James Norwood

John, I agree with your statement above. In the case of Sir Richard Francis Burton, it was recognized when he was a child that he had a great facility for learning foreign languages. He was born into privilege and had the finest tutors and education of his era. He eventually graduated from Oxford University. There is no doubt that he was a brilliant linguist; he could pick up languages quickly; and he was passionate especially about Arab culture, leading to his adaptation of the famous Thousand and One Nights. In the case of Oswald, he was a high school dropout who never completed his freshman year. There is no known instance of a teacher, friend, or family member who recalled his interest and facility in learning foreign languages as a youngster. There is no known instance of anyone witnessing him studying a Russian language textbook, conjugating verbs, or working on vocabulary lists with flash cards. The inveterate Warren Commission apologist Robert Oswald wrote in his memoir that his "brother" taught himself Russian. But if that were true, it would have been corroborated by a teacher, friend, or fellow student. Oswald certainly "could" have taught himself Russian. But he would have left behind a paper trail of eyewitness or documentary evidence of how he did it. In this thread, Steve and I were discussing the Warren Commission testimony of Dennis Offstein, who kept badgering Oswald in the attempt to understand how he could speak Russian so well, whereas Offstein still struggled after a year of intensive Russian language study at the Monterey institute. If Oswald had taught himself Russian, he likely would have been proud of that accomplishment and described his experience. Instead, he was silent and never offered a clue about his fluency.

John, You have provided an extremely valid linguistic analysis. Very thoughtful and insightful! In my study of this topic, I came across an interesting quote from the actor Gary Oldman, who played Oswald in Oliver Stone's JFK. Oldman had to deal with the challenge of Oswald voice, and he can't be faulted for not preparing in listening to the extant recordings of Oswald. During the rehearsal period, he experimented with Russian phonetics because he had detected what he believed was a slight Slavic accent. Oldman described his process in researching Oswald’s voice as follows: “I think I’ve got the accent in the bag, this sort of Southern thing, like Matthew McConaughey, and then I see him (Oswald) speak and he’s got the weirdest accent in the world.” --“Gary Oldman Stumped by Lee Harvey Oswald Accent for JFK”: https://www.hollywood.com/general/gary-oldman-stumped-by-lee-harvey-oswald-accent-for-jfk-60710757/ Oldman also worked with a dialect coach in which he explored a combination of standard American, Russian, and Spanish, plus a speech impediment. Oldman may have been sharp in detecting a shade of Spanish, especially if the young Oswald was learning English in New York City with a large Latino population in the 1950s. http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-let.htm In his vocal characterization of Oswald in JFK, I felt that Oldman went overboard with the accent and speech impediment. But his overall character interpretation was superb, especially in his recreation of the scenes in which Oswald was addressing the media while in police custody in Dallas.

Steve, I don't want to speak for Jim Hargrove, who started this interesting thread. But I would personally welcome the information you have about Crigler. It is clear from his Warren Commission testimony that Offstein suspected Oswald was "an agent" of the United States government. Oswald was hired at JCS in October, 1962, which was the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. After Oswald's termination from JCS, Offstein wanted to get together again with Oswald, and he extended an invitation for him and his wife to meet with Oswald and Marina. After months had passed with no reply, Offstein finally approached Crigler. Those of us who can remember the Cuban Missile Crisis have a vivid recollection of the tense climate at the time. Offstein may have felt it was his patriotic duty to report Oswald. Jim Hargrove has presented above abundant data that demonstrates that Oswald could not have been studying Russian during his stint in the Marines because he was already fluent in Russian. One of the most interesting points to me about Offstein's Warren Commission testimony is his account of spending an entire year studying Russian at the acclaimed Monterey institute, yet he was still unable to carry on a conversation in Russian. He was especially curious as to how Oswald could be so proficient in spoken Russian and he was even ordering and reading Russian language publications. It never occurred to Offstein that Oswald was a native speaker.

Thanks very much for bringing up Dennis Offstein and his supervisor at Jaggars, Chiles, Stovall (JCS), John Graef. These names most certainly have a bearing on our discussion of Oswald and the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). It is true that as employees at JCS, Oswald and Offstein had a great deal in common. The one shared trait that stands out to me is that they both spoke Russian. In conjunction with his military background, Offstein had studied at the famed Monterey foreign language institute, which is known today as the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. Offstein spent a year studying Russian language at Monterey, yet Oswald ran circles around him in Russian language proficiency. At JCS, Oswald did a little coaching of Offstein and shared Russian language publications (newspapers and magazines) that Oswald was special ordering from Victor A. Kamkin on the East Coast. When Offstein asked Oswald if he could meet Oswald's Russian-speaking friends to improve his conversational Russian, Oswald indicated that Offstein's proficiency was not yet satisfactory and up to the standards expected of his friends: "He said they enjoyed having someone around who could more or less keep up a running conversation with them." (WCH, Vol. X, 211). When the JCS office manager, John Graef, observed one of the Russian publications in the office, he asked Oswald to refrain from bringing them to work in the future. On multiple occasions during his Warren Commission testimony, Offstein stated that he believed that Oswald was an agent of the United States, and he offered three principal reasons to support this conclusion: (1) THE CONNECTION OF OSWALD'S FLUENCY IN RUSSIAN TO THE TIME HE SPENT RESIDING IN THE SOVIET UNION: Offstein was curious as to where Oswald had learned to speak such polished Russian, but when pressed on where he acquired his fluency, Oswald would never give Offstein a direct answer. Oswald's supervisor, John Graef, recalled that Oswald told him he had studied Russian in Korea. (WCH, Vol. X, 189). But, as a Marine, Oswald never spent enough time in Asia, let alone Korea, which would afford him the opportunity to learn Russian. And it definitely was not at the Monterey institute that he studied Russian because the Marine records of Oswald's movements are so well documented that there was no possibility to have spent enough time in Monterey for intensive language training. After Oswald was terminated from JCS, Offstein wanted to continue their association and extended the offer to bring his wife to meet Oswald and Marina. Oswald never responded to Offstein’s invitation. (2) OSWALD'S DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF MILITARY MANEUVERS IN THE SOVIET UNION: In his Warren Commission testimony, Offstein recalled Oswald describing “the disbursement of the [Soviet] military units, saying that they didn't intermingle their armored divisions and infantry divisions and various units the way we do in the Unites States, that they would have all of their aircraft in one geographical location and their tanks in another geographical location, and their infantry in another, and he mentioned that in Minsk he never saw a vapor trail, indicating the lack of aircraft in the area." (WCH, Vol. X, 202) This description squares with other detailed observations that Oswald brought back, which read like the notes of a spy. (3) TO OFFSTEIN, OSWALD APPEARED TO HAVE ACQUIRED SPECIALIZED SKILLS IN PHOTO ANALYSIS PRIOR TO HIS HIRE AT JCS: "He asked me one day if I knew the term 'microdot', and I told him , 'no', I wasn't familiar with it and he told me that that was the method of taking a large area of type or a picture and reducing it down to an extremely small size for condensing and for purposes such as where you had a lot of type to photograph to confine them into a small area." (WCH, Vol. X, 208) Had Oswald read this description in a book, or was he speaking from hands-on experience? In the testimony of Dennis Offstein alone, there was enough information to warrant an investigation of Oswald's ties to intelligence and the possibility that he was a sent to the Soviet Union in 1959 in the capacity of what Offstein calls an "agent" of the United States. But with the presence of Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission, Oswald’s records in the CIA were effectively screened from the committee. Otherwise, the truth about Oswald's close ties to the national security state might have been revealed in the Warren Report.

Jim, I appreciated your detailed reply, and I admired your ability to work closely to Laura Kittrell's manuscript. In our debate, we agree on the main issue that the interviews with employment counselor Kittrell were staged events. They were part of a pattern of similar incidents with Oswald imposters creating impressions that would later serve to incriminate him and provide the public with a motivation for Oswald killing the president, following the assassination. These events go back at least to Sylvia Odio's encounter with men who showed up on her doorstep, including "Leon" Oswald, who was clearly an imposter. The issue that we are debating is who were the actors in the Kittrell charade. My argument is that the two men interviewed by Kittrell were both imposters used to create the post-assassination memory of an angry young man, sympathetic to Marxism and prone to violence. It was only by chance that the two different impersonators were assigned to the same counselor. Your position is that this was part of a "final test" about how convincing the impersonators could be and that both Oswalds were instructed to meet with the same counselor, Laura Kittrell. My position is that this chance occurrence inadvertently provided the opportunity for an eyewitness to experience first-hand how Oswald was being groomed as the patsy. It is for this reason that Kittrell's manuscript was suppressed until the HSCA convened in the late 1970s. Your position is that Classic Oswald was the first of the two men visiting Kittrell at the TEC and that he was coached in advance to leave a vivid impression on Kittrell. My position is that the two different imposters were being used to create confusion in the post-assassination period and that the plotters would never risk alerting Oswald to the method being used to set him up as the scapegoat by asking him to leave such an unfavorable impression of himself. You make a persuasive case for Oswald as a skilled "performer" who could play a role to the hilt when instructed to do so by his handlers. The example you give about the phony suicide in Moscow is a good one. Another instance is his ability to hand out the leaflets in New Orleans, then go on the air to promote the FPCC and speak favorably of Fidel Castro. You and I would likely agree that for most of his life, this young man had been inculcated in the art of role-playing and deception, referring to Marx's "Das Kapital" in front of school chums or even his fellow Marines. The hurdle I am unable to overcome in the interviews with Kittrell is why and how Oswald's handlers would conceivably send him on a mission to overtly incriminate himself. Oswald was carefully being groomed as the assassin of an American president. Surely, the plotters would not want to arouse Oswald's suspicions by asking him to defame himself publicly by acting belligerent in a public place before a civil servant. The moment of the interview that strikes me as most "rehearsed" is when the man shifts the conversation away from job-hunting to the topic of guns, explaining to Kittrell the different meanings of the terms “Marksman,” “Sharpshooter,” and “Expert,” as used in the Marines. That scene fits with the pattern of other Oswald impersonators, boasting about rifles and on multiple occasions actually firing at a shooting range. But if Oswald were sent on this mission to Kittrell's office, he would almost certainly be curious as to the purpose behind such an act of self-defamation in the employment office. By the morning of November 22, Oswald had to have been kept blissfully ignorant of the role he had been assigned as scapegoat. Nothing could be left to chance. If he suspected that he was being set up, he simply could have stayed at home from work that day. So, my question to you is as follows: If Classic Oswald were given instructions to report to the Texas Employment Commission, behave erratically, mention his years spent in the Soviet Union, and talk about firearms, how would that assignment have been presented to him without this savvy, experienced operative recognizing that he was being duped? James

Mr. Caddy, Jim Hargrove is spot on with his analysis of Robert Oswald. For decades, he would appear on television documentaries and in media interviews with the intent of throwing his "brother" under the bus of history. Robert Oswald's book is simply filled with inaccurate information and sleight of hand. To answer the question in your lead post for this thread, Oswald did not become involved in counterintelligence due to watching the television program I Led Three Lives. That supposition is based exclusively on hearsay evidence. Instead, Oswald's connection to the intel agencies was thrust upon him, due to his Russian language skills. To my way of thinking, key issues related to Oswald's connection to the national security network and who was responsible for President Kennedy's death begin with that talking point. I have unfolded the case for this argument in my article "Oswald's Proficiency in the Russian Language" that appears on the harveyandlee.net site. As a demonstration of Robert Oswald's duplicitous role in the coverup of the JFK assassination, the relationship of Robert Oswald to the two daughters of Marina and Oswald is most revealing. Robert Oswald never had contact with them both when they were growing up or as adults. The question is: why?

Steve, I think it is great to study the known examples of Oswald's handwriting. But the topic that I was raising above is whether or not the official story of Oswald's violent behavior is even accurate. Here are several examples: • Was Oswald often involved in physical altercations as a youngster? • Did Oswald own and use firearms? • Were there examples of violent behavior when Oswald served in the Marines? • Did Oswald fire a shot into the home of General Walker? • Was Oswald a wife beater? • Did Oswald harbor animosity to President Kennedy and ever threaten to kill him? In the most thorough research into Oswald's life ever conducted by an independent researcher, i.e., John Armstrong, the answer to all of the questions above is a resounding no. This question is at the heart of the findings of the Warren Commission. If the premise of Oswald's violent behavior is wrong, then the Warren Report is not to be trusted.

Jim, I find your idea of testing the waters ("a final test") to be intriguing with regard to the Laura Kittrell interviews. At the same time, your chronology of the other incidents of Oswald impostors fits into a pattern in which Kittrell's experience must be included. For years, I have reflected on Kittrell's manuscript after ordering a copy from the National Archives. Here are several observations: There are moments during the first interview in Kittrell's office that seem "staged." During the interview, the man who claimed he had resided in the Soviet Union slammed his fist down on her desk, upending a flower vase. The man was also assertive in eavesdropping on the previous client's conversation, then commenting on what the woman was privately telling the counselor. Uncharacteristic of what we know of the quiet and reserved Oswald who was shot by Jack Ruby, this man was loquacious in almost bragging about his past experiences in the Soviet Union and San Diego and commenting on the political operative Murray Chotiner. This demonstrative behavior does not square with the passive and taciturn profile of Oswald. The second Oswald interview was even more curious with a different man with a different background as a teamster. In the first interview, the slamming of his hand onto Kittrell's desk would have stood out most in anyone's recall of the conversation. Here is the description from pp. 11-12 in Kittrell's manuscript: ‘Well, I’ll be damned’, he said, as though only mildly amazed. Then he paused and seemed suddenly to grow very angry, for he brought the heel of his palm down against the surface of my desk, hitting it astonishingly hard, considering that he had not made a fist. When he did this, the little vase of periwinkles, being jarred, tumped over, spilling water down the side of the desk and onto the floor. I reached in my desk for a dust cloth.” The hypothesis that I have been exploring is that the two men meeting with Kittrell were both imposters, whose visits to the Texas Employment Commission were intended to create confusion after the assassination. In a large, metropolitan employment bureau, the clientele show up and take numbers, then are assigned to the next available counselor. It was only by chance that, in this case, the two Oswald impersonators were assigned to Kittrell. It is highly unlikely as well that Marina would have accompanied Oswald to the interview. She would have been at home with the children. The silent woman accompanying the first man to the interview and vividly recalled by Kittrell was also a likely imposter. Another important detail is that after the interviews, a different employment counselor, Robert Adams, followed up with an attempt to contact Oswald about a job opening at the airport in handling luggage. Ruth Paine took the message, yet chose not to pass it on to Harvey. Through her efforts, Oswald was eventually hired at the TSBD for wages less than the baggage handler, which would have paid him $100 a month more than a TSBD book handler. Adams' phone call fielded by Ruth Paine was at a time when Oswald had not yet accepted the job at TSDB. I find it likely that all of the interviews at the Texas Employment Commission were played out by imposters. Kittrell later identified the first, aggressive Oswald from a photo of Larry Crafard. She could not recognize the man she interviewed from any of the photos of Oswald or the extensive film footage of him over the assassination weekend. At the time of the interview, the man was wearing a motorcycle jacket, an item of clothing that would make him stand out. It was also an article of clothing that was not part of known wardrobe of Oswald. The purpose of this elaborate set of interviews with Oswald imposters, likely conceived by David Atlee Phillips, was twofold: (a) to sow the seeds of confusion after the assassination; and (b) to implant memories of an Oswald who was prone to erratic behavior and violence. In the multiple Oswald impersonations leading up to the assassination, there were occurrences that the plotters could not anticipate. In the case of the Kittrell interviews, one of those unpredictable incidents was that the two imposters were interviewed by the same counselor, who eventually wrote up her experience of the interviews in a lengthy memoir. The Kittrell manuscript shows us the lengths to which the plotters would go in framing Oswald and in evoking chaos for anyone trying to reconstruct Oswald's movements after he was dead. We may never know the identities of the individuals interviewed by Kittrell. But what we can conclude with certainty is that the impression given to the counselor was that of a man prone to violence, which is part of a pattern of other Oswald pre-assassination sightings in the Dallas area with the same feeling of being "staged": shooting erratically at the rifle range, test-driving an automobile at high speed, arguing with a waitress about an order of eggs, among others. During the Kittrell interview with the first Oswald, the man in motorcycle jacket brought up the subject of guns. Instead of learning about job opportunities, he took the time to carefully explain to Kittrell the different meanings of the terms “Marksman,” “Sharpshooter,” and “Expert,” as used in the Marines. From her recollections of the employment office interviews, the most vivid memories that would stand out for the counselor were the slamming of the fist onto the desk and the discussion of guns. The Kittrell interviews may best be seen alongside the other examples of Oswald impersonation that continued into the very day of the assassination. Those memories were intended to cement the eventual profile of Oswald as a malcontent prone to violence that became the basis of the Warren Report.

I interviewed Jack Puterbaugh on November 4, 2013, and the following are my notes: James Norwood interview of Jack Puterbaugh THE INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013, AT THE WALKER PLACE, 3701 BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55409. PRESENT FOR THE INTERVIEW WERE BARBARA DOWNHAM, JAMES NORWOOD, JACK PUTERBAUGH, AND JACK'S FRIEND, RICK ANDERSON. THE INTERVIEW LASTED FROM APPROXIMATELY 1:10PM UNTIL 2:20PM. (A) AS A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE IN THE EARLY 1960S, JACK PUTERBAUGH HELPED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR JOHN F. KENNEDY ON TWO VISITS TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN 1960 AND 1963. FROM THE 1960 "BEAN FEED," JACK SHOWED US A PHOTO WITH PUERBAUGH (IN GLASSES) ALONGSIDE SENATOR KENNEDY. THE PHOTO MAY BE SEEN AS WELL ON THIS SITE: http://current.mnsun.com/2013/10/on-the-scene-of-the-jfk-assassination-it-was-chaos/ PUTERBAUGH ALSO RELATED HOW DURING THE DRIVE TO DULUTH IN 1963, PRESIDENT KENNEDY ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A THOUGHTFUL STATEMENT ABOUT THE BEAUTY OF A RURAL FARM, INADVERTENTLY SHOWING HIS IGNORANCE OF AGRARIAN LIFE IN THE MIDWEST. (B) AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PUTERBAUGH WAS INVITED TO DALLAS AS AN ADVANCE MAN FOR THE PRESIDENT'S VISIT IN NOVEMBER, 1963. HIS ROLE WAS NOT SO MUCH IN PROVIDING SECURITY TO THE PRESIDENT AS IT WAS IN ARRANGING THE GUEST LIST FOR THE LUNCHEON AT THE DALLAS TRADE MART. HE TOLD US ABOUT A PRELIMINARY DRIVE THROUGH DEALEY PLAZA, BUT HE NEVER ONCE MENTIONED ACTUAL SECURITY OPERATIONS (CROWD CONTROL, CLOSING WINDOWS ON TALL BUILDINGS, ASSIGNMENTS OF POLICE OFFICERS). AS HE INFORMED US, HIS MAIN TASK WAS IN THE ASSIGNING OF TICKETS FOR THE LARGE GATHERING OF 2,500. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT PUTERBAUGH HAD THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE MOTORCADE ROUTE (A TASK OF THE SECRET SERVICE) OR THE SITE OF THE LUNCHEON (THE KEY DECISION-MAKER IN SETTLING ON THE TRADE MART WAS APPARENTLY GOVERNOR JOHN CONNALLY). PUTERBAUGH SPOKE OF THE THREE-PART FACTIONAL STRIFE IN TEXAS POLITICS AT THE TIME WITH THE CONSERVATIVE WING LED BY GOVERNOR CONNALLY, THE CENTRIST POSITION REPRESENTED BY VICE-PRESIDENT JOHNSON, AND THE LIBERALS LED BY SENATOR RALPH YARBOROUGH. (C) WHEN I ASKED PUTERBAUGH WHETHER THE SCHEDULING OF THE LUNCHEON AT THE WOMEN’S BUILDING MIGHT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN SAVING THE PRESIDENT’S LIFE, DUE TO ITS LOCATION IN A DIFFERENT PART OF DALLAS THAN THE TRADE MARE, PUTERBAUGH RESPONDED THAT HE BELIEVED THE MOTORCADE WOULD HAVE TRAVELED ALONG THE SAME ROUTE TO REACH THE WOMEN’S BUILDING. I POINTED OUT THAT THE LOGICAL ROUTE TO THE WOMEN’S BUILDING FROM LOVE FIELD WOULD HAVE PASSED THROUGH DEALEY PLAZA FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, BYPASSING THE HAIRPIN TURNS FROM MAIN TO HOUSTON AND FROM HOUSTON TO ELM. PUTERBAUGH UNDERSCORED THAT HE WAS NOT TASKED WITH PROVIDING SECURITY TO THE PRESIDENT. HE RECALLED THAT WHEN HE MADE A TRIAL RUN, DRIVING THROUGH DEALEY PLAZA WITH WINSTON LAWSON, PUTERBAUGH CRACKED A JOKE TO THE EFFECT THAT “THE SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY MUST BE THE PLACE WHERE THEY BURN THE BOOKS DOWN HERE!” (D) PUTERBAUGH WAS PRESENT AT LOVE FIELD WHEN AIR FORCE ONE LANDED IN DALLAS. HE OBSERVED THE PRESIDENT AND FIRST LADY DEBORD THE PLANE. PUTERBAUGH THEN ENTERED THE MOTORCADE IN ONE OF OF THE LEAD CARS. (E) EN ROUTE TO THE TRADE MART, PUTERBAUGH'S VEHICLE WAS WELL AHEAD OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE PILOT CAR. BY THE TIME HE REACHED THE STEMMONS FREEWAY, HE WAS OUT OF VIEW OF DEALEY PLAZA AND NEVER WITNESSED THE SHOOTING. HE ONLY HEARD A REPORT ON THE CAR RADIO THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING RUSHED TO PARKLAND HOSPITAL. (F) ALONGSIDE HIM IN THE LEAD VEHICLE WAS SS AGENT WINSTON LAWSON, AS WELL AS OTHERS WHOSE NAMES JACK COULD NOT RECALL. THE VEHICLE PROCEEDED TO PARKLAND HOSPITAL WHERE JACK WITNESSED THE STRICKEN PRESIDENT CARRIED INTO THE TRAUMA ROOM. PUTERBAUGH RECALLED SEEING MRS. KENNEDY AND HER PINK DRESS. HE DID NOT RECALL ANY DETAILS OF THE WOUNDS OF THE PRESIDENT AND COULD NOT PROVIDE A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LIMOUSINE, OTHER THAN THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SIDING AND THE ROOF, WHICH HE CALLED "THE BUBBLE TOP." (G) UPON LEARNING OF THE DEATH OF THE PRESIDENT, PUTERBAUGH RETURNED TO HIS HOTEL (THE DOWNTOWN SHERATON). EN ROUTE TO THE HOTEL, HE PASSED THROUGH DEALEY PLAZA AND OBSERVED THE "COMPLETE CHAOS" OF PEOPLE MILLING ABOUT IN NEARLY EVERY DIRECTION. WHEN I ASKED HIM IF HE OBSERVED ANY ATTEMPTS OF THE DALLAS POLICE TO CORDON OFF THE CRIME SCENE, HE SAID THAT HE SAW NO ROPES OR TAPE IN THE AREA OF THE STREET, PLAZA, OR BUILDINGS. (H) PUTERBAUGH LEFT DALLAS IMMEDIATELY BY PLANE FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. WHEN I ASKED HIM IF HE HEARD ANY "GOSSIP" IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH, HE REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT. (I) WHILE NEVER CALLED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION, PUTERBAUGH DID TESTIFY FOR THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS (HSCA) IN THE LATE 1970S. BY THIS TIME, HE WAS BACK IN MINNESOTA. IN THE HSCA INTERVIEW, THE QUESTIONS WERE VERY GENERAL AND JACK COULD NOT RECALL SPECIFIC DETAILS FROM THE BRIEF INTERVIEW. (J) PUTERBAUGH STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT THE JFK ASSASSINATION WAS A TURNING POINT IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY. HE CITES THE LONG STRING OF PRESIDENTS THAT HAVE FAILED TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IDEALISM OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY. FOR PUTERBAUGH, THE LONE EXCEPTION WAS PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER.

In response to Moderator Pat Speer above: The problem with taking any eyewitness at "face value" in the JFK case is to run the risk of being misled by someone with personal bias or an agenda. The question is not whether Titovets is a stand-up guy and a "friend," but whether his story stands up to careful scrutiny, based on the evidence. The balance of your commentary above is pure speculation about Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union. I wish you would read my article referenced by Jim Hargrove, wherein I present source documents and hard facts about Oswald's proficiency in speaking Russian.

No, Tracy, the conversation is not quite over. In scrolling through this page, it is obvious that David and Jim are presenting compelling evidence about the discrepancies in height of the two Oswald boys. The evidence includes both photos and documents, and it is only the tip of the iceberg that may be found in the articles on the "Harvey and Lee" website. You are entitled to your opinion that this is a "data dump." But why you don't allow the readers of the forum to make up their own minds? Your only rebuttal is short, unconvincing rejoinders with no evidence to uphold the Warren Commission's findings. The question about your range of "interests" is valid, based on your limited range of understanding of the JFK assassination and the amount of time you spend sowing discord on this forum. When pressed for a demonstration of your own research, your lame response is typically that you don't have the time to delve into a topic. For those readers interested in probing the story of the two Oswalds in depth, please be sure to read the articles at: http://harveyandlee.net/

Very well done, Jim! Your points above on Jack Ruby are especially important. Readers of this thread are urged to study John Armstrong's piece on Ruby: http://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html The story of Jack Ruby has long flummoxed JFK researchers. John's article hits the bull's eye, especially in linking Ruby to the CIA, not the mafia. It takes a minimum of one hour to read and digest this lengthy piece. The abundant primary sources appearing throughout John's article are what make it so persuasive. Readers are encouraged to verify each of those sources and to weigh the evidence for themselves, to determine the significant role played by Ruby in the assassination.

David, I really appreciate you taking time out to post on this thread. In my study of the topic of Oswald's proficiency in Russia language, I have searched for years in the attempt to locate evidence of Oswald actually at work in learning a foreign language. In your post, you suggest that Oswald was an innately gifted linguist, and you indicate that at one point, Oswald was using "a deck of Russian flash cards" in order to teach himself German. This is the exact kind of detail that I have seeking to locate for years. But what is your source for the detail of the flashcards? If the source is Priscilla McMillian, it must be dismissed out of hand as unreliable. McMillan herself surely did not witness Oswald at work with the flashcards. If she learned about it from Oswald or read an account of the flashcards, this is nonetheless unverifiable, hearsay evidence. So, please let me know if you have a more detailed reference for the flashcards. Thanks! James

Michael, I have reported your post to the forum administrator, as it is in violation of the agreed-upon forum guidelines. The rule is explicit about avoiding casting personal aspersions on fellow members. While the discussions may get intense, the goal is to discuss ideas, not attack others personally. Clean it up! P.S. Please add my name to the list of advocates of the work of John Armstrong

Trolling Tracy, As David and Sandy have indicated your rebuttal is weak, and you lose even more credibility by reiterating your buzz words of "Nonsense" or "Take it to the Media." LOL P.S. This thread is now listed as "Hot" on the forum. And the reason it is hot is not due to your snapped remarks. And, by the way, who cares about your blog?

Jim, I believe you have served as a fine mediator here and that you have effectively synthesized the main points above. Regarding #2, it may be a stretch to attempt to conclude anything definitive from the scores of that military Russian test. You pointed out astutely in an early post that the results of all of Oswald's tests were strange and may be related to either dyslexia or the limited "test-taking" skills that come from a boy who had only completed his freshman year in high school. For example, how are we to interpret Oswald's score in the "radio code" test as rock bottom, when he had almost certainly completed training in that field in the Marines? One final note: It is essential to reiterate how important this topic is, as observed in an internet discussion at the time of the 50th anniversary of the assassination: “The single most important question about LHO’s background is where and how he learned to speak Russian.”

I'm with David on this one. The mastoid scar should never have been missed in a competent autopsy. Trolling Tracy would have us believe that the autopsy is the Rosetta Stone of the case. Not so, based even on the brief discussion above.

Another bullet point to add is the Russian proficiency exam administered to Oswald. But it is not the final score that is most important. Rather, it is the circumstances of completing the exam in the first place. How many Marine privates were taking the Department of the Army Russian language exam at the height of the Cold War? And how many Marine privates who took Russian language exams at the height of Cold War subsequently defected to the Soviet Union nine months after taking the test? The exam is only one piece of the puzzle in understanding Oswald's "defection."

Mathias, Thanks for your post. The only reference I have ever found to Oswald possibly studying at Monterey comes from the remark made by Warren Commission attorney J. Lee Rankin, as quoted in my article. If Oswald indeed studied at Monterey, the Warren Commission should have been able to locate records of his attendance, his course of study, and when/if he completed the program. It turns out that no such records have ever surfaced. To answer your question about where the Warren Commission got the idea in the first place, it had to have come from either Hoover at the FBI or the American intelligence network, especially the CIA. With Allen Dulles sitting on the committee, it should have been easy to locate those records, if they existed. As we have no records, nor any evidence placing Oswald in the Monterey area for the forty-eight-week duration of an intensive language program, it would be pure speculation to conclude that Monterey is the answer to Oswald's Russian language abilities.

Tracy, David Josephs has provided an excellent overview of the exhumation topic above. Do you want to discuss the evidence he presents? Or, do want to change the subject again?

Tracy, Do you want to discuss the issues of this thread (i.e., Oswald's proficiency in Russian), or would your rather keep trolling along with your mantra of "nonsense" for virtually everything that YOU disagree with?

Tracy, I'm a newbie on this forum, but I have followed the threads for years, especially those pertaining to Oswald. In suggesting that the key issues surrounding Oswald have been "debated" on this forum, you are misrepresenting the notion of debate. Your idea of debate is quick rejoinders without subjecting the evidence to close scrutiny. Over and over, Jim Hargrove has invited you to debate key issues. Instead, you either (1) ignore the challenge, (2) change the subject, or (3) dismiss a post as "egregious nonsense." That is not debate. I noticed in your list above, you did not mention the name of David von Pein, who actually does present evidence to support his points about the validity of the Warren Report. Invariably, he is using evidence selectively. Yet it is still possible to have an actual debate with David von Pein. The difference with your posts and von Pein's is the gaping chasm between the scrutiny of primary evidence versus trolling.

Paul, It is easy to see why individuals on this forum simply stop reading and responding to your posts. James

Paul, I have reported your comment above to the administration of this forum. The guidelines are quite specific about the avoidance of casting aspersions on fellow members. I'm a newbie to the Ed Forum. Is this the normal way that you guys normally interface with one another?

Mathias, Please do not directly or indirectly put your words in my mouth. It is apparent from your comments above that you did not ready my article. Instead, you have already made up your mind that Oswald learned Russian as a second language. But you are offering only "opinion," as opposed to thoughtful conclusions based on research. My article deflates the possibility that Oswald studied at Monterey , and it equally flattens the possibility of Oswald picking up Russian from individualized study using such methods as the Berlitz system. If you want to make a persuasive argument about Monterey, you need to demonstrate through primary evidence that Oswald was present at Monterey for a 48-week intensive language course. If you want to make a persuasive argument about private study, you need eyewitnesses who actually saw Oswald using flash cards or studying Russian grammar in order to teach himself Russian. No such evidence exists. Why don't you take the time to read the entire article, instead of spouting off about the piecemeal comments of this thread?