Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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
Alistair Briggs

The Discharge Of Lee Harvey Oswald And Other Related Issues

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Alistair,

1.  The photograph that you offer comes with no assurance that it was taken before or after Roger Craig's alleged Oswald sighting.   One could easily argue that the photograph was taken long after the alleged Oswald sighting.

2.  Buell Wesley Frazier's "late memory" of seeing Oswald near the rear of the TSBD and crossing Houston Street is IMHO suspect because (2.1) there were no words involved in this memory (like a dream); (2.2) there was no silent greeting, like a hand wave, involved in his memory (like a dream); (2.3) the other people in Frazier's alleged memory had no names or faces (like a dream); and (2.4) Frazier's conversations with people in this memory had no words (like a dream).

I maintain that Frazier -- long after his WC testimony -- had a dream about Oswald, and then decades later told this to a random reporter as a real memory (and Frazier was not under oath at that time).

3.  I realize that you are saying that Roger Craig could have honestly mistaken this random guy getting into a Nash Rambler on Elm Street 10-15 minutes after the JFK shooting -- but that's not my problem with your position.   My problem is that you are flatly denying Roger Craig's sworn WC testimony, that he spoke with Oswald in Captain Fritz's office, and that Oswald confirmed that the Nash Rambler was a "station wagon," thus confirming for Craig that Oswald was the same man he was on Elm Street.

It's the testimony about Fritz's office that is absolutely crucial, IMHO.   There's too much detail to make this sworn statement into a simple error.  It is either the Truth or it is outright Perjury, in my reading.   I say it's the Truth.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

2.  Buell Wesley Frazier's "late memory" of seeing Oswald near the rear of the TSBD and crossing Houston Street is IMHO suspect because (2.1) there were no words involved in this memory (like a dream); (2.2) there was no silent greeting, like a hand wave, involved in his memory (like a dream); (2.3) the other people in Frazier's alleged memory had no names or faces (like a dream); and (2.4) Frazier's conversations with people in this memory had no words (like a dream).

I maintain that Frazier -- long after his WC testimony -- had a dream about Oswald, and then decades later told this to a random reporter as a real memory (and Frazier was not under oath at that time).

I can almost agree with you on it being suspect, but certainly not for the same reasons you have stated here about it being like a 'dream'. You seem to be saying that because Frazier did not recall an exact verbatim report of what was said between him and the woman, and because he didn't recall her name and because he didn't describe her face that it must have been a dream. Let's be fair it would be quite easy to forget a name and forget exactly what was said, and there would be no real need to 'remember' the face either... there is also the chance that whoever it was Frazier spoke to was someone that he didn't actually know! As for there not being a 'silent greeting', 'like a hand wave' - why would such a thing be expected anyway. All Frazier is saying is that he saw Oswald come up the road and cross it (he is not saying that Oswald came anywhere near him) and he is also saying that he didn't think much about it because he thought he was going for a sandwich...

... as I said, I can almost agree with you on it being suspect, but not because it was a 'dream'.

Also, people can be truthful without being under oath! And I wouldn't define Gary Mack, Stephen Fagin and Dave Perry 'random reporters' btw!

Anyway, getting back to the Roger Craig thing...

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

3.  I realize that you are saying that Roger Craig could have honestly mistaken this random guy getting into a Nash Rambler on Elm Street 10-15 minutes after the JFK shooting -- but that's not my problem with your position.   My problem is that you are flatly denying Roger Craig's sworn WC testimony, that he spoke with Oswald in Captain Fritz's office, and that Oswald confirmed that the Nash Rambler was a "station wagon," thus confirming for Craig that Oswald was the same man he was on Elm Street.

The thing is though Paul, in Roger Craig's sworn WC testimony at no point does he say that he spoke with Oswald. He says he spoke to Fritz and that Fritz asked him if this (LHO) was the man he saw and Craig said yes it was... below is the relevant part of his WC testimony... NB the last bit is clearly in reference to what Craig said to Fritz...

Quote

Mr. CRAIG - I drove up to Fritz' office about, oh, after 5--about 5:30 or something like that--and--uh--talked to Captain Fritz and told him what I had saw. And he took me in his office---I believe it was his office---it was a little office, and had the suspect setting in a chair behind a desk---beside the desk. And another gentleman, I didn't know him, he was sitting in another chair to my left as I walked in the office.
And Captain Fritz asked me was this the man I saw--and I said, "Yes," it was.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Will you describe the man you saw in Captain Fritz' office?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, he was sitting down but--uh--he had the same medium brown hair; it was still--well, it was kinda wild looking; he was slender, and--uh-- what 1 could toll of him sitting there, he was--uh---short. By that, I mean not--myself, I'm five eleven--he was shorter than I was. And--uh--fairly light build.
Mr. BELIN - Could you see his trousers?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I couldn't see his trousers at all.
Mr. BELIN - What about his shirt?
Mr. CRAIG - I believe, as close as I can remember, a T-shirt--a white T-shirt.
Mr. BELIN - All right. But you didn't see him in a lineup? You just saw him sitting there?
Mr. CRAIG - No; he was sitting there by himself in a chair--off to one side.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect say?
Mr. CRAIG - Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he said, "What about this station wagon?"
And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."
And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now."
And he was leaning over the desk. At this time, he had risen partially out of the chair and leaning over the desk, looking directly at Captain Fritz.
Mr. BELIN - What was he wearing-or could you see the color of his trousers as he leaned over the desk?
Mr. CRAIG - No; because he never--he just leaned up, you know, sort of forward--not actually up, just out of his chair like that (indicating) forward.
Mr. BELIN - Then, did you say anything more?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I then left.
Mr. BELIN - Well, in other words, the only thing you ever said was, "This was the man,"--or words to that effect?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.

Also what should be of interest on this point is that in his manuscript 'When They Kill A President' again Craig makes no mention whatsoever of himself talking to Oswald. Also of interest is the difference in the order of what Craig claims was said between Fritz and Oswald at that time. The order may be very important...

Quote

I arrived at Capt. Fritz office shortly after 4:30 p.m. I was met by Agent Bookhout from the F.B.I., who took my name and place of employment. The door to Capt. Fritz‘ personal office was open and the blinds on the windows were closed, so that one had to look through the doorway in order to see into the room. I looked through the open door at the request of Capt. Fritz and identified the man who I saw running down the grassy knoll and enter the Rambler station wagon—and it WAS Lee Harvey Oswald.

Fritz and I entered his private office together. He told Oswald, “This man (pointing to me) saw you leave.” At which time the suspect replied, “I told you people I did.” Fritz, apparently trying to console Oswald, said, “Take it easy, son—we‘re just trying to find out what happened.” Fritz then said, “What about the car?” Oswald replied, leaning forward on Fritz‘ desk, “That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine—don‘t try to drag her into this.” Sitting back in his chair, Oswald said very disgustedly and very low, “Everybody will know who I am now.”

Do you see the difference in order and how that may be very important? Can you see how, arguably, it could put a whole different slant on it?

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

1.  The photograph that you offer comes with no assurance that it was taken before or after Roger Craig's alleged Oswald sighting.   One could easily argue that the photograph was taken long after the alleged Oswald sighting.

I would say that one could NOT easily argue that the photograph was taken long after the alleged Oswald sighting, because if one reads through the WC testimony of Roger Craig and looks at what he did and in what order then the only way he could have been in that photo at that location at that time would be if it was at around the time of the alleged Oswald sighting...

... I would say it could be easily argued that it happened pretty much within the minute? Because;

 

Cover_Up-by-Gary-Shaw-34.jpg

Cover_Up-by-Gary-Shaw-35.jpg

Regards

P.S. I think in terms of Roger Craig we have both put forward our cases, and I wouldn't want to get bogged down in going too much back and forth on it, so perhaps it may be prudent to soon move forward to another point of relevant discussion. :)

 

Edited by Alistair Briggs
spelling and stuff & re-ordering the photos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2017 at 9:03 PM, Alistair Briggs said:

...Anyway, getting back to the Roger Craig thing...

The thing is though Paul, in Roger Craig's sworn WC testimony at no point does he say that he spoke with Oswald. He says he spoke to Fritz and that Fritz asked him if this (LHO) was the man he saw and Craig said yes it was... below is the relevant part of his WC testimony... NB the last bit is clearly in reference to what Craig said to Fritz...

Also what should be of interest on this point is that in his manuscript 'When They Kill A President' again Craig makes no mention whatsoever of himself talking to Oswald. Also of interest is the difference in the order of what Craig claims was said between Fritz and Oswald at that time. The order may be very important...

Do you see the difference in order and how that may be very important? Can you see how, arguably, it could put a whole different slant on it?

I would say that one could NOT easily argue that the photograph was taken long after the alleged Oswald sighting, because if one reads through the WC testimony of Roger Craig and looks at what he did and in what order then the only way he could have been in that photo at that location at that time would be if it was at around the time of the alleged Oswald sighting...

... I would say it could be easily argued that it happened pretty much within the minute? Because;

Regards

P.S. I think in terms of Roger Craig we have both put forward our cases, and I wouldn't want to get bogged down in going too much back and forth on it, so perhaps it may be prudent to soon move forward to another point of relevant discussion. :)

Alistair,

I agree with you that Roger Craig never actually claimed to be in a direct conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald.  He only claimed to be present at a triangle in which Captain Fritz spoke to Oswald on his behalf about this Nash Rambler station wagon.

So, I was too hasty when I said Roger Craig himself spoke with Oswald.   Yes, that makes a difference.  

I can also agree that this is getting off-topic from your thread -- "The Discharge of Lee Harvey Oswald and Other Related Matters."

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I can also agree that this is getting off-topic from your thread -- "The Discharge of Lee Harvey Oswald and Other Related Matters."

I suppose any discussion that involves Oswald comes under the umbrella of 'related matters'. ;) Happy to web and weave around and prod and probe different aspects with regards to Oswald, whilst not getting too bogged down in areas that may lead to going round in circles...

... one thing that I must say about what Roger Craig claims that he heard Oswald say is that it very much (to me) sounds similar in 'tonality' to what Fritz claims that Oswald said to him - which may lend some kind of credence to it, imho of course. ;)

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I suppose any discussion that involves Oswald comes under the umbrella of 'related matters'. ;) Happy to web and weave around and prod and probe different aspects with regards to Oswald, whilst not getting too bogged down in areas that may lead to going round in circles...

... one thing that I must say about what Roger Craig claims that he heard Oswald say is that it very much (to me) sounds similar in 'tonality' to what Fritz claims that Oswald said to him - which may lend some kind of credence to it, imho of course. ;)

Regards

Alistair,

Without getting bogged down with this -- IMHO the clash between the testimony of Roger Craig and Captain Fritz was noted by the WC attorneys -- and it is one of the biggest contradictions in the WC volumes.   Roger Craig said he was inside Fritz's office with Oswald sitting there, and he heard Fritz speak to Oswald, and he heard Oswald speak back to Fritz.  The topic was given by Roger Craig -- "what about that station wagon?"

But Captain Fritz crisply denied that this conversation ever occurred, or that Roger Craig was ever inside his office with Oswald.

Because even the majority of CTers accept Captain Fritz' testimony -- and his claims about the last interview of Oswald -- for the past 50 years most CTers (and historians) have regarded Roger Craig as a fabricator, whose story about the "station wagon" cannot be correct.

I won't take a stand on the topic here -- but I just want to clarify that  history has decided against Roger Craig on this, and for Captain Fritz.

HOWEVER -- if anybody would reverse that scenario -- and suggest that Roger Craig told the TRUTH and that Captain Fritz deliberately fibbed -- then the personality and character of Lee Harvey Oswald automatically changes.

That is -- we will see Oswald with accomplices, including a getaway driver who drove him to his neighborhood in Oak Cliff.

That is -- we will see Captain Fritz as part of a larger conspiracy which involved FAKING the last interview of Oswald -- so that the final interviews of Captain Fritz with Lee Harvey Oswald can no longer be trusted.

It is complicated because there are two avenues.  Do we track Captain Fritz in his FAKING, or do we track Oswald with his possible accomplices?

Or -- do we suspend speculation until more evidence is given by the US Government on 10/26/2017 when the JFK Records Act comes to maturity?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Without getting bogged down with this -- IMHO the clash between the testimony of Roger Craig and Captain Fritz was noted by the WC attorneys -- and it is one of the biggest contradictions in the WC volumes.   Roger Craig said he was inside Fritz's office with Oswald sitting there, and he heard Fritz speak to Oswald, and he heard Oswald speak back to Fritz.  The topic was given by Roger Craig -- "what about that station wagon?"

But Captain Fritz crisply denied that this conversation ever occurred, or that Roger Craig was ever inside his office with Oswald.

Because even the majority of CTers accept Captain Fritz' testimony -- and his claims about the last interview of Oswald -- for the past 50 years most CTers (and historians) have regarded Roger Craig as a fabricator, whose story about the "station wagon" cannot be correct.

I won't take a stand on the topic here -- but I just want to clarify that  history has decided against Roger Craig on this, and for Captain Fritz.

Techincally, just because the testimony of Roger Craig and Captain Fritz doesn't go hand in hand doesn't mean that one is the 'truth' and the other a 'fib', there is a way to reconcile the both of them quite easily. What if the 'office' of Fritz had two rooms, that is, within his office there was also a smaller room with a door... Craig turns up in to the 'outer' office, Fritz comes out the smaller room (in which Oswald is sat behind a desk), Fritz chats with Craig for a minute in a position that Craig can see Oswald... after their brief con-fab Fritz returns to the room and Craig 'loiters' in the outer room (maybe chatting to other people in that 'outer' room) and 'overhears' what is being said inside (maybe the door isn't fully closed)... in such a way, Craig's claim of being a 'witness' to what Oswald said can techincally stand and Fritz's claim of Craig not being in the room with Oswald can also techincally stand... the two positions are not mutually exclusive... there's no real reason to presume that one of them is 'fibbing'...

... there is a way that both can be correct, to an extent anyway... the 'difference' can be explained away by 'perspective'...

... you mention that Fritz denied that the converstaion ever occurred! In his WC testimony he states that he did have a conversation with Roger Craig but not in the same room that Oswald was in... he also doesn't technically say that the conversation that Craig claims to have heard didn't happen, all Fritz 'denies' is that Oswald 'got up from his chair and slammed his hand on the table'...

Quote

Mr. BALL. After he had said, "That is the man," that Oswald got up from his chair and slammed his hand on the table and said, "Now everybody will know who I am." Did that ever occur in your presence?
Mr. FRITZ. If it did I never saw anything like that; no, sir.

What caused Mr Ball to ask that exact question was probably due to what Craig had said to the WC, but have a look at what he actually said in his WC testimony... Craig makes no mention of 'Oswald got up from his chair and slammed his hand on the table'...

Has history decided against Roger Craig on this, and for Captain Fritz? Yeah I suppose 'history' has done that! The thing is though, both have probably been truthful in their accounts as they see it, and the 'as they see it' is quite the qualifier...

22 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

HOWEVER -- if anybody would reverse that scenario -- and suggest that Roger Craig told the TRUTH and that Captain Fritz deliberately fibbed -- then the personality and character of Lee Harvey Oswald automatically changes.

Personally, I'm not seeing how it would change the personality and character of LHO...

21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That is -- we will see Oswald with accomplices, including a getaway driver who drove him to his neighborhood in Oak Cliff.

If that was true, and it was indeed Oswald that got in to the car that Craig saw, and indeed the driver was an accomplice and was indeed a 'getaway driver'... it just doesn't make sense. lol Why arrange a 'getaway driver' to pick you up 10 minutes later in a position as open as that...

To be honest, Roger Craig is starting to bore me now. lol But I will leave this topic with something he said that may inject a wee bit of humour in to this conversation... as we know, he claims to have seen someone running away from the TSBD and get in to a car, he had just explained that to the WC and also given his description of the man he saw when the following question and answer occurred;

Quote

Mr. BELIN - Anything else about him?
Mr. CRAIG - No; nothing except that he looked like he was in an awful hurry.

I might have a strange sense of humour because that line genuinely made me laugh... I mean, let's be honest, I would say that most people who are running look like they are in an awful hurry. lol

Whoever it was that was in an 'awful hurry', no doubt he was 'rushing' down that hill... and I suppose that could be our lead back in to Oswald and his time in Russia... (rushing/russian... lol). ;)

What do you make about Oswald's skills in speaking Russian?

Regards

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

... there is a way that both can be correct, to an extent anyway... the 'difference' can be explained away by 'perspective'...

... you mention that Fritz denied that the conversation ever occurred! In his WC testimony he states that he did have a conversation with Roger Craig but not in the same room that Oswald was in... he also doesn't technically say that the conversation that Craig claims to have heard didn't happen, all Fritz 'denies' is that Oswald 'got up from his chair and slammed his hand on the table'...

What caused Mr Ball to ask that exact question was probably due to what Craig had said to the WC, but have a look at what he actually said in his WC testimony... Craig makes no mention of 'Oswald got up from his chair and slammed his hand on the table'...

Has history decided against Roger Craig on this, and for Captain Fritz? Yeah I suppose 'history' has done that! The thing is though, both have probably been truthful in their accounts as they see it, and the 'as they see it' is quite the qualifier...

To be honest, Roger Craig is starting to bore me now. lol ...

 Regards

Alistair,

I can see the sense in your argument.  The WC attorney rushed through the topic -- and so the testimony got mashed.  We can agree to that much.   By all means, let's move on.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

...What do you make about Oswald's skills in speaking Russian?

Regards

Alistair,

I can only go by what others said -- and there is a lot of testimony about Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) and the Russian language.

First, we have reports from two Marines at the El Toro base in Southern California -- Nelson Delgado and Kerry Thornley.

Delgado said that in early 1959, he helped LHO learn some Spanish.  Then, LHO got bored with it, and transferred to Russian, by using "Berlitz" (Delgado thought it was "Berlin") and various Russian magazines and newspapers.

Kerry Thornley said that Oswald used "Berlitz" and frequently read Russian newspapers in the barracks, knowing that it caused a ruckus -- and that it was taken to the Commanding Officer, who upheld LHO's right to study any language in the world that he wanted to study.

So, we can say that LHO, who was an avid reader, began to teach himself Russian in early 1959, and he studied very diligently.

By the end of 1959, Oswald went to Russia, where he lived for almost three years.  In language studies this is called "immersion" and it is the very best way to learn.  Everybody models the new language, and nobody reinforces the old language.  So, with his own jump-start, now Oswald had a great opportunity to learn conversational Russian.

By contrast -- a person could take four years of Russian studies at a college, and still never master "conversational skills."  So, LHO had an advantage there.

Some rumors said that LHO's Russian language skills were so good, that Marina Oswald believed LHO was a Russian native.  Yet that is not really saying much, because in Minsk, which had so many immigrants, especially the Polish, that Russian speaking skills were poor on the average.  

When LHO first returned to Fort Worth in June 1962, he first contacted Peter Gregory, a Russian professor who gave free classes in Russian in Fort Worth public library.   LHO wanted a job as a Russian translator -- hoping to make a living at it.  LHO asked Peter Gregory for a letter of recommendation.  

So, Peter Gregory took a Russian book from his shelf, and opened it to a random page, and handed it to LHO and told him to translate it immediately.   LHO read the Russian, and then translated it into English with surprising accuracy.  Peter Gregory gave LHO the letter of recommendation right away.   Later, he said that he had believed LHO had a thick Polish accent, and made a few, common grammatical errors, but that he was impressed by LHO's fluency in Russian.

Other Russian Expatriates in Fort Worth and Dallas were also impressed by LHO's Russian fluency.   However, his grammar was still poor -- that is, it reflected a working class vocabulary.   Things were very different with Marina Oswald, who was reputed to speak an excellent Russian grammar -- reflecting an upper-class vocabulary.

This was so pronounced that when Peter Gregory's son, Paul, returned from college in the Spring, seeking a tutor in Russian conversational language, he went to visit LHO and Marina, and spoke with both of them -- and then he offered Marina Oswald the job.  He would pay her the going rate -- triple the minimum wage.  According to Robert Oswald, this was outrageous, because LHO was earning minimum wage.

Still -- they made the deal.  Paul would come by in his car weekly and take both Marina and LHO on a long drive somewhere, where they would engage in Russian conversation -- with a strong emphasis on Marina Oswald correcting everybody with the right grammar.

George De Mohrenschildt (DM) was a different case.  He came from an aristocratic family in Russia, but his American adult children had no interest in the Russian language -- or in politics -- which was a disappointment to him.  When he met LHO and Marina, he was mainly thrilled with LHO.  Here was this "hillbilly", as George DM called LHO, who could speak Russian better than any native American he knew.

George DM would thrill when LHO would explain an episode at the factory in MInsk where he had worked in Russia -- first in Russian to those whose main language was Russian, and then in English to those whose main language was English.  His own children couldn't do that, and they had multiple college degrees.   So, George DM was very impressed by LHO.   This was in 1962.

Later, George DM would admit that LHO's grammar was clumsy, but that was secondary to the fluency -- it was the great fluency with which LHO could speak on almost any topic -- not as a professor -- but as a common person, that was so impressive to George.

In 1963 we see LHO avoiding the Russian Expatriates as far as possible, excepting only George and Jeanne DM. The two other references to Russian language in 1963 include a co-worker at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Dennis Ofstein,   Ofstein was impressed with LHO's Russian, and LHO brought Russian newspapers to work -- until the management told him to stop.  Ofstein had studied Russian at college for a semester -- but he couldn't keep up with LHO.  

Finally, LHO spoke only Russian to Marina Oswald.  He told her he didn't want her to learn English.  Her friend, Ruth Paine, thought this was very selfish, because to live in America a person needs to know English.

Nevertheless, Ruth Paine also valued Marina Oswald as a tutor to help her learn Russian conversational skills.  Ruth Paine felt  a calling to serve the USA in the Cold War somehow, and she thought learning Russian would be a big help.  LHO insisted that Ruth Paine address him in Russian.   Ruth's Russian skills were not as good as LHO's, and he looked down on her for that.

As for my own opinion, I believe that LHO hoped to use his Russian language skills to finally get a job in the CIA -- as a double-agent.   It may have been a pipe-dream, but LHO dreamed big.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

So, we can say that LHO, who was an avid reader, began to teach himself Russian in early 1959, and he studied very diligently.

By the end of 1959, Oswald went to Russia, where he lived for almost three years.  In language studies this is called "immersion" and it is the very best way to learn.  Everybody models the new language, and nobody reinforces the old language.  So, with his own jump-start, now Oswald had a great opportunity to learn conversational Russian.

By contrast -- a person could take four years of Russian studies at a college, and still never master "conversational skills."  So, LHO had an advantage there.

From reading around I keep coming across mentions that it would have been 'impossible' for someone like Oswald to learn Russian to such a proficient level in such a short time; personally I see no problem with it at all - if he was motivated enough, indulged enough, was diligent enough in his studies etc etc. It seems we agree on this point...

17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Some rumors said that LHO's Russian language skills were so good, that Marina Oswald believed LHO was a Russian native.  Yet that is not really saying much, because in Minsk, which had so many immigrants, especially the Polish, that Russian speaking skills were poor on the average. 

I would presume that from being immersed in the language in Russia that Oswald would no doubt have picked up an accent... also I presume an American in Russia would have been quite rare and thus, the time that Marina first met Oswald she would have heard him speak Russian with an accent and would have had no expectation that he was an American at all so it should come as little surprise that she thought he was Russian...

At least he wasn't speaking English with a faux Russian accent...

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/12/2017 at 0:32 PM, Alistair Briggs said:

From reading around I keep coming across mentions that it would have been 'impossible' for someone like Oswald to learn Russian to such a proficient level in such a short time; personally I see no problem with it at all - if he was motivated enough, indulged enough, was diligent enough in his studies etc etc. It seems we agree on this point...

I would presume that from being immersed in the language in Russia that Oswald would no doubt have picked up an accent... also I presume an American in Russia would have been quite rare and thus, the time that Marina first met Oswald she would have heard him speak Russian with an accent and would have had no expectation that he was an American at all so it should come as little surprise that she thought he was Russian...

At least he wasn't speaking English with a faux Russian accent...

Regards

Alistair,

Oswald was always too poor to afford college, though he was a voracious reader.

His cousin, Marilyn Murret said that LHO read encyclopedias the way other people read novels.

In 1963 we could read advertising from Berlitz offering to teach any foreign language in weeks.  Well, if one was diligent enough.

LHO used Berlitz, said his Marine buddies, IIRC, and subscribing to Pravda and knowing some Marxist vocabulary would also help.

But nothing could compare with living among Russians for a couple of years.

Of course a bright and motivated youngster could do that on his own. Remember that LHO was only 19 when he went over to Russia.  The younger the better when learning a foreign language.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Of course a bright and motivated youngster could do that on his own. Remember that LHO was only 19 when he went over to Russia.  The younger the better when learning a foreign language.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there... motivation would be key...

... just out of idle curiosity Paul, have you ever learned a foreign language?

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I think you have hit the nail on the head there... motivation would be key...

... just out of idle curiosity Paul, have you ever learned a foreign language?

Regards

Alistair,

Spanish was the first language I heard as a baby.  My grandparents, many aunts and uncles spoke only Spanish.  My parents were bilingual.  I've studied German language to read philosophy.  I have a little formal training in New Testament Greek.  I hold a certificate in TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) from UCSC.  I haven't practiced Spanish in more than 50 years, but if I moved to Mexico City tomorrow, within six weeks I'd be fluent in Spanish again.   Immersion is always the key.  

Bottom line, any bright youngster who applies himself or herself can learn a foreign language by using only Berlitz media or some other modern course -- and then getting immersion in that language for two solid years.  No problem.  That's what Lee Harvey Oswald did.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

Spanish was the first language I heard as a baby.  My grandparents, many aunts and uncles spoke only Spanish.  My parents were bilingual.  I've studied German language to read philosophy.  I have a little formal training in New Testament Greek.  I hold a certificate in TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) from UCSC.  I haven't practiced Spanish in more than 50 years, but if I moved to Mexico City tomorrow, within six weeks I'd be fluent in Spanish again.   Immersion is always the key. 

Sheesh kebabs...that's impressive... kudos. :)

Personally, I did French at secondary school to Standard Grade level but really I had no real interest in it and would struggle badly conversationally if I went to France...

12 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Bottom line, any bright youngster who applies himself or herself can learn a foreign language by using only Berlitz media or some other modern course -- and then getting immersion in that language for two solid years.  No problem.  That's what Lee Harvey Oswald did.

I agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/04/2017 at 4:30 AM, Paul Trejo said:

That's what Lee Harvey Oswald did.

Paul, just wondering, have you ever read Legend The Secret World Of Lee Harvey Oswald by Edward Jay Epstein?
(I just picked up a copy today and about to delve in to it)

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Paul, just wondering, have you ever read Legend The Secret World Of Lee Harvey Oswald by Edward Jay Epstein?
(I just picked up a copy today and about to delve in to it)

Regards

Alistair,

Yes, I read it years ago.  It's not very thorough, IMHO, and shows Epstein's evolution toward a Lone Shooter scenario.

One cannot accept the Lone Shooter, IMHO, on grounds of ballistics and medical evidence, so one must piece together some Conspiracy Theory, as best one can.  Epstein was a very early critic of the Warren Commission (cf. Inquest, 1966),  but failing to rise above the Gibraltar of WC fabrications, it seems to me that Epstein by 1978 finally fell into the Lone Shooter paradigm, and so, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978) was his swan song, IMHO.

Tired of blaming the CIA, Epstein in this book now blames the KGB as the inspiration for the Lone Shooter.  Nor does Epstein explain why the KGB wanted to kill JFK -- it's all very vague, and in a way, it is merely a clumsy reversal of all of his earlier CIA-did-it theories. 

The "Legend" part refers to a KGB agent who defected to the USA in 1964, who claimed that Oswald was always just a nut acting on his own.  Epstein claims that this account was a "Legend", that is, disinformation, sent by the USSR to conceal its role in the JFK assassination.  It's a weak hypothesis, IMHO, and it ignores much about Lee Harvey Oswald's actual life in order to belabor this KGB angle.

I  myself wasn't impressed with it.  Epstein was more useful in the late sixties than in the late seventies or later.  He dropped the ball with his shallow treatment of Lee Oswald's relationship with George De Mohrenschildt, as I see it -- and he never recovered from that.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

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

×