Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeremy Bojczuk

Members
  • Content Count

    406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeremy Bojczuk

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,560 profile views
  1. McAdams' appalling treatment of Cheryl Abbate shows him to have been a thoroughly nasty piece of work. When you add to that his JFK assassination-related activities, his advocacy of the death penalty, and his corporate-friendly denial of climate science, it's clear he was nothing more than an authority-worshipping reactionary propagandist who thought that the ends justified the means. I'd guess this was tied up somehow with his religious beliefs. On that subject, there's a problem with the title of this thread. McAdams has not "passed on", which implies that he went from one place to
  2. Paul Jolliffe writes: What convoluted and contradictory reasoning is required to cast doubt on Armstrong's Stripling 'witnesses'? Mark Stevens has cast plenty of doubt on them without using any (let alone "an incredible amount" of) convoluted and contradictory reasoning. Have you actually read Mark's first post in this thread? Here is his summary: Mark also mentions someone who should certainly have known about and reported Oswald's attendance at Stripling, had such an event actually occurred. Here's what he writes about Mrs Bratton, the teacher who didn't bark in the nigh
  3. Paul Jolliffe writes: Of course it's no big deal! He made an off-hand assumption, a decade after the supposed event, about a trivial subject of which he had no personal knowledge, and he got his assumption wrong. What's so unlikely about that? You could argue that Robert was only speaking one decade after the supposed event, unlike the other 'witnesses' whom Armstrong dug out four decades after the supposed event. But even one decade would be more than enough time for Robert's memory to become clouded, especially concerning something insignificant which he had no first-hand knowle
  4. Jonathan is correct. It goes like this: (a) Small number of impersonation(s) in Mexico City and possibly also Dallas, done ad hoc a few weeks before the assassination to portray Oswald as a pro-Castro malcontent: quite likely to be true. (b) Most of the stories of Oswald seen doing suspicious things in Dallas (e.g. at the firing range) : could be true, but more likely to be cases of honest, mistaken identity, as is common in newsworthy events. (c) Decade-long project that could never have happened, involving two unrelated but virtually identical Oswalds (one of whom vanished wit
  5. Paul Jolliffe writes: There was only one reason for the Warren Commission's interest in Oswald's biography. The utterly trivial matter of which school Oswald attended in 1954-55 gave them no ammunition to portray him as a lone-nut malcontent, so they ignored it. Even if the Commission had been interested in finding out who killed JFK, which it wasn't, it would have dismissed Robert Oswald's inconsequential, off-hand remark for the same reason that every non-paranoid person dismisses it. Robert had no first-hand knowledge of where his brother went to school in 1954-55, since he was
  6. David G. Healy writes: Exactly! The paranoid, super-conspiracy, everything-is-a-fake craziness is a distraction from the question of who planned or carried out the assassination. As Mr Healy implies, the lone-nut interpretation fails for perfectly rational reasons, and doesn't require that Oswald was a fake, or that JFK's body was a fake, or that the Zapruder film is a fake, or that the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake, or any of the other paranoid clutter that has infested the topic. When a political figure gets murdered, there's a pretty good chance that it happened for polit
  7. Jonathan Cohen writes: When a theory is dismissed by someone who once suggested that gunmen were hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, that's a pretty good sign that it's time to re-think the theory. Perhaps the double-doppelganger nonsense was too ridiculous even for Lifton, or perhaps Lifton just resented the fact that his body-alteration theory had been out-crackpotted by Armstrong and White's invention.
  8. Benjamin Cole writes: It's true that the eyewitness evidence for a gunman on the sixth floor is jumbled. But we know that a gunman was seen several times over the 15 minutes or so before the shooting. We also know that Oswald was on the ground floor around five minutes before the shooting, when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the building by one of the rear entrances (http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi) . If Oswald was the (or a) gunman, he must have started out on the sixth floor; then, at almost the exact time the motorcade was due to pass by the bu
  9. John Butler writes: Sorry to disappoint Mr Butler, but the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense was finally put out of its misery last year. Although 2020 wasn't a very good year in many ways, it was good for rational critics of the lone-gunman fantasy: there is now one less piece of ammunition available for those who want to depict all of us as tin-foil hat-wearing crazies. We discovered that the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense cannot be true, because every aspect of it that has been examined in detail has been shown to have a perfectly plausible alternative explanation. For example: (a) The
  10. Bill Fite writes: I'm not claiming that a fictional defector would have started at the age of 19. I suspect you're confusing the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald's acquisition of Russian with that of the fictional Oswald doppelganger imagined by 'Harvey and Lee' believers. The point I was making was that if (as 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine proclaims) the masterminds at the CIA were planning in the late 1940s or early 1950s to send over a false defector whose job it was to eavesdrop on Russian conversation, it would have been vastly more practical for them to recr
  11. There's a serious problem with the basic premise of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. Surprisingly, although the theory has been going for two decades or more, none of its believers appear to have been aware of the problem until recently. I've mentioned it on at least three other threads (here and here and here), and so far the faithful have not been able to come up with a reply. Since this thread was set up by the chief 'Harvey and Lee' evangelist to discuss the specifics of his beloved theory ("right here"), I thought I might as well mention the problem right here too, and try to shame the
  12. Bill Simpich has just informed us that part 12 of his excellent Legend series is now online at https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_12.html. Simpich deals with several of the apparent instances of Oswald being impersonated shortly before the assassination. He makes a very plausible case that Jack Lawrence, the short-term car salesman colleague of Albert Bogard, went out of his way to publicise the reckless test drive by someone who may or may not have been Oswald. Greg Doudna writes that the "14-year-old boy" seen by Cliff Shasteen might have been the 19-year-old B
  13. Jim Hargrove writes: But they weren't. Nothing in the JFK assassination story requires the existence of doppelganger Oswalds. Everything can be plausibly explained without the use of doppelgangers, and especially without the use of the far-fetched and internally incoherent 'Harvey and Lee' long-term fake Oswald and fake Marguerite double-doppelganger scheme. Impersonators are not the same thing as doppelgangers. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City didn't involve a doppelganger. If, as Greg Doudna points out, any of the incidents in Dallas were more than cases of mistaken id
  14. Jim Hargrove writes: In other words: The Oswald who defected might have been a native speaker of Russian, if he had learned the language instinctively as a pre-school-age child. Or he might have been a native speaker of English who had learned an indeterminate amount of Russian uninstinctively, during his school years. We haven't made our minds up about that. But because the defector forgot some, or most, or all of his Russian (we haven't made our minds up on that either), he had to start learning it all over again in his late teens. Fortunately, he had a head start because h
  15. As Robert also points out, there's nothing miraculous about Oswald's acquisition of Russian. Oswald began poorly and gradually got better, like every non-native speaker, but he never stopped making mistakes. At least some of his knowledge was acquired by self-study, with the help of Russian newspapers and a Russian-English dictionary. There was ample opportunity for him to have received tuition while in the Marines. And it is an uncontroversial fact that some people are naturally much better than others at learning languages. Just because people can pick up a foreign language more easily
×
×
  • Create New...