? Of course not! The most likely explanation is that they both had the surgery. Probably when they were kids. So why conclude that Harvey and Lee are the same person because of their scars? Similarly, we don't conclude that Harvey and Lee are the same person just because they were both in the Marines. Or because they shopped at the same stores or slept the same hours. (Or whatever else they had in common.) In Jeremy's way of thinking, Armstrong should have reported every such coincidence as though it was of some importance. And his readers should have concluded that these meaningless coincidences undermine his theory. No... the most logical thing to conclude from the fact that Harvey & Lee each had a mastoidectomy scar is that both had the surgery. I believe that John didn't mention anything about this scar issue because he didn't see it as an issue. There is no scientific evidence proving Armstrong's theory is wrong. If there were, I wouldn't believe the theory.
  13. Jeremy and his ilk like to say it is typical of us Harvey & Lee adherents to wave off any evidence contradicting the H&L theory. But that is simply not the case. It is in fact he and his ilk who do so. They either ignore H&L evidence or come up with highly unlikely and even ridiculous "innocent" explanations, and then instead use weak points like the mastoidectomy question to argue against H&L. Here are some statistics that make my point. How likely is it that a clerical error is what caused Oswald's school records to show that he attended Beauregard Junior High when he was still in New York, for the full semester and with passing grades? How often is that mistake made in America's public school system? I'd say maybe once among a million students. In contrast, what are the odds that both Oswalds had a mastoidectomy rather than just one of them? About one in forty. Dividing the one-in-40 odds by the one-in-a-million odds, we get 25,000. Therefore it is 25,000 more likely that the school records indicate there being two Oswalds than the mastoidectomy scars indicate there was only one. No wonder Jeremy and his ilk ignore the school records.
  14. And right there we have another solid piece of evidence for the Harvey & Lee hypothesis. A hypothesis which I believe to be factual because of its overwhelming evidence. In contrast, Jeremy has virtually nothing in his arsenal of arguments and has to resort to the weak mastoidectomy question. Jim has just given a perfectly reasonable explanation for both Oswalds appearing to have had a mastoidectomy. Including proof that authorities suspected an Oswald imposter when he was still very young (only 20 years old), a fact that supports the idea of a young-Oswald double. Another reasonable explanation is simply that BOTH Oswalds may have had mastoidectomies as children. I did some research on this a few years ago and found that mastoidectomies were fairly common back then. I performed some rough calculations which indicated that about one in 40 children at the time underwent the surgical procedure. The procedure was readily performed at any sign of mastoid infection because the complications of mastoiditis -- including death -- were rather dire. It was then the number one killer of children.
  15. Here's my 2 cents: If we assume that these two school records haven't been monkeyed with, they both look pretty believable for the most part... given that we accept that there were two Oswald's. (Had there been only one Oswald, we'd have to accept that he attended both schools simultaneously. A fact the apparently doesn't bother the anti-H&L club.) I believe that Jim is right about the meaning of the Re Ad column on the Beauregard record. And I can't believe that the Fall 1953 Beauregard record could be reflecting an Oswald who began attending late in the semester, as David suggests. (Though, remember, I'm assuming for the moment that the records are legit. If the FBI altered the records, there's no way of knowing what really happened. So let's stick with my assumption of unaltered records for now.) Now, David on the other hand has a very good point regarding the 109 days Ozzie was present, as recorded for the spring of 1953 on the PS 44 record. If you ask me, that's the only sticking point with the records, but it's an important one. I can think of only two ways to explain that. Either Oswald attended summer school, or that 109 is a clerical error. (Yes, clerical errors DO sometimes occur. Just not near as often as the anti-H&L club and WC apologists would have us believe.) David pointed out that Oswald didn't attend summer school. If that information came from the FBI -- and where else would it have come from? -- couldn't it have been altered for some reason? This and the clerical error idea seem like the simplest, and therefore most likely, explanations for the 109-days-present sticking point.
  • Create New...