Jeremy Bojczuk

Here's James Norwood, in one of his first posts on this forum, reporting me to the moderators for "casting aspersions on other forum members": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=359133 Here's James Norwood reporting Paul Trejo to the moderators for "casting aspersions on fellow members": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24241-oswald’s-proficiency-in-the-russian-language/?do=findComment&comment=360472 Here's James Norwood reporting Michael Walton to the moderators for "casting personal aspersions on fellow members": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=360554 James Norwood clearly doesn't like anyone casting aspersions on fellow members. Oh, wait. Here's James Norwood calling Tracy Parnell "Trolling Tracy": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=360550 Here's Sandy Larsen claiming, without citing any evidence, that I'm a "lone nutter": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=359053 Here's James Norwood claiming, without citing any evidence, that I have a "belief in the Warren Report" and "a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=359084 Sandy at least had the decency to apologise for his comment. I'm still waiting for James to do the same. Here's Greg Parker inviting James Norwood to debate the Harvey and Lee nonsense: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1573-invitation-to-dr-norwood Here's Greg Parker inviting Sandy Larsen to actually deal with the question of the school records: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records#20913

Jim claims that: <blockquote>The evidence clearly shows the FBI report was faked.</blockquote> At last! A moment of honesty (and paranoia). Jim really does believe that the FBI faked the report of its interview with Oscar Deslatte! To support his claim, he wheels out Fred Sewell, who claimed that he and Oscar Deslatte were not shown a photograph of the real-life, one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. But Deslatte claimed that he was in fact shown a photograph of Oswald, and that he was unable to identify Oswald as the man he had met. Why does Jim believe Sewell over Deslatte? As I've explained several times already, there is no good reason to believe Sewell over Deslatte: - Sewell was interviewed several years after Deslatte, and about six years after the incident in question. - It was Deslatte who actually dealt with the customer. Sewell admitted that "I wasn't at my desk all the time, I was in and out working because I had customers". - Sewell was categorically wrong in his one specific claim about the encounter that can be checked. He claimed that Deslatte had written the name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. But the paperwork contains only the surname, 'Oswald'. No doubt the FBI faked that document too. - Deslatte had no conceivable reason to lie to the FBI. If there is a conflict between Deslatte's testimony and Sewell's, it is Deslatte's testimony that should be believed. Unfortunately, if you believe Deslatte over Sewell, as any rational person must, one more part of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy disappears down the toilet, where it belongs.

Jim Hargrove writes: <blockquote>If we are to believe the wording in the FBI report, we must wonder why Oscar Deslatte was so convinced he had met with "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the first place that he was telling his story to others</blockquote> As I have explained more than once already, the evidence is absolutely not consistent with the conclusion that Oscar Deslatte was convinced he had met the real Oswald whose name and photograph were all over the news after the assassination. Deslatte specifically claimed that the man he met gave only a surname, and not a first name. He did not recognise Oswald when shown a photograph of him. He was unable to recall the man's appearance sufficiently to be able to provide the FBI with a description. Deslatte stated that "he could neither describe nor identify either of the men who came in as it was almost three years ago that they were there and only spent a short time with him. He said he remembered the incident, not by the name Oswald, but because of the name of the organization represented." Jim writes: <blockquote>Why did that FBI report go directly to J. Edgar Hoover? Because it threatened to expose the entire "Oswald Project,"</blockquote> Of course it wasn't because it threatened to expose the 'Oswald project', which didn't even exist. I'm glad Jim made this mistake, because it gives me the chance to include one of those links he likes so much. The reason why the FBI report went to Hoover is explained here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident Jim writes: <blockquote>Sewell stated, late in the interview, that he couldn’t remember whether one name or two were written on the Bolton Ford bid form</blockquote> As I have pointed out several times, Fred Sewell was an unreliable witness. Deslatte was a more reliable witness than Sewell. I'm glad Jim agrees with me at last. Jim writes: <blockquote>Sewell was clearly off by four or five inches about Lee Oswald’s height.</blockquote> Again, Sewell was an unreliable witness, which is not good for Jim. Alternatively, if Sewell happened to be correct about the man's height, that's not good for Jim either, since it demolishes the ridiculous notion that the man whom Sewell met was an Oswald doppelganger. Jim writes: <blockquote>When Oscar Deslatte began spreading the word around New Orleans that he had met with Lee Harvey Oswald</blockquote> Again, there is no evidence that Deslatte was certain that he had met the real Lee Harvey Oswald. He evidently didn't feel strongly enough to contact the FBI himself. Deslatte appears to have mentioned the incident to his colleague, Fred Sewell, and to one other person, Charles Pearson of Graham Paper Co. Pearson told Mary Cusco, an employee of his. Cusco told her husband. Mr Cusco told Orlando Piedra. Piedra told Carlos Bringuier. Bringuier told the FBI. Jim writes: <blockquote>both Deslatte and Sewell seemed so certain they had met with Lee Harvey Oswald</blockquote> For the umpteenth time, Deslatte was not certain that he had met the real Lee Harvey Oswald, and Sewell was an unreliable witness. We know that Sewell was an unreliable witness because one claim he made, that the paperwork contained the name 'Lee Oswald', is demonstrably false. Jim writes: <blockquote>Mr. Bojczuk REALLY want us to believe the FBI report on Deslatte over the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell’s interview!</blockquote> For the reasons I've already given several times, Deslatte was a more reliable witness than Sewell. Jim writes: <blockquote>Well, let’s see some more about how reliable the FBI was in this case</blockquote> Is Jim actually claiming that the FBI's report of its interview with Oscar Deslatte was faked? As I pointed out earlier, and as any rational person understands, you can't just assume that an inconvenient item of evidence is a forgery when it suits your purposes.

Jim writes: <blockquote>Oscar Deslatte clearly thought he met LHO, because his comments were being talked about all over town</blockquote> On the contrary, Oscar Deslatte was not sure that he had met the actual Lee Harvey Oswald, because he specifically told the FBI that the man did not give the first name, Lee, and because he could not recall the man's appearance well enough to be able to provide a description. What Deslatte remembered was that he had encountered someone with the surname, Oswald. It's interesting to see how Jim picks and chooses which aspects of Fred Sewell's evidence to accept: - Sewell, who was interviewed six years after the event, claimed that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim can use that part. But we know that Sewell was wrong when he claimed that the full name 'Lee Oswald' had been written on the paperwork, so there is every reason to conclude that he was wrong about this too, especially as Oscar Deslatte, who had spent more time with the customer than Sewell had, specifically denied that the man had provided a first name. - Sewell claimed that the man was 5'6" or 5'7", two or three inches shorter than the real-life Lee Harvey Oswald, and four or five inches shorter than the fictional 'Harvey' doppelganger who, according to 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine, was the customer at the Bolton Ford dealership. Obviously, if Sewell was correct about the man's height, the incident cannot have involved the fictional 'Harvey'. Jim doesn't like that part. So Fred Sewell was a reliable witness, according to Jim, when he claimed that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald', even though there is documentary evidence that the man did not give the name 'Lee Oswald', but Sewell was an unreliable witness, according to Jim, when he claimed that the man was several inches shorter than the fictional 'Harvey'. To any objective reader, it's clear that Sewell was simply mistaken in linking Lee Harvey Oswald to the Bolton Ford incident. It is a fact that the historical Lee Harvey Oswald was far from being the only Oswald in Louisiana in 1961, and it is a fact that plenty of business owners and FBI agents were opposed to the Castro regime. The fact that the incident involved an anti-Castro organisation which included one of Oswald's former employers and one of his future associates tells us nothing except that plenty of business owners and former FBI agents were opposed to the Castro regime. I'm looking forward to seeing how Jim manages to reconcile, on the one hand, the doctrinal need to keep the fictional 'Harvey' doppelganger out of the public eye with, on the other hand, an incident in which the fictional 'Harvey' doppelganger is wandering around in public trying to buy trucks. I think it's time for Jim to divert attention by changing the subject again. Did you know that Oswald was in two schools at the same time? It's true, I tell you!

Bernie Laverick makes a good point: <blockquote>the CIA would certainly be capable of cooking up something like H&L, given their vast resources, precisely in order to split assassination researchers and create a narrative so wacky, it could even make the national media. That is its design and purpose.</blockquote> If you were in charge of operations to discredit those who question the official verdict on the JFK assassination, what is the first thing you would do? Mark Lane and other early critics had agents digging into their personal lives and their political affiliations. These days, though, you won't get far accusing someone of being a communist sympathiser. What you need to do is to portray your opponents as unhinged, moon-landings-crazy fantasists. It has often struck me that when a serious challenge to the official line is generated, something similar, but obviously unhinged, appears close behind: - It became clear that President Kennedy's autopsy was manipulated, and that at least one shot probably came from in front. What do we get? The claim that JFK's body was snatched and altered to disguise the fact that all the shots came from in front, despite the fact that Governor Connally was hit from behind. - It became clear that some of the evidence in the case had been manipulated by the law enforcement agencies. What do we get? The claim that the Zapruder film was altered to make it compatible with the lone-nut theory, despite the fact that the film as we know it actually contradicts the lone-nut theory. - It became clear that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and perhaps elsewhere. What do we get? The truly lunatic claim that there was a duplicate Oswald running around from the age of 12, with a duplicate mother also named Marguerite, all based on flimsy eyewitness evidence, flimsy subjective interpretation of clerical errors, and flimsy subjective interpretation of photographs, despite the fact that the whole thing was flatly contradicted by the exhumation of Oswald's body a couple of decades before the theory was even published. - It became clear that Oswald was probably filmed standing on the steps of the book depository during the assassination. What do we get? Perhaps the nuttiest claim of all: an attempt to conflate the Prayer Man evidence with the long-dismissed allegation that James Altgens' photograph showed Oswald on the steps, and the claim that in order to prevent suspicion that Oswald was standing on the steps, his face was replaced with that of someone who looked so much like him that it generated the claim that Oswald was standing on the steps. These extreme conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the essential evidence and arguments that contradict the lone-nut theory. The problem is that these theories are liable to replace the essential evidence and arguments in the minds of casual observers. Imagine the reaction of, for example, a member of the general public who is interested in finding out more about the assassination, when he or she stumbles across these theories. Or the reaction of an open-minded journalist who is tempted to persuade his or her editor to give the subject some objective coverage for a change. Their reactions will be the same. So that's what all those JFK assassination enthusiasts believe! They really are a bunch of raving lunatics! Obviously Oswald did it after all. I'm not convinced, though, that any of these extreme conspiracy theories were generated in the murky bowels of CIA headquarters. One of the problems with the fact that none of the official investigations into the assassination has produced a conclusion that is widely accepted is that the subject is open to any old idiotic interpretation. There are plenty of ... (I'll have to choose the word carefully) eccentrics around who are more than capable of inventing this sort of nonsense without assistance. And you only have to look at this thread to see that there are people so gullible that they will find any reason to persuade themselves that a far-fetched, internally contradictory theory is preferable to a common-sense interpretation of the evidence. Nonsense such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is not just wrong but actually harmful, and ought to be opposed for both reasons.

Sandy attempts to give the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy some credibility by throwing Einstein's name around: <blockquote>Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity by fitting together pieces of evidence that seemed contradictory. (Sort of like school records indicating that a student attended two schools simultaneously.) Meanwhile, Einstein's contemporaries made excuses for the evidence, hoping to make it fit their preconceived notions. (Sort of like Armstrong's detractors.) The other scientists got nowhere. In contrast, Einstein developed a theory where all the evidence fit together nicely, without his having to resort to excuse making. (Sort of like what John Armstrong did with the Oswald evidence.) He did this because he had an mind opened to new new and unusual possibilities. Einstein's finished theory sounded preposterous and was rejected by most. (Sort of like Armstrong's theory, which sounds far fetched to most people.) But Einstein stuck with his guns because he knew that the evidence -- and not the excuses -- would win the day. Eventually Einstein was vindicated and his theory proven correct. I am confident that Armstrong will be vindicated too.</blockquote> I think this is what Sandy meant to write: Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity by fitting together pieces of evidence that seemed contradictory. (Sort of like finding a common-sense explanation for anomalies in Oswald's school records, one which doesn't require the ridiculous conclusion that he attended two schools simultaneously.) Meanwhile, Einstein's contemporaries made excuses for the evidence, hoping to make it fit their preconceived notions. (Sort of like Armstrong's followers.) The other scientists got nowhere. In contrast, Einstein developed a theory where all the evidence fit together nicely, without his having to resort to excuse making. (Sort of like the exact opposite of what John Armstrong did with the Oswald evidence.) He did this because he had an mind opened to new new and unusual possibilities. Einstein's finished theory sounded preposterous and was rejected by most. (Sort of like Armstrong's theory, which sounds to most people like something deposited in a steaming pile by a farmyard animal, and, unlike Einstein's theory, was conclusively refuted two decades before it was published, by the evidence of a mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave, which shows the theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false.) But Einstein stuck with his guns because he knew that the evidence -- and not the excuses -- would win the day. Eventually Einstein was vindicated and his theory proven correct. I am confident that even if humans are still around in five billion years' time when the sun becomes a red giant and makes the earth uninhabitable, Armstrong's theory doesn't have the slightest chance of being proven correct. Counterparts of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' proponents, such as creationists, astrologers, homeopaths and other peddlars of pseudoscientific twaddle, often use the example of Gallileo's persecution to show that their twaddle might eventually be vindicated, so I suppose that by using Einstein, Sandy is at least displaying some originality, though not much logic. I'm looking forward to finding out what the working methods of Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, William Shakespeare and Ludwig van Beethoven can tell us about the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy.

Jim Hargrove claims that I was mistaken when I wrote this: <blockquote>one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'.</blockquote> Jim then quotes an exchange between Fred Sewell and James Alcock, in which Sewell claims that he can't remember whether his colleague, Oscar Deslatte, wrote 'Oswald' or 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. Evidently, I must have been mistaken: Sewell did not in fact claim that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork. But wait! What do we have here? It's something else from the Sewell/Alcock conversation: - Alcock: Now, what was the name of the other man, the thin man? Did you ever see his name written on the bid? - Sewell: I think that Oscar Deslatte wrote that on there, Lee Oswald, but he didn't use the Harvey, just Lee Oswald if I remember right. - Alcock: Lee Oswald? - Sewell: Yes, it's been six years of course. The point I originally made still stands: Fred Sewell's recollection was faulty, and there is no reason to conclude that the man who visited the Bolton Ford dealership used the name 'Lee Oswald'. There's a more important point to be made. It's conceivable that Jim wasn't aware of this part of the Sewell/Alcock conversation. We could put Jim's mistake down to ignorance, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, were it not for one small, inconvenient fact. This part of the conversation is featured on Jim's own website: http://harveyandlee.net/JH PIX/61-04.jpg . That image was used by Jim on this very thread only a few days ago. This sort of disgraceful behaviour tells us a lot about the mentality that's required in order to actively promote something as crazy as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy. I presume that Jim doesn't even think there's anything wrong with his misleadingly selective use of the evidence. If it's in the service of a higher truth, anything goes. That's how every religious fundamentalist propagandist thinks. As Bernie Laverick remarks in his excellent post, the Harvey and Lee cult has been going for a couple of decades and has only managed to convert a handful of acolytes. With all the material now out there on the web, in particular Greg Parker's forum and Tracy Parnell's website, the cult is unlikely to make very many more converts. Perhaps it is time to treat the Harvey and Lee cult in the same way most of us treat its equivalents: those who believe that the moon landings were faked or that the earth is flat. For those casual readers who are interested in finding out more: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13p30-the-harvey-lee-evidence - http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey %26 Lee

James Norwood writes: <blockquote>Other than the fact that President Kennedy was killed, what are some examples of those uncontested facts? I suspect that you will not be offering a single example in this discussion because you know very well that every major premise at the heart of the Warren Report has been called into question.</blockquote> For Mr Norwood's benefit, here are a few of the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" that can be found in the Warren Report: 1 - The assassination occurred in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, USA, at approximately 12:30pm on Friday 22 November 1963 AD. 2 - President Kennedy died in Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA. 4 - Governor Connally was wounded, and was operated on in Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA. 5 - On the day of the assassination, someone calling himself Lee Harvey Oswald was working in the Texas School Book Depository, which is in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, USA. 6 - The man who called himself Oswald was arrested approximately one hour and 20 minutes after the assassination, in the Texas Theater in Dallas, Texas, USA. 7 - The man who called himself Oswald was shot and killed two days after the assassination of President Kennedy, by a man who called himself Jack Ruby. I'm sure that, if he tries hard, Mr Norwood can think of plenty more "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" that can be found in the Warren Report. Mr Norwood states that "every major premise at the heart of the Warren Report has been called into question". I agree with him that plenty of what is in the Warren Report has been called into question, or contested. It may interest him to know that the word "contested" carries the opposite meaning to the word "uncontested". Because the particular items Mr Norwood was referring to are contested, and not uncontested, they do not fall into the category I was referring to when I wrote the phrase "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination". Does Mr Norwood seriously believe that because I accept some of what is in the Warren Report, namely the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination", I must also accept the contested elements of the Warren Report? I suspect he really does think this way, because he accused me on page 60 of this thread of having a "belief in the Warren Report" and of a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". Or perhaps he believes that anyone who opposes the nonsensical and harmful 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory must necessarily support the Warren Report's equally nonsensical and even more harmful lone-nut theory. I asked Mr Norwood, politely, if he would provide some evidence to justify his accusation, but he has so far failed to do so. Let's try again. Mr Norwood, what evidence led you to conclude that I have a "belief in the Warren Report" and a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report"?

Jim Hargrove writes: <blockquote>Quite obviously, Mr. Bojczuk has decided not to respond to this post. If he does respond, it will consist primarily of just complaints about how horrible I am followed by a link to some incomplete nonsense by Greg Parker. Mr. Bojczuk will put nothing substantial about the Bolton Ford Incident up on this website. I wonder why?</blockquote> Quite obviously, Mr Bojczuk had not responded to Mr Hargrove's post within a few hours for three reasons: (a) he lives in a very different time zone to Mr Hargrove; (b) he has plenty of other interests and obligations to occupy his time; and (c) he very rarely spends more than a few minutes a day reading posts on this forum. I'm sure Jim isn't a horrible person. I have no doubt that he is kind to animals and children and that he frequently helps little old ladies to cross the street. But his devotion to the poorly supported and internally contradictory 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is very much like that of a religious fundamentalist to his or her holy book. In his post, Jim makes a couple of points worth replying to. The first is: <blockquote>Of course, this begs the question: If Mr. Deslatte didn’t think it was "Lee Oswald," why did he remember the incident two years later and why did he contact the FBI?</blockquote> Firstly, a small pedantic objection. It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question. Begging the question is the logical error of assuming that which you are trying to prove. It's a useful phrase which ought to be employed correctly. Pedantry over. Deslatte obviously remembered the incident because the name 'Oswald' was all over the news. The fact that Deslatte specifically denied that the person he dealt with gave the first name 'Lee', and the fact that he could not recall the man's appearance sufficiently to be able to provide a description, suggest that he was not certain that the man he dealt with was the historical, one and only, uncloned Lee Harvey Oswald who underwent a mastoidectomy at the age of six and whose body was exhumed several decades later in a scientific procedure which proved the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false. The second point Jim makes is: <blockquote>The FBI report that Mr. Bojczuk is so enamored with specifically states that "DESLATTE was exhibited a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD." And yet, Deslatte's boss, Fred Sewell, specifically denied that claim to Jim Garrison. He said, "No. They didn’t show us no pictures." And he said it several times. So who are we to believe, the FBI report on Deslatte or the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell's interview.</blockquote> We are to believe the FBI report. There are two reasons to believe that Sewell's account is less reliable than Deslatte's. Firstly, Sewell's account was given several years later than Deslatte's. Secondly, one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'. I agree with Jim that some of the documentary evidence appears to have been altered by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. But that doesn't mean that you can just assume that any inconvenient piece of documentary evidence has been altered. Is Jim seriously suggesting that the FBI report of its interview with Oscar Deslatte is a forgery? Because Jim likes it so much, here's that link again: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident

James Norwood writes: <blockquote>In my post that prompted your intemperate response, I was only asking for you to defend your position about the Warren Report providing "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination." The main thesis of the Warren Report is that Oswald shot the president and acted alone in doing so. Given the paramount importance of that conclusion, what are the "basic, uncontested facts" about Oswald presented in the Warren Report? Or are there none?</blockquote> In what you consider to have been my "intemperate response", I merely pointed out that you had failed to comprehend what I had written. I apologise if I offended your delicate sensibilities, but my point stands. If you still don't understand the point I was making, please read my post again. In that post, I pointed out that you were accusing me of having a "belief in the Warren Report" and a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". What evidence do you have for that accusation? The fact that I argued against the preposterous 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory?

Sandy Larsen writes: <blockquote>However the preponderance of evidence is in opposition to the mastoidectomy outlier. So I'm inclined to believe there is something missing or wrong with the mastoidectomy evidence. It seems to me there are only two possibilities to explain it. Either efforts were made to keep identifiable medical marks, such as the mastoidectomy and dental work, identical between the two Oswalds, or a fake mastoidectomy scar was added to the exhumation report and the witnesses were convinced to go along with it, probably with some bullxxxx "national security" story fed to them.</blockquote> The "preponderance of evidence is in opposition to the mastoidectomy outlier"! The "outlier" is a solid piece of physical evidence, reported by reputable scientists in a reputable academic journal, which shows the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false. Sandy is correct to imply that the only way to get around this evidence and to maintain a belief in the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is to claim that either: - (a) a hypothetical Oswald clone was given a mastoidectomy scar at the age of six, just on the off-chance that the clone's body would be dug up and examined several decades later; or - (b) that the solid piece of physical evidence, reported by reputable scientists in a reputable academic journal, has been faked. Unfortunately, there is not the slightest piece of evidence for the existence of a six-year-old Oswald clone, or for the existence of the surgeon who must have operated on the clone, or for the existence of the hospital in which the operation must have taken place, or for the faking of a mastoidectomy scar in the scientists' report, or for the notion that the scientists were coerced into allowing their report to be faked and then keeping quiet about the faking of their report. It is a complete fantasy. But that is what happens when an irrational belief is contradicted by solid evidence and the believer does not have the mental strength to acknowledge the irrationality of the belief. To anyone looking at the matter objectively, the mastoidectomy evidence alone shows the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be nonsense. There is, however, a more important point here. Imagine what would happen if a rational person who doesn't know much about the JFK assassination, but who is keen to find out if it's a subject worth taking seriously, reads this thread and in particular Sandy's comment. What would they think? Irrational nonsense such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is actively dangerous. It is liable to contaminate serious criticism of the lone-nut theory, and ought to be opposed.

As for James Norwood, he really needs to learn how to read. When he has done that, he needs to learn how to think. I used the words, "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination", not "basic, uncontested facts about Oswald". There are basic, uncontested facts about the JFK assassination, and the Warren Report is as good a place as any to find them. It should be obvious to anyone who, unlike Mr Norwood, has delved beyond the first footnote that I believe that the Warren Report contains plenty of claims that can legitimately be contested. James Norwood writes: <blockquote>It is obvious ... that Jeremy's belief in the Warren Report is being challenged ... It is easy to follow Jeremy's posts on this thread to discern a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report.</blockquote> Is it? Only for someone who is unable to think clearly. Perhaps Mr Norwood would be kind enough to provide details about which of my posts here support my "belief in the Warren Report" and my "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". Mr Norwood seems to be implying that opposition to extreme conspiracy theories such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory equals support for the lone-nut theory. If that is what he believes, could he explain the reasoning behind it? As I wrote earlier, there is a good reason why someone who opposes the lone-nut theory might want to prevent the spread of extreme conspiracy theories. Can Mr Norwood work out what it is? He also writes: <blockquote>Marita Lorenz may be the most important individual still living who has the potential to set the record straight about Harvey and Lee.</blockquote> Marita Lorenz and Harvey and Lee! Oh dear. I wonder how many of the other extreme conspiracy theories I mentioned in my previous post Mr Norwood finds credible.

Sandy Larsen writes: <blockquote>I'll pay you $1000 to debunk the "Oswald was in two schools simultaneously" evidence.</blockquote> There is a perfectly credible explanation for the apparent inconsistency in Oswald's school records, an explanation which Sandy (and Jim, of course) has so far failed to discuss, presumably because it doesn't require him to believe in a hugely implausible multi-year conspiracy. It can be found here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records It was written by Greg Parker, who lives in Australia. When Sandy makes the payment, he might bear in mind that the current exchange rate is roughly 1.25 Australian dollars to one US dollar. I'm curious to discover what led Sandy to conclude that I was a "lone nutter". On this forum and elsewhere, I have argued against: - The extreme conspiracy theory that President Kennedy's body was intercepted by an unnamed gang of conspirators without anyone on Air Force One noticing, and then surgically altered to hide evidence that all the shots came from the front, even the shot which hit Governor Connally in the back. - The extreme conspiracy theory that the Zapruder film was substantially altered to conceal evidence which contradicted the lone-nut theory, despite the fact that the allegedly altered film contains strong evidence contradicting that theory, and despite expert opinion that any substantial alteration to the film would be impossible to conceal. - The extreme conspiracy theory that in order to conceal evidence of Oswald standing on the Book Depository's steps, the Altgens 6 photograph was altered by superimposing over Oswald's face the face of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it generated the claim that Oswald was standing on the Book Depository's steps. - The extreme conspiracy theory that two unrelated boys were inducted into a top-secret 'Oswald project' at the age of 12, along with their mothers, each of whom happened to be named Marguerite, in the hope that when the unrelated boys grew up they would turn out to look either identical or merely similar, depending on the needs of the crazy theory at any particular moment. - And the relatively credible theory that President Kennedy was killed to prevent him telling the Soviet regime that little green men from the planet Zog were living among us. How does Sandy reconcile opposition to extreme conspiracy theories with support for the lone-nut theory? There is a good reason why someone who opposes the lone-nut theory might want to prevent the spread of extreme conspiracy theories. Can he work out what it is?

Jim Hargrove writes: <blockquote>So let’s see about Bolton Ford that you claim Mr. Parker has "debunked."</blockquote> He then repeats the misleading version which appears in his holy book, fails to even mention any of the objections I raised, and concludes with: <blockquote>But please explain, HERE and in detail, how Greg Parker has "debunked" the Bolton Ford incident.</blockquote> It's like trying to argue with a religious fundamentalist. Anyone who has tried to point out problems with a fundamentalist's beliefs will be familiar with the reaction: you get a blank look, and then the fundamentalist either recites a passage of scripture or repeats the nonsense you've just refuted. The fundamentalist simply cannot comprehend the notion that he or she might be mistaken. I explained ("HERE and in detail") how Jim's preferred version does not accurately reflect the evidence. Perhaps Jim should open his mind, if he can, and actually read the criticisms, here and elsewhere, of his irrational beliefs. For Jim's benefit, here is a short summary: The earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident, by Oscar Deslatte, mentions someone called 'Oswald', and specifically denies that a first name was given. Jim, following scripture, ignores this and prefers the account from several years later, in which Fred Sewell, who did not deal directly with the man named Oswald, recalled that the man gave the first name 'Lee' and that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork. But the paperwork only contains the name 'Oswald'. Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here), Sewell's recollection was faulty. Sewell was wrong to claim that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim cites Sewell's unreliable evidence, which incorrectly ties 'Lee Oswald' with the incident, and simply ignores the evidence which shows Sewell to have been an unreliable witness. The Bolton Ford incident is not strong evidence of impersonation. Even if it were, common-sense explanations are available for any such impersonation. If a common-sense explanation exists, it is irrational to prefer a far-fetched explanation, such as the notion that the impersonator was one of two unrelated men who, along with their mothers, each of whom happened to be named Marguerite, were inducted as 12-year-old boys into a mysterious 'Oswald project' more than a decade before the assassination in the hope that when the unrelated boys grew up they would turn out to look either identical or merely similar, depending on the needs of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory at any particular moment. As far as that theory is concerned, the Bolton Ford dealership incident has been debunked. What I find interesting is Jim's behaviour, and how he seems to be immune to any criticism of his beliefs: 1 - On 4 April this year, he raised the Bolton Ford incident when another of his pieces of 'evidence' was having a hard time. Look at his post on page 11 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=11 . 2 - The following day, Greg Parker posted his demolition of Jim's argument, on his own forum: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident . 3 - Tracy Parnell posted a link to Greg's piece on page 12 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=12 . 4 - Skip forward to a few days ago. Jim's 'Oswald was in two schools at the same time' belief was coming under heavy fire. He changed the subject, by bringing up the Bolton Ford incident again. He repeated his post from 4 April, virtually word for word. He did not mention, let alone deal with, any of the points raised by Greg Parker. See page 54 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=54 . 5 - I then pointed out the problems with Jim's interpretation of the Bolton Ford incident: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=57 . 6 - The same day, Jim repeated his old account of the Bolton Ford incident, again completely ignoring the evidence which contradicted his account. See the passages I quoted at the beginning of this post. What are the chances that at some point in the future, when yet another aspect of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy gets debunked, Jim will try to deflect attention by repeating his faulty account of the Bolton Ford incident, again failing to mention any of the reasons why his account should not be trusted? P.S. Apologies to any religious fundamentalists who object to their crazy beliefs being associated with something as surreal, evidence-free and poorly argued as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory.

Michael Walton writes (on p.52 above): <blockquote>there'll be more quoted text, pictures and the usual Whack A Mole from Jim.</blockquote> Surely not, Michael! Are you seriously suggesting that Jim is in the habit of changing the subject to deflect attention every time one of his claims has been debunked? Oh, wait. Jim writes (on p.54): <blockquote>So, let's change the subject. Maybe Mr. Walton would like to explain why, when Lee Harvey Oswald was clearly living in Minsk in the USSR, he was also at the Bolton Ford Dealership in New Orleans.</blockquote> Jim then goes on to reproduce the account in 'Harvey and Lee' of the Bolton Ford incident that was debunked some time ago. I know how much Jim appreciates Greg Parker's research, so here's a link to Greg's debunking of Armstrong's interpretation of the Bolton Ford incident: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident To summarise, in my own words: - The earliest account of the incident, the FBI's report of an interview with Oscar Deslatte on 25 November 1963, refers only to someone named 'Oswald', not 'Lee Oswald'. The account states specifically: "OSWALD, no first name given". Jim even reproduces the relevant document (WCD 75, p.677: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=681 ) at the end of his post on page 54 above. - An interview with Deslatte's boss, Fred Sewell, several years later during the Garrison investigation, mentions that the name 'Lee Oswald' was given to Deslatte, and that 'Lee Oswald' was written on the paperwork. But (according to Greg; I haven't checked this myself) the paperwork mentions only 'Oswald', not 'Lee Oswald'. Sewell appears to have been mistaken. - Messrs Armstrong and Hargrove attempt to tie Lee Harvey Oswald to the incident by emphasising the account of Sewell, who admitted that "I wasn't at my desk all the time, I was in and out working because I had customers", and ignoring the more reliable source, the early FBI interview with Deslatte, the salesman who actually dealt with the man he named only as 'Oswald'. - Deslatte was unable to describe the man named 'Oswald'. Sewell gave a description, but one that does not match the hypothetical version of Lee Harvey Oswald which, according to the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory, was in the US at the time of the incident. Messrs Armstrong and Hargrove do not attempt to reconcile the contradiction. - All we have is a mention of a man named 'Oswald', of whom there were many in Louisiana. Even if this was an instance of impersonation, which is far from certain, the incident provides no support at all for the existence of a top-secret, and entirely hypothetical, CIA 'Oswald project' involving long-term doppelgänger. Because one more 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' claim has just bitten the dust, we need to change the subject again, urgently. Everyone, please forget that the Bolton Ford dealership story has been debunked, and consider this: Oswald's school records show that he was in two different schools at the same time! It's true - it says so in the holy book! What do you mean, that one's been debunked? OK, forget about the school records story, and consider this: Oswald was a Hungarian refugee who spoke Russian like a native! It's true - it says so in the holy book! What do you mean, that one's been debunked? OK, forget about the Hungarian refugee story, and consider this: Oswald was impersonated at the Bolton Ford dealership! It's true - it says so in the holy book! Round and round we go ...

Tracy Parnell writes: <blockquote>I would take your "evidence" for two Oswalds to the US Congress, an investigative journalist such as Morley, or any other official or person in authority and see how far you get. You will be laughed at.</blockquote> Of course the evidence will be laughed at by any sensible person. The problem is that this car-crash of a theory is liable to cause rational critics of the lone-nut theory to be tarred with the same brush (Tracy and I will probably disagree about whether this is a good or bad thing). On the plus side, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' cult doesn't seem to have attracted many followers.

Sandy, Thanks for pointing out that misleading reference on page 5 of Harvey and Lee ("... in December 1958. A month later, he took, and passed, a military language exam in the Russian language.") Oswald actually took the test two months later, not one month later. Sadly, Armstrong does not provide a source for his claim that Oswald passed the test. In the absence of any such evidence, I think it's safe to conclude that it wasn't a pass-or-fail type of test. Armstrong's implication, that Oswald passed a test after just one month of studying, sounds a lot more impressive than what actually happened: after at least two months of studying, Oswald rated poorly in a test, just as one would expect from an American who began learning Russian in his teens. That isn't the only misleading passage. This is from page 4: <blockquote>One of the unexplained curiosities, which always perplexed and intrigued me, was Oswald's near perfect command of the Russian language, which was allegedly self-taught and mastered within a couple of months ... I wondered how Oswald, with a 9th grade education, could have mastered the Russian language within a few months.</blockquote> Of course, Oswald never had a "near perfect command of the Russian language", and he never "mastered the Russian language", let alone "within a couple of months" or "within a few months." At the time he took the test, he had a "poor" command of the language. Even at his best, several years later, he made frequent grammatical mistakes. Again, this is exactly what one would expect from an American who had begun learning Russian in his teens. There is nothing that requires the Oswald who defected to have been a native speaker of Russian, as 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine demands. Sandy writes: <blockquote>The theory is that Russian speaking HARVEY immigrated to the United States when he was in about the 4th grade. And that would explain why Oswald would pass the Russian Test -- designed for native speakers, according to Bugliosi -- with poor scores. He spoke at a 4th grade level. (At least that's my understanding of the theory.)</blockquote> But there is only a very remote chance that the hypothetical Hungarian boy would have been brought up in a Russian-speaking family, and the only piece of evidence we have about the ages at which Russian was taught in Hungarian schools states that it was taught only from grade 5 onwards. The hypothetical Hungarian boy could not realistically have left Hungary with a native speaker's knowledge of Russian when he was in the fourth grade.

If Jim or Sandy believe that the information at this link https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records really "proves nothing", perhaps they could explain why. Then anyone who is interested in the topic of Oswald's school records can take the simple step of clicking on the link, to compare the two interpretations. Here's another link for Jim to either check out (if he sincerely wants to question his beliefs) or scream and shout about (if he doesn't): https://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B00IXOA5ZK Anyone who is genuinely interested in the topic of Oswald's school records will find it covered in Volume Two, a few pages into Part One: Symbiosis and Synthesis: 1954-1956. Happy reading!

Jim also writes, concerning Oswald's Russian test: <blockquote>the fact that he [Oswald] got more answers right than wrong is astounding.</blockquote> No, it isn't. When combined with the knowledge that Oswald's performance in the test was poor ("His rating was poor throughout"), it merely shows that the one and only, real-life Lee Harvey Oswald had a basic knowledge of Russian in February 1959, just as you might expect of a native English speaker who was in the early stages of learning Russian. Oswald, however, was supposed to have been a native speaker of Russian, according to the holy book of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' cult. How does Jim reconcile those two contradictory pieces of information? Let's see if we can encourage Jim to offer an opinion on this. If the Oswald who defected was actually a native speaker of Russian, how does Jim explain the "poor" performance in the test? Here are the three most plausible options: - (a) Oswald was deliberately pretending to have only a beginner's knowledge of Russian. - (b) The Colonel Folsom who pointed out to the Warren Commission ( Hearings, vol.8, p.307: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=315 ) that Oswald's performance in the test was "poor throughout" wasn't actually the real Colonel Folsom but a clone, the product of a top-secret CIA 'Folsom project', who deliberately misled the Warren Commission. If you look at photographs of the so-called 'Colonel Folsom' taken several years apart and in different lighting conditions, they look slightly different, which proves that 'he' was actually two people. Needless to say, each 'Colonel Folsom' had a separate mother. Just look at the photographs! The camera doesn't lie! - (c) Oswald's marine corps record (Hearings, vol.19, p.662: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=680 ) was faked by lizard-like creatures from Atlantis who were part of the CIA's top-secret 'Oswald project' and its top-secret 'Folsom project', and who went on to fake the moon landings and the Boston marathon bombing. Which of these explanations will Jim choose? Was Oswald pretending? Or was there something more sinister afoot? The common-sense alternative, of course, is that Oswald was a native speaker of English, not Russian, and the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is moon-landings-level nonsense.

Jim Hargrove writes: <blockquote>Despite my many requests for people who think there is actual information at Mr. Parker's site about this subject to post the information here, they ALWAYS refuse to do so. Why is that?</blockquote> Well, the obvious reason is that you're reading this on a website, and all you have to do is click on the link that has been provided for your convenience, and then you will be able to read the information for yourself. Here's that link again: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

It has been suggested that both Vincent Bugliosi (in Reclaiming History) and John Armstrong (in Harvey and Lee) claimed that Oswald passed the marines Russian test. I've been through both books, and haven't yet found a reference in either book to that effect. Armstrong writes only (on p.225) that: <blockquote>On February 25, Harvey [sic] Oswald took a Russian language exam... Test results showed that Oswald scored poorly on the exam.</blockquote> Unless I missed something, which is entirely possible, I think it's safe to assume that the test was simply an assessment of ability, and that it is misleading to claim that Oswald passed the test. After all, neither the Warren Report nor Oswald's marine records suggest that he either passed or failed the test. It's interesting to see exactly what Armstrong has to say about Oswald's command of Russian before and during Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union. He argues that Oswald did not study Russian before his arrival in California in December 1958. On page 187, he expresses doubts about this passage in the Warren Report (WR, p.257: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=281 ): <blockquote>While in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald studied the Russian language, perhaps with some help from an officer in his unit who was interested in Russian and used to 'talk about it' with Oswald occasionally.</blockquote> The Warren Report cites CE 1385, p.11 (Hearings, vol.22, p.706: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=736 ), an interview with Oswald by Aline Mosby in Moscow in November 1959, in which Oswald states: "My superiors thought I was just interested in a foreign language. My commanding officer, a major, was studying russian [sic] and we used to talk about it". It isn't unreasonable to suppose that Oswald may have had some help in learning Russian from this officer. Armstrong argues that Oswald did not learn Russian before being stationed in California. Again on page 187: <blockquote>None of the Marines who were on maneuvers with Oswald nor anyone who saw him in Japan said that he read or spoke Russian.</blockquote> But this is untrue. Paul Murphy, who was stationed with Oswald at both Atsugi and Santa Ana, stated that "I remember that Oswald could speak a little Russian, even when he was overseas" (Hearings, vol.8, p.320: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=328 ). Of course, people's recollections are not always reliable, but if we apply that standard there wouldn't be much of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory left. The reason for claiming that Oswald did not learn Russian in Japan is, of course, to demonstrate that Oswald's performance in the marines test in February 1959 was not consistent with the common-sense conclusion that he was a native English speaker who had only been learning the language for a few weeks, and that the Oswald who defected must instead have been a native speaker of Russian. On page 10, Armstrong explains why the 'Oswald project' required someone who was not merely a good speaker of Russian but a native speaker of Russian: <blockquote>One of the requirements for infiltrating an agent into a foreign country is that he/she have an intimate knowledge of the local language. ... And there is little point in sending an American agent, taught in the United States to speak a Slavic or Oriental language, to infiltrate these countries because they would speak with an accent. One way to avoid the problems of physical appearance and accent is to recruit local residents or former residents living abroad.</blockquote> Armstrong is adamant that the Oswald who defected was a native speaker of Russian. On pages 202 and 203, he writes: <blockquote>At this point some readers might ask, "Was such an elaborate and multi-year deception plan really necessary in order to infiltrate one person into Russia?" The answer is, quite simply, "Yes." The CIA spent years developing and training a native Russian-speaking person (Harvey) for the sole purpose of placing him in the Soviet Union. ... The infiltration of Lee Harvey Oswald into Russia at the height of the cold war was a dangerous gamble. If the Soviets ever discovered the 19-year-old American "defector" spoke the language perfectly, they would immediately suspect him of being a spy.</blockquote> There we have it: Oswald was "a native Russian-speaking person", someone who "spoke the language perfectly". But it is clear from Oswald's "poor" performance in the Russian test, as well as the fact that he made frequent grammatical mistakes even after living in the Soviet Union among Russian speakers for nearly three years, that he was not "a native Russian-speaking person" who "spoke the language perfectly". Oswald was a native English-speaking person who began to learn Russian either in California in late 1958 or a short time earlier while stationed in Japan, and who had only a limited knowledge of the language in February 1959. Incidentally, anyone who is interested in the apparent inconsistency in Oswald's school records should read this: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

Sandy Larsen writes: <blockquote>I thought that Mathias showed earlier that, for Oswald to have passed the language test at the level he did, he had to have reached the L2/R2 level by that time. Am I wrong?</blockquote> The test that Oswald took does not seem to have been a pass-or-fail test, but only an assessment of ability. Mathias's source stated that the L2/R2 level was the minimum requirement for military language analysts. Oswald's performance ("His rating was poor throughout") does not suggest that he would have made a competent military language analyst. Nor does a "poor" performance seem to be consistent with the L2/R2 standard, which requires a "limited working proficiency." Here is part of the definition of the L2 standard: <blockquote>Sufficient comprehension to understand conversations on routine social demands and limited job requirements. Able to understand face-to-face speech in a standard dialect, delivered at a normal rate with some repetition and rewording, by a native speaker not used to dealing with foreigners, about everyday topics, common personal and family news, well-known current events and routine office matters.</blockquote> If you have a look at the document Mathias found ( http://www.dliflc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Generic-Fam-Guide-MC-CBu-updated.pdf ), you'll see descriptions of various levels of language competence. Here is part of the definition of the L0+ standard: <blockquote>Sufficient comprehension to understand a number of memorized utterances in areas of immediate needs. Slight increase in utterance length understood but requires frequent long pauses between understood phrases and repeated requests on the listener's part for repetition. Understands with reasonable accuracy only when this involves short memorized utterances or formulae. Utterances understood are relatively short in length.</blockquote> And here is the L1 standard ("elementary proficiency"): <blockquote>Sufficient comprehension to understand utterances about basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics, can understand simple questions and answers, simple statements and very simple face-to-face conversations in a standard dialect.</blockquote> My guess is that someone who could only manage a "poor" performance in the marines test would be somewhere around the L0+ to L1 level. Either way, the point is that Oswald's "poor" performance was clearly not that of a native speaker of Russian.

Mathias Baumann writes: I don't think Oswald could have reached level L2/R2 in just two months without any instruction. He would have needed at least 4 - 5 lessons per day to get there. I agree, Mathias, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Oswald received instruction of some kind before he left the marines. But I doubt that Oswald was at the L2/R2 level at the time he took the test. Perhaps someone who achieved a high grade in the test would have been at that level. Oswald, however, did poorly in the test, which doesn't seem to have been a pass-or-fail type of test, but only an assessment of ability. All we can really conclude from Oswald's performance in the test is that he had only just begun to learn Russian, and that he was certainly not a native speaker of Russian.

Jim writes: <blockquote>Mr. Bojczuk can now attempt to make others believe that "Lee Harvey Oswald" learned to speak, read, and write Russian without a teacher or a textbook, in two months!</blockquote> Here we go again. Jim is claiming that the person known as Oswald who took the Russian test was able to "speak, read and write Russian" by late February 1959. To what level could this person "speak, read and write Russian"? Jim doesn't tell us. It certainly wasn't to the level of a native speaker, as Jim might like us to believe, because this person's test results were poor. According to the source I quoted earlier, his score was "poor" in reading Russian, and "poor" in writing Russian, and "poor" in understanding (not speaking) Russian. "His rating was poor throughout." I wonder why Jim failed to qualify his statement. To give us an accurate description of Oswald's ability, he could have written that the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was able to "speak, read and write Russian" poorly. Or he could have written that the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was able to "speak, read and write Russian" to a level consistent with the theory that Oswald had only begun to learn the language two months earlier. Or he could have written that the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was able to "speak, read and write Russian" in a way that was entirely inconsistent with the theory that Oswald was a native speaker of the language. I asked Jim if he would be kind enough to acknowledge the uncontroversial fact that Oswald's performance in his Russian test was poor, far below that of a native speaker. It doesn't seem much to ask. The real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald had a poor ability to read, write and understand Russian at the time he took the test. Either that, or Oswald was pretending to have only a beginner's command of Russian. What's your opinion, Jim? Did Oswald really have only a rudimentary knowledge of Russian in February 1959, or was Oswald pretending to have only a rudimentary knowledge of Russian in February 1959? Which is it?

Chris, I agree with you about Armstrong's research. The document cache at Baylor is very valuable. It's just a shame that he decided to use his research to promote such a poorly supported and self-contradictory theory.