James Norwood

Paul, I feel sorry for anybody who relies on Priscilla Johnson McMillan in order to formulate opinions about Oswald. Or, do you think that Priscilla's connections with NANA were innocent? James

Paul, This thread began with a link to my article, which includes multiple references to the Warren Commission testimonies. Why don't you read and critique the article instead of just mouthing off? James P.S. By the way, the sign of an astute student of the JFK case is the ability to recognize which eyewitnesses are reliable and which ones are suspect. Your reliance on the testimony of Marilyn Dorothea Murret says it all: you appear to be unaware that she had close ties to the CIA. Or are you?

Mathias, You provide an excellent overview above. Thanks! Regarding Oswald's exam score on the Department of Army's Russian language proficiency test, Lt. Col. Alison Folsom provided a breakdown of the results for the Warren Commission. There were three components to the exam, suggesting that this was a comprehensive test. Oswald's scores were as follows: understanding (-5), reading (+4), writing (+3), with the composite +2 indicating that Oswald answered two more questions correctly than those that he missed on the exam. So, the young man scored better than 50% on this challenging exam. Another factor needs to be considered, based on Col. Folsom's testimony: Oswald was also administered tests in cognitive abilities in English, including reading and vocabulary; arithmetical computation; and pattern analysis. His scores on these tests were all rated as “poor.” Oswald was even administered a “radio code test,” in which Lt. Colonel Folsom indicated that Oswald’s score was in the bottom, or the “lowest” in results. For those who claim that Oswald had an innate intelligence that permitted him to learn Russian by self-study and "immersion," how can one explain the all-around negative scores he received on basic cognitive abilities? The Warren Commission interview with Lt. Colonel Allison Folsom may be read at the following site: http://www.whokilledjfk.net/oswsald_learning_russian.htm

Sorry, Paul You offer no documentary evidence, no eyewitness evidence, and no quotes to back up your conclusions. By contrast, my article includes forty-one footnotes. Get a life, and get to the sources!

Sandy, Thanks very much for this posting and for providing the link to the article. Actually, I started a thread on this topic back on September 14, and there were thoughtful responses from users Ron Bulman and Jim Hargrove. The matter of Oswald's proficiency in Russian touches on nearly all aspects of the profile of Oswald as originally formed by the Warren Commission. Reams have been written about all aspects of Oswald and the JFK assassination. But an essential event that helps to unpack this controversial life was when Oswald was discharged from the Marines and left for the Soviet Union in 1959. What was the true intent of the "defection"? A knowledge of Oswald's Russian language proficiency sheds light on that essential question.

Programming alert: the disgraceful multi-part series JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald will air in a marathon session on Saturday, September 16, beginning at 6pm (Eastern time). From the opening program, it easy to understand the thesis of the series: Oswald shot JFK, but startling new discoveries made by former CIA case officer Bob Baer from newly-released documents indicate that Oswald had help! For propaganda of the highest order, be sure to set the DVR!

Around the time of the 50th anniversary, a participant in an internet discussion wrote that “The single most important question about LHO’s background is where and how he learned to speak Russian.” I have prepared an article that synthesizes the evidence about Oswald's proficiency in Russian before, during, and after his stay in the Soviet Union. An understanding of Oswald's Russian language skills may help to clarify confusing aspects of his biography, including the true nature of his beliefs about Marxism, the Soviet Union, and Cuba. Warren Commission apologists begin with the premise that Oswald was a genuine Marxist sympathizer. But if that premise is false, then the legend of Oswald promoted by the Warren Commission collapses like a house of cards. The article may be accessed at Jim Hargrove's Harvey and Lee website: http://harveyandlee.net/Russian.html

Jim, David, and Sandy Great work in presenting the evidence of the Oswald identification card. Without a doubt, one of the most fascinating sidebars concerns the circumstances of how a copy of the Oswald ID card would have come into the possession of Richard Case Nagell. As noted by Dick Russell in The Man Who Knew Too Much, "Nagell was in jail after September 20, 1963--which means that he must have had this Oswald ID card in his possession before that time, two months and two days before the assassination." (p. xviii). We may not unravel all of the mysteries of the ID card. But it certainly offers additional evidence connecting Oswald to American intelligence prior to the assassination. James

Tracy, It is obvious that you do not understand the history of the investigations into the JFK assassination conducted by the "proper authorities." For your benefit, those investigations were the Church Committee and the House Committee on Assassinations of the 1970s that came in the wake of the failure of the Warren Commission. In the 1990s, the JFK Records Act established the Assassination Records Review Board that served to release new documents and revisit the evidence. But none of those government agencies have come close to arriving at the truth, and it would be pointless to think of conducting another incompetent and inconsequential government inquest. For your benefit as well, “investigative journalists” in the mainstream media have proven to be an abysmal failure in coming to terms with the assassination. Most of the MSM people will not even touch the JFK case today. You ask, "what is the point of it all?" The answer is for us to search for the truth as diligent citizens. Long after our deaths, it will be the historians who finally set the record straight at a time when this topic has lost the contentious nature of inquiry that exists today. Now, can we move on to explore the main topic of this thread, namely, the "gems" that that exist in a study of the two Oswalds that will help us arrive at the truth? Or, would you prefer to continue in your efforts to stifle the discussion?

Jeremy, I accept your apology, and I hope we can move on to discuss the substantive issues of this thread. Regarding what you observe about my "delicate sensibilities," I believe that we all have delicate sensibilities and that the discussion on this forum should be civil and in accordance with the guidelines to which we all have agreed. I also believe that many people reading these posts want to participate, but choose not to do so out of fear that they will be bullied and their sensibilities offended. But apparently that possibility has never occurred to you. My previous comments addressed what you have written on your website when your refer readers to the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" as set forth in the Warren Report. 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. For the purposes of this thread, I would also point out that every aspect of the story of Oswald as recounted in the Warren Report has been vigorously contested, if not refuted outright. To wit: • The Warren Report asserts that Oswald traveled to Mexico City in the late summer of 1963. That assertion has been strenuously debated and contested. • The Warren Report states as fact that Oswald ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano carbine that is alleged to be the murder weapon. That "fact" has been challenged in great detail on this thread. • The Warren Report places Oswald on the 6th floor of the time of the shooting. Even that fundamental assertion has been called into question. Those are only three examples of the major tenets that undergird the Warren Report and have been contested over the years. In contrast to the time of publication of the Warren Report in September 1964, today there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald was framed for the assassination by the CIA. In establishing the motivation for Oswald to kill the president, the scapegoating plan included an intricate string of impersonations of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination. Hence the importance of studying the topic of the two Oswalds.

Tracy, The subject of the two Oswalds is not "theory," and you will not be putting the matter to rest with your repeated references to Greg Parker. With both documentary and eyewitness evidence, it is apparent that two individuals had appropriated the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald starting in the late 1940s. Eventually, historians who study this topic dispassionately will correct the record with the truth about the two Oswalds. For the present, those with an open mind (and willing to take the time) will discern the incontrovertible evidence of two Oswalds. A good place to start is with the detailed essays on Jim Hargrove's "Harvey and Lee" website. On that site, primary evidence is presented in abundance--not speculation and theory. It is painfully apparent from your posts that you are working exclusively with secondary materials, such as links to Greg Parker's materials. By contrast, David Josephs and Jim Hargrove are presenting primary sources in their posts. The thoughtful reader of this thread will instantly recognize the substantial, content-intensive posts, due to the conscientious work with primary evidence from David and Jim above.

Tracy, In my post to which you refer above, I was presenting new information on Marita Lorenz to the forum participants. In response, you type the word "Wrong," then move on to unrelated issues in order to deflect the conversation away from Lorenz. Your post above is an example of the kind of misdirection used more skillfully for years by John McAdams in a fruitless attempt to defend the findings of Warren Commission.

To: Jeremy Bojczuk, Experienced Member In response to your post about me above, I have reported your comments to the administration. The goal of these threads is intended as debate of the issues of the JFK assassination, not personal attacks on fellow members. The forum rules are very specific about casting aspersions on other forum members. Here is the wording in the agreement we signed: "Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may loose [sic] their posting privileges or indeed be banned." 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?

You guys are getting mired in a pointless discussion of who may be a "Lone Nutter" versus who is a "Conspiracy Theorist." These threads should be about identifying and interpreting facts, as opposed to assigning labels, assailing fellow researchers, and "debunking" valid ideas. Jeremy has written that there are "uncontested facts" presented in the Warren Report. For this thread concerning Oswald, I am curious to learn what are the uncontested facts presented in the Warren Report about Oswald? Can we find a common ground of factual information about Oswald?

An Update on Marita Lorenz The fascinating topic of Marita Lorenz has been mentioned earlier in this thread. I recently learned from a close acquaintance of hers that Marita is adamantly opposed to the production of the Jennifer Lawrence film biography. The project may be shelved. Marita now resides in Costa Rica. She left New York around the time the Jennifer Lawrence film was announced. The reason why she left the country may have nothing to do with her sensational love affair with Castro and everything to do with Oswald and the potential public exposure she could receive from a feature film on her life. For years, she has been flying under the radar living in New York with her son serving as a watchdog against researchers and interviewers. Based on her experiences, Marita Lorenz has to know about the two Oswalds. As discussed on this thread, Marita testified under oath before the HSCA that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald at a time when another Lee Harvey Oswald was residing in the Soviet Union. She had no plausible reason to lie about this, and she was even threatened with charges of perjury when she would not disavow her testimony. As discussed in depth by Jim Hargrove in his Bolton Ford posts above, the Oswald involved in the fleet transaction of trucks was a right-wing anti-Communist. By contrast, the man concurrently residing in the Soviet Union had conceived the persona of a left-wing Marxist sympathizer. The only way to make sense of a substantial body of conflicting primary evidence is to understand the existence of the two Oswalds. Marita Lorenz may be the most important individual still living who has the potential to set the record straight about Harvey and Lee. Occasionally, participants on this forum refer to the two Oswalds as a "theory." But throughout John Armstrong's 900+ page book, he does not discuss theory. Rather, he presents incontrovertible, hard evidence for two men, one who answered to the name of "Lee" and one who answered to the name of "Harvey." That is not theory; it is fact.

Tracy, You are not responding to my question. In fact, you are dodging the question. You seem to be familiar with Jeremy's website and book to the degree that you have taken the time to write an apology for him on this thread. So, what are the "uncontested facts" about Oswald from the Warren Report adduced by Jeremy? I'm not asking for Jeremy's position on "all" of the issues related to the JFK assassination, only those on Oswald. And also, what do you believe are the uncontested facts, if any, about Oswald?

I pulled up and read the home page on Jeremy Bojczuk's website. In the first footnote to his home page article, Jeremy writes the following: "The basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination can be found in the Warren Report." It has been a matter of never-ending debate to determine just how many "uncontested facts" are to be found in the Warren Report. It is obvious from Jeremy's reactions to Jim Hargrove's extremely detailed commentaries about Oswald that Jeremy's belief in the Warren Report is being challenged by the evidence uncovered by John Armstrong. It is easy to follow Jeremy's posts on this thread to discern a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report. The main thesis of the Warren Report is that Oswald shot JFK. But that is not an "uncontested fact." In an ideal world, it would be nice to be able to trust the loyal officials of our government who prepared this report and believe this document comprises a set of "uncontested facts" of the JFK assassination. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. In reading Jeremy's posts, I am unable to discern any "uncontested facts" that he is able to marshal in support his criticism of Jim Hargrove. Specifically, what are those "uncontested facts" about Oswald from the Warren Report?