Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dealey Plaza Echo


Barry Keane
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, Barry.

I've just started to really go through these issue's in earnest..and always look forward to the latest...

Great job, as always.

Alaric Rosman's article on Rosaleen Quinn, [Rosaleen Quinn, A Clue to The Assassination] is required reading, and

in my estimation, definitively establishes there were two Oswald's, independently of John Armstrong's work.

Robert

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Barry.

I've just started to really go through these issue's in earnest..and always look forward to the latest...

Great job, as always.

Alaric Rosman's article on Rosaleen Quinn, [Rosaleen Quinn, A Clue to The Assassination] is required reading, and

in my estimation, definitively establishes there were two Oswald's, independently of John Armstrong's work.

Robert

Thanks Barry,

And Robert, I thought that was an interesting article too, though it doesn't tell us much more than what we knew before.

Whatever became of Rosaleen Quinn and her nephew Henry?

And while there are some interesting details there - Oswald was pretty prolific at speaking Russian at the time,

what is it that makes you and Alaric believe that it wasn't the Oswald we know but an impostor or another Oswald,

not the brother of Robert?

I see the photos Alaric uses to indicate they are two different people, but I don't see that big a difference.

As for his Russian speaking ability, how he learned the language is a mystery, but he apparently did learn how to understand,

speak and read, write and translate Russian with some proficiency before he defected.

While I don't take issue with anything Alaric says, other than the photos are of two different people, I just don't jump to the

conclusion that they are talking about two different people based on interpretations of what these people said about Oswald's proficiency in Russian.

Not mentioned in the article at all is the remark made by a Warren Commission attorney at a meeting in which he said,

"We will have to find out what he studied at the Monterey Language Institute."

Now that would, at least to me, offer an answer to the question of how and where he learned Russian in such a short amount of time.

While there is no record of Oswald having actually attended that school, there appears to be two distinct Monterey Language Institutes-

the Monterey Language Institute [About MIIS | Monterey Institute of International Studies] and the Defense Language Institute at Presidio of Monterey, California,

[ Defense Language Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

both of which were are near San Francisco and thus at the other end of the state from where Oswald was stationed near San Diego, but perhaps he had a private tutor or engaged in some sort of remote learning.

While there doesn't seem to be any mention in Oswald military record that he was associated with either language institute, there must be a reason that the WC lawyer mentioned that he saw some record that made him believe Oswald studied something at Monterey, and that's how and where he learned Russian, in my book.

The fact that whatever it was that made the lawyer make that remark and affiliate Oswald with Monterey is no longer on the record seems to indicate that parts of Oswald's records were sanitized, some even after they were reviewed by the Warren Commission.

This doesn't tell me that there were two different Oswalds, even though it is also apparent that Oswald was impersonated on more than one occasion, I just don't think this was one of those occasions.

Kiddos to Alaric for taking on a difficult, neglected and misunderstood aspect of the assassination, and to Barry for publishing it.

Thanks,

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Barry.

I've just started to really go through these issue's in earnest..and always look forward to the latest...

Great job, as always.

Alaric Rosman's article on Rosaleen Quinn, [Rosaleen Quinn, A Clue to The Assassination] is required reading, and

in my estimation, definitively establishes there were two Oswald's, independently of John Armstrong's work.

Robert

Thanks Barry,

And Robert, I thought that was an interesting article too, though it doesn't tell us much more than what we knew before.

Whatever became of Rosaleen Quinn and her nephew Henry?

And while there are some interesting details there - Oswald was pretty prolific at speaking Russian at the time,

what is it that makes you and Alaric believe that it wasn't the Oswald we know but an impostor or another Oswald,

not the brother of Robert?

I see the photos Alaric uses to indicate they are two different people, but I don't see that big a difference.

As for his Russian speaking ability, how he learned the language is a mystery, but he apparently did learn how to understand,

speak and read, write and translate Russian with some proficiency before he defected.

While I don't take issue with anything Alaric says, other than the photos are of two different people, I just don't jump to the

conclusion that they are talking about two different people based on interpretations of what these people said about Oswald's proficiency in Russian.

Not mentioned in the article at all is the remark made by a Warren Commission attorney at a meeting in which he said,

"We will have to find out what he studied at the Monterey Language Institute."

Now that would, at least to me, offer an answer to the question of how and where he learned Russian in such a short amount of time.

While there is no record of Oswald having actually attended that school, there appears to be two distinct Monterey Language Institutes-

the Monterey Language Institute [About MIIS | Monterey Institute of International Studies] and the Defense Language Institute at Presidio of Monterey, California,

[ Defense Language Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

both of which were are near San Francisco and thus at the other end of the state from where Oswald was stationed near San Diego, but perhaps he had a private tutor or engaged in some sort of remote learning.

While there doesn't seem to be any mention in Oswald military record that he was associated with either language institute, there must be a reason that the WC lawyer mentioned that he saw some record that made him believe Oswald studied something at Monterey, and that's how and where he learned Russian, in my book.

The fact that whatever it was that made the lawyer make that remark and affiliate Oswald with Monterey is no longer on the record seems to indicate that parts of Oswald's records were sanitized, some even after they were reviewed by the Warren Commission.

This doesn't tell me that there were two different Oswalds, even though it is also apparent that Oswald was impersonated on more than one occasion, I just don't think this was one of those occasions.

Kiddos to Alaric for taking on a difficult, neglected and misunderstood aspect of the assassination, and to Barry for publishing it.

Thanks,

BK

If I understand Aleric correctly, he is NOT supporting a second Oswald. Rather, he is saying that Oswald's background as we have in the records, is one constructed for a "legend".

Aleric is closer to the facts than Armstrong. Where I disagree is that I believe his background, as given, is reasonably accurate. There were just one or two key elements withheld from his history at key points in time for a very specific reason.

As far as his language ability goes... we don't need doppelgangers or false legends to explains it.

This explains it quite well:

Asperger's and Learning Foreign Languages

"Sometimes the person with Asperger's Syndrome can have a natural talent and special interest in foreign languages. The person can acquire the ability to speak many languages without the pronunciation errors expected when a typical person from a specific home country learns that language. For example, when an Englishman learns French, a Native of France can easily detect that the speaker's first language is English. When a person with Asperger's Syndrome learns a foreign language, there can be a remarkable ability to pronounce the words as spoken by a native speaker. This can lead to a successful career in languages such as a translator or interpreter."

(Source: The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome By Tony Attwood p 225)

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t44-why-oswald-was-more-likely-to-have-suffered-aspergers-than-dyslexia

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so sick and tired of people who either have not read Armstrong's book, or who are intent on being unfair to it going ahead and pontificating on what is in it and how he arrived at his conclusions.

You simply cannot reduce nearly a thousand pages of (generally) new research into a forum post.

But now this tendency branches out to go after articles that agree with John.

My question is this: Can you really not see what Alaric is saying? I sure can. Because he goes after it and spells it out in arguments 6-12. I mean he actually breaks down Oswald's term of service and zeroes in on two mathematical factors:

1. How many days Oswald actaully had to devote to exclusively learning Russian.

2. How long it actually takes to learn this quite difficult language, and we must recall Oswald's dyslexia.

These two factors are then keystoned by the talks with Rosaleen Quinn which, in their uncensored form, reveal that Oswald was fluent in Russian BEFORE he left for Helsinki, and before he reached the age of 20. And this is something the WC knew would pose a problem, which is why they mischaracterized her testimony.

Now John did a lot of work on this, that is trying to figure out how long it would take to become fluent in a quite difficult language. And his numbers, as I recall, pretty much align with Alaric's. They are at the outer limits of what can be considered acquisition time for Western languages. You would have to study Russian for hours per day for about two years. So even if Oswald did go to the Monterey School, he sure as heck did not go for two years. But if he did, there were two Oswalds. SInce he was also elsewhere.

I have some experience with this since I studied two languages which were both Romance languages: Spanish and Italian. I studied the first for two years and the second for three. I did not come close to reaching fluency in either. See, it is much easier to understand a language than it is to speak it fluently. And recall, Russian is much more hard to master than those two languages.

Now, as most language acquisitions experts will tell you, the earlier one is exposed to a foreign language, the easier it is to acquire. The optimum age is perhaps from 3-7. John's theory holds that the false Oswald, that is Lee, really was born in East Europe, which may explain the Polish accent. And he was from New York. And that he was proficient in Russian as an adolescent. And this is how he explains this incredibly fast acquisition of a difficult language. By a guy who was dyslexic.

Alaric seems to agree with him. Big deal.

Well Jim, I have read Armstrong's book, and even contributed to it in providing a former Atsugi Marine from Oswald's unit who says that he didn't recognize the guy killed by Jack Ruby as the guy he served with in Japan.

But just because Oswald learned the Russian language fairly fluently in a short amount of time doesn't mean that there were two different people - one fluent in Russian and one not.

Rather, it means that he did learn the language fairly well over the course of a year or two, while he was still a teenager, and just as he refused to tell Rosaleen Quinn and his own brother where and how he learned Russian, there must be a secret to it - but not necessarily a secret that requires two different people.

The Defense Language Institute, according to their own history, pioneered quick learning techniques, sent tutors out into the field to teach select students, and incorporated special three day - long intense sessions in which the student and the teacher don't speak any English, which appears to be the type of program that facilitated Oswald learning the language. And the DLI was established to teach special military and government employees about to embark on assignments abroad.

This isn't about Armstrong, it's about Oswald, and how and where he learned Russian before he defected.

The Warren Commission reference to the Monterey School and what language Oswald studied there has never been explained, at least from the official records, and it can and should be explained.

And the answer isn't that there were two Oswalds.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so sick and tired of people who either have not read Armstrong's book, or who are intent on being unfair to it going ahead and pontificating on what is in it and how he arrived at his conclusions.

You simply cannot reduce nearly a thousand pages of (generally) new research into a forum post.

Jim, this is specifically about Oswald's language skills. Armstrong did not produce nearly a thousand pages of new research on that one issue.

In fact, according to Aleric, "his[Armstrong's] coverage [of this issue] is surprisingly inadequate."

But now this tendency branches out to go after articles that agree with John.

My question is this: Can you really not see what Alaric is saying? I sure can. Because he goes after it and spells it out in arguments 6-12. I mean he actually breaks down Oswald's term of service and zeroes in on two mathematical factors:

Can I? I presume you mean in regard to conclusions made? If so, yes. His conclusion is laid out in points 21 and 22. To quote part of that... "The fact that Oswald was a natural Russian speaker does not by itself oblige us to accept Armstrong's thesis of two Oswald's; within the parameters of this fact is the alternative: that we are dealing with a single person whose background is a CIA legend."

My problem with that is that it's a false dichotomy. Bill has presented a third alternative, and I, a fourth - either of which singly or in combination, are far more likely to be true than either of the options presented by Aleric.

1. How many days Oswald actaully had to devote to exclusively learning Russian.

2. How long it actually takes to learn this quite difficult language, and we must recall Oswald's dyslexia.

One cannot recall that which was never there. Oswald was not dyslexic. His problem with written language have few indications of dyslexia and many indications of Asperger's.

I have no problem with anyone believing Oswald was dyslexic. But this was never diagnosed in his youth, and such a diagnosis now does not comport with what we know of him. Whereas he could have been diagnosed in his youth with Dyslexia, but wasn't; he had no opportunity to be diagnosed with Asperger's because it was not recognized in the US until the 1970s. Apart from his spelling problems and foreign language ability, Asperger's also explains among other things, his inability to make eye contact (per Ruthanne Kloepfer) his list-making; his intensity; his social awkwardness; and his inability to make an argument beyond the surface of the subject, merely repeating his initial points (per the Paines and others)

These two factors are then keystoned by the talks with Rosaleen Quinn which, in their uncensored form, reveal that Oswald was fluent in Russian BEFORE he left for Helsinki, and before he reached the age of 20. And this is something the WC knew would pose a problem, which is why they mischaracterized her testimony.

Now John did a lot of work on this, that is trying to figure out how long it would take to become fluent in a quite difficult language.

Did he consider the Language Institutes mentioned by Bill with their speed programs? Did he consider a medical condition such as Asperger's which switches on interest and a high degree of ability in learning foreign languages?

Or did he just just consider the one possibility: a second "Oswald"?

And his numbers, as I recall, pretty much align with Alaric's. They are at the outer limits of what can be considered acquisition time for Western languages. You would have to study Russian for hours per day for about two years. So even if Oswald did go to the Monterey School, he sure as heck did not go for two years. But if he did, there were two Oswalds. SInce he was also elsewhere.

I have some experience with this since I studied two languages which were both Romance languages: Spanish and Italian. I studied the first for two years and the second for three. I did not come close to reaching fluency in either. See, it is much easier to understand a language than it is to speak it fluently. And recall, Russian is much more hard to master than those two languages.

Yep. There it is: only one thing under consideration. But now there are three other options on the table:

Aleric: There was one Oswald who learned Russian outside the time-frame considered. His entire background was a false legend.

Bill: He went to a Foreign Language school in Monterey which specialized in expedited learning.

Greg: He had a condition known as Asperger's; one indication of which is an extraordinary ability to learn language and sound pretty much like a native.

Now, as most language acquisitions experts will tell you, the earlier one is exposed to a foreign language, the easier it is to acquire. The optimum age is perhaps from 3-7. John's theory holds that the false Oswald, that is Lee, really was born in East Europe, which may explain the Polish accent. And he was from New York. And that he was proficient in Russian as an adolescent. And this is how he explains this incredibly fast acquisition of a difficult language. By a guy who was dyslexic.

Alaric seems to agree with him. Big deal.

Aleric doesn't agree that "two Oswalds" are necessary to explain the language ability. Bill agrees with Aleric on that point. I agree with Aleric on that point. Anyone who doesn't agree that options exist, apart from Armstrong's theory, may just be too close to that theory to see past it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so sick and tired of people who either have not read Armstrong's book, or who are intent on being unfair to it going ahead and pontificating on what is in it and how he arrived at his conclusions.

You simply cannot reduce nearly a thousand pages of (generally) new research into a forum post.

Jim, this is specifically about Oswald's language skills. Armstrong did not produce nearly a thousand pages of new research on that one issue.

In fact, according to Aleric, "his[Armstrong's] coverage [of this issue] is surprisingly inadequate."

But now this tendency branches out to go after articles that agree with John.

My question is this: Can you really not see what Alaric is saying? I sure can. Because he goes after it and spells it out in arguments 6-12. I mean he actually breaks down Oswald's term of service and zeroes in on two mathematical factors:

Can I? I presume you mean in regard to conclusions made? If so, yes. His conclusion is laid out in points 21 and 22. To quote part of that... "The fact that Oswald was a natural Russian speaker does not by itself oblige us to accept Armstrong's thesis of two Oswald's; within the parameters of this fact is the alternative: that we are dealing with a single person whose background is a CIA legend."

My problem with that is that it's a false dichotomy. Bill has presented a third alternative, and I, a fourth - either of which singly or in combination, are far more likely to be true than either of the options presented by Aleric.

1. How many days Oswald actaully had to devote to exclusively learning Russian.

2. How long it actually takes to learn this quite difficult language, and we must recall Oswald's dyslexia.

One cannot recall that which was never there. Oswald was not dyslexic. His problem with written language have few indications of dyslexia and many indications of Asperger's.

I have no problem with anyone believing Oswald was dyslexic. But this was never diagnosed in his youth, and such a diagnosis now does not comport with what we know of him. Whereas he could have been diagnosed in his youth with Dyslexia, but wasn't; he had no opportunity to be diagnosed with Asperger's because it was not recognized in the US until the 1970s. Apart from his spelling problems and foreign language ability, Asperger's also explains among other things, his inability to make eye contact (per Ruthanne Kloepfer) his list-making; his intensity; his social awkwardness; and his inability to make an argument beyond the surface of the subject, merely repeating his initial points (per the Paines and others)

These two factors are then keystoned by the talks with Rosaleen Quinn which, in their uncensored form, reveal that Oswald was fluent in Russian BEFORE he left for Helsinki, and before he reached the age of 20. And this is something the WC knew would pose a problem, which is why they mischaracterized her testimony.

Now John did a lot of work on this, that is trying to figure out how long it would take to become fluent in a quite difficult language.

Did he consider the Language Institutes mentioned by Bill with their speed programs? Did he consider a medical condition such as Asperger's which switches on interest and a high degree of ability in learning foreign languages?

Or did he just just consider the one possibility: a second "Oswald"?

And his numbers, as I recall, pretty much align with Alaric's. They are at the outer limits of what can be considered acquisition time for Western languages. You would have to study Russian for hours per day for about two years. So even if Oswald did go to the Monterey School, he sure as heck did not go for two years. But if he did, there were two Oswalds. SInce he was also elsewhere.

I have some experience with this since I studied two languages which were both Romance languages: Spanish and Italian. I studied the first for two years and the second for three. I did not come close to reaching fluency in either. See, it is much easier to understand a language than it is to speak it fluently. And recall, Russian is much more hard to master than those two languages.

Yep. There it is: only one thing under consideration. But now there are three other options on the table:

Aleric: There was one Oswald who learned Russian outside the time-frame considered. His entire background was a false legend.

Bill: He went to a Foreign Language school in Monterey which specialized in expedited learning.

Greg: He had a condition known as Asperger's; one indication of which is an extraordinary ability to learn language and sound pretty much like a native.

Now, as most language acquisitions experts will tell you, the earlier one is exposed to a foreign language, the easier it is to acquire. The optimum age is perhaps from 3-7. John's theory holds that the false Oswald, that is Lee, really was born in East Europe, which may explain the Polish accent. And he was from New York. And that he was proficient in Russian as an adolescent. And this is how he explains this incredibly fast acquisition of a difficult language. By a guy who was dyslexic.

Alaric seems to agree with him. Big deal.

Aleric doesn't agree that "two Oswalds" are necessary to explain the language ability. Bill agrees with Aleric on that point. I agree with Aleric on that point. Anyone who doesn't agree that options exist, apart from Armstrong's theory, may just be too close to that theory to see past it.

Well, I suppose the salient points have been made and to be honest, very good points have been made by Bill and Greg and Jim that still raise the possibility that the Russian language issue in and of itself, does not definitively prove there were two different Oswald's, my fault, if you want to call it that is that the ultimate two Oswald's scenario are the ten minutes after the assassination at the Texas School Book Depository, it seems rather definitive that the Oswald who worked at the TSBD walked out after the assassination at 12:31, and then at 12:40 another "Oswald," who according to Roger Craig was the same Oswald he later in the Dallas Police office, who confusingly enough, was the Oswald

who left the TSBD at 12:31. At least that is my view.

The Oswald who left in the Rambler with a Cuban turned up in the Oak Cliff area and ostensibly tried to use a pay phone in a washateria, and the Rambler was apparently abandoned, although I have never read anything about what happened to that Rambler. A good question would be why wasn't there any attention given to that Rambler after the assassination. Why wasn't there an FBI Report regarding it's disposition after the assassination, why wasn't it given a WC Exhibit Number?

My guess would be for the same reason it took a couple of decades to ascertain that Roger Craig was telling the truth about being in Fritz's office and that Fritz lied about it ..a case of getting a little too close to getting to the bottom of the case I would surmise.

See

In Defense of Roger Craig

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/01st_Issue/rcraig.html

I have been working on several aspects of the Rambler area and later this weekend I am going to update the Rambler thread......Irrespective of the Russian language conundrum, ultimately I believe the events of November 22, 1963 at the scene of the crime, may resolve, or at least give a more illuminated view of what was really happening.

To those who say, we know what happened, I say, there were and are significant questions still unresolved. I will have a couple of surprises in the upcoming post, the factual kind, but I still have a couple of things to transcribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alaric Rosman's 2010 Dealey Plaza Echo article is titled: Rosaleen Quinn - A Clue to the Assassination. The title of a talk he presented on April 17, 2010 was worded a little more strongly: Rosaleen Quinn: "The Key to the Assassination"

In the November 2008 issue of DPE Rosman contributed an article titled: Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker. In 2008 this was obviously a work-in-progress for Rosman.

Greg Parker has quoted some of Rosman's comments on Armstrong, but he has done so incompletely and misleadingly. I'm not surprised.

For example:

Jim, this is specifically about Oswald's language skills. Armstrong did not produce nearly a thousand pages of new research on that one issue.

In fact, according to Aleric, "his[Armstrong's] coverage [of this issue] is surprisingly inadequate."

Greg falsely makes it appear as if Rosman is saying Armstrong's coverage of Oswald's language skills is "surprisingly inadequate."

It's clear that Rosman was referring specifically and only to Armstrong's coverage of Rosaleen Quinn.

And if Greg had quoted Rosman in full it would be clear that Rosman also wrote that "besides John Armstrong..... he could not think of anyone post-Epstein who has expatiated on Rosaleen Quinn."

Aleric doesn't agree that "two Oswalds" are necessary to explain the language ability. Bill agrees with Aleric on that point. I agree with Aleric on that point.

Anyone who doesn't agree that options exist, apart from Armstrong's theory, may just be too close to that theory to see past it.

Then why did Alaric Rosman title his 2008 article: Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker?

Why did he write this in 2011?

The evidence for the belief that Robert Oswald's kid brother Lee was not the Russian-speaking man shot by Jack Ruby does NOT
solely depend
on the doppelganger

evidence of John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee (
great though Armstrong's work was
), but is contained in Commission Exhibit 2015 and in the abundantly supportive

evidence contained in its hearings, this evidence being
very supportive
of both CE2015
and John Armstrong's position
. It should have been obvious over 40 years ago

that the man interrogated (allegedly for 12 hours) by the Dallas Police Department
was not the Lee Oswald born in Alvar Street
in New Orleans October 39, but an

immigrant of Baltic origin
, using the Alvar street identity, and therefore claiming to be Robert Oswald's kid brother. (Bolds mine)

If that's not two Oswalds, what is?

Alaric Rosman was awarded the 2010 Dealey Plaza UK Annual Achievement Award. The vote was unanimous. That's an impressive accomplishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alaric Rosman's 2010 Dealey Plaza Echo article is titled: Rosaleen Quinn - A Clue to the Assassination. The title of a talk he presented on April 17, 2010 was worded a little more strongly: Rosaleen Quinn: "The Key to the Assassination"

In the November 2008 issue of DPE Rosman contributed an article titled: Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker. In 2008 this was obviously a work-in-progress for Rosman.

Greg Parker has quoted some of Rosman's comments on Armstrong, but he has done so incompletely and misleadingly. I'm not surprised.

For example:

Jim, this is specifically about Oswald's language skills. Armstrong did not produce nearly a thousand pages of new research on that one issue.

In fact, according to Aleric, "his[Armstrong's] coverage [of this issue] is surprisingly inadequate."

Greg falsely makes it appear as if Rosman is saying Armstrong's coverage of Oswald's language skills is "surprisingly inadequate."

It's clear that Rosman was referring specifically and only to Armstrong's coverage of Rosaleen Quinn.

And if Greg had quoted Rosman in full it would be clear that Rosman also wrote that "besides John Armstrong..... he could not think of anyone post-Epstein who has expatiated on Rosaleen Quinn."

Aleric doesn't agree that "two Oswalds" are necessary to explain the language ability. Bill agrees with Aleric on that point. I agree with Aleric on that point.

Anyone who doesn't agree that options exist, apart from Armstrong's theory, may just be too close to that theory to see past it.

Then why did Alaric Rosman title his 2008 article: Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker?

Why did he write this in 2011?

The evidence for the belief that Robert Oswald's kid brother Lee was not the Russian-speaking man shot by Jack Ruby does NOT
solely depend
on the doppelganger

evidence of John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee (
great though Armstrong's work was
), but is contained in Commission Exhibit 2015 and in the abundantly supportive

evidence contained in its hearings, this evidence being
very supportive
of both CE2015
and John Armstrong's position
. It should have been obvious over 40 years ago

that the man interrogated (allegedly for 12 hours) by the Dallas Police Department
was not the Lee Oswald born in Alvar Street
in New Orleans October 39, but an

immigrant of Baltic origin
, using the Alvar street identity, and therefore claiming to be Robert Oswald's kid brother. (Bolds mine)

If that's not two Oswalds, what is?

Alaric Rosman was awarded the 2010 Dealey Plaza UK Annual Achievement Award. The vote was unanimous. That's an impressive accomplishment.

Armstrong may have studied many of the records but he doesn't answer the question of how Oswald learned Russian and instead proposes two different Oswalds - and surmises we will never know the true identity of the other one, which I believe is a false premise.

Alaric Rosman can be given the Academy Award and it won't change the fact that Oswald's ability to learn the Russian language quickly and in a secret manner isn't proof there were two Oswalds.

And the fact that Alaric ignores the references to Oswald's attendance at the Monterey Language Institute certainly leads down a path that helps explain how he quickly and secretly learned Russian before defecting, and while still the USMC.

And Robert, I understand your point about the "Oswald" who left the TSBD and entered the Rambler. I am interested in the Washateria sighting and of course there were dozens of examples of "Oswald" being seen at other locations when his presence was accounted for elsewhere. But that means that there was someone intentionally impersonating him, and not that there were "two Oswalds," one who could speak Russian clearly with an accent and one who didn't speak Russian very well.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some experience with this since I studied two languages which were both Romance languages: Spanish and Italian. I studied the first for two years and the second for three. I did not come close to reaching fluency in either. See, it is much easier to understand a language than it is to speak it fluently. And recall, Russian is much more hard to master than those two languages.

Let me expand on this point.

The development of fluency, that is oral fluency, is greatly aided by having an environment in which one can speak and be talked back to in the target language. Again, any language acquisition expert will tell you this.

And this is why the WC excuse for how Oswald developed his Russian capabilities is mildly amusing, and its why they had to misrepresent Quinn. There is no way in Hades that Oswald could become fluent in Russian by teaching himself through records or reading periodicals. That is simply not true. I mean who was he going to exchange conversation with? Which is what he did with Quinn.

One way you can do this is by having a tutor. See, John learned German by studying it and by having a part time tutor for a year. But he did not become as fluent in German as Oswald was in Russian. In other words he did not attain what is usually referred to as mastery, as it appears Oswald did by the time he met with Quinn. ANd BTW, Quinn had worked with a tutor for about a year. And Oswald spoke the language better than she did.

There is no evidence that Oswald ever had a tutor. There is no evidence that he was ever in an environment of Russian speakers prior to leaving for Helsinki. And the evidence about Monterey is that it was a classroom type environment, not a tutoring situation.

Jim, how can you ignore this?

... .at a Warren Commission executive session whose minutes were declassified in 1974, chief counsel J. Lee Rankin is quoted saying of Oswald: "We are trying….to find out what he studied at the Monterey School of the Army in the way of languages."

Monterey Language Institute - The Education Forum

Gerald Posner tries to close the door on this lone of inquiry when he notes, "Monterey was not an intelligence facility, and its records show that Oswald never attended a single class there." (Gerald Posner, Case Closed [New York: Random House, 1993], p. 63.

But in fact, the Defense Language Institute was and is an "intelligence facility" where US military and civilian government personnel are trained in foreign languages, and they specialized in Japanese and Russian at the time, and thier history - available on line - shows that you didn't even have to physically go there since they sent out packets of self-paced 80 hour programs, and also had 13 facilities where they taught languages where students and tutors lived for three days at a time in close quarters with beds and cooking facilities and didn't speak any English in crammed courses that accelerated the learning of the language. These were strictly for "pre-deployment" US military and civilian government personnel about to be sent overseas.

You can believe that Oswald was "substituted" by another person who spoke Russian fluently as Armstrong theorizes, or you can surmise as I do that he was trained in the Russian language by the secret Monterey "IMERSION" program that at one time was mentioned in his military records, but has since been removed for reasons of national security, as 50,000 such records are still being withheld.

http://www.dliflc.edu/index.html

The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) traces its roots to the eve of America's entry into World War II, when the U.S.Army established a secret school at the Presidio of San Francisco to teach the Japanese language......At the Presidio of Monterey, the renamed Army Language School (ALS) expanded rapidly in 1947–48 to meet the requirements of America's global commitments during the Cold War. Instructors, including native speakers of more than thirty languages and dialects, were recruited from all over the world. Russian became the largest language program, followed by Chinese, Korean, and German. After the Korean War (1950–53), the school developed a national reputation for excellence in foreign language education. ALS led the way with the audio-lingual method and the application of educational technology such as the language laboratory.

DLIFLC is a multi-service school for active and reserve components, foreign military students, and civilian personnel working in the federal government and various law enforcement agencies. Instruction takes place in eight separate LANGUAGE SCHOOLS.The present facilities at the PRESIDIO OFMONTEREY accommodate approximately 3,500 Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen, as well as select Department of Defense (DoD) members and the U.S. Coast Guard. To attend DLIFLC one must be a member of the Armed Forces or be sponsored by a government agency.

To further advance student knowledge in a particular language, DLIFLC has designed an IMMERSION PROGRAM which consists of an off site facility where students spend from one to three days in an isolated environment with their instructors and are not allowed to speak English. The facility is equipped with kitchens and sleeping quarters, while the program consists of real-world exercises, from bargaining for food and clothing at a market place, to going through customs, or making hotel reservations.

Each year the Institute ships more than 250,000 LSKs to deploying forces.....consisting of an interactive 80-hour self-paced DVD which teaches basic language, culture and limited reading and writing.....is also the home of the FIELD SUPPORT AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS DIVISION, which provides pre-deployment basic language and cultural awareness training to service members. Instructor MOBILE TRAINING TEAMS travel year-round to deliver from two days to fourweeks of training, depending on the demands of the requesting unit. Intermediate, advanced and refresher courses are conducted at this facility. DLIFLC also maintains LANGUAGE TRAINING DETACHMENTS (LTD) at 13 sites throughout the continental United States and Hawaii, where DLIFLC instructors are assigned to teach language sustainment and enhancement courses at the demand of the particular military service.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill:

For many people there will never be enough evidence of two Oswalds. Unless the two Oswalds were standing next to each other in a photo--one with a thick neck, the other a pencil neck, one about 5' 9", the other about two inches taller, one weighing about 140 lbs,the other about 25 pounds heavier. I mean one could have a placard saying Lee, and the other with a placard saying Harvey, and then someone would still say the photo was faked.

Alaric does not "prove" there were two Oswalds. But he does bring up some very interesting facts about whether or not Oswald could have acquired mastery in Russian while he was in the Marines. I mean when did it happen?

I answered your query about Monterey above.

Jim, I'm not saying someone - apparently more than one person impersonated Oswald at various times, but that doesn't mean Oswald was "substituted" by another person when he went to USSR and there were "two Oswalds."

And I don't think that your training in two languages answers my query about Monterey, since the basic background of the Defense Language Institute at Presedio Monteray indicates they had the capability of quickly and secretly training US military personnel in foreign languages before being deployed overseas, which is exactly what Oswald's situation was before defecting to USSR.

Please read the basic background info on both the Monterey Language Institute and the Defense Language Institute and then answer the question of why Lee J. Rankin would say, "We are looking into what Oswald studied there in the way of languages."

Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will go you one better, since I have read the stuff about DLA before. And I know all about immersion programs.

In Melanson's book, he talked to an expert in language acquisition. This professor taught Russian in college.

He also underwent language training in the service..

Professor Weeks said that to attain Russian fluency takes twice as many hours as say Spanish or French, two Romance languages. (BTW, the word Romance comes from Roman, since they are Latin based. Russian is not Latin based, it is Indo-European.) Weeks said it would take over 1,100 hours of instruction plus tutoring to attain oral fluency.

Do the math: if its eight hours a day (which is unlikely in itself) that means its about eight months. Now check Oswald's itinerary while in the service. Could he have been in Monterey for 8 straight months?

If so, then there is some real skullduggery going on someplace.

God bless the late, great Phil Melanson, the first COPA board member to endorse my call for a federal grand jury investigation of the crimes related to the JFK assassination.

And I don't dispute how difficult it is to learn Russian, as compared to other romantic languages, but the bottom line is, Oswald somehow and for a large part secretly learned the language, and that, in itself, is not evidence there were two Oswalds, one fluent in Russian and one not.

If you read the background on the DLI, where Lee J. Ranklin was led to believe Oswald had once studied, he didn't have to go anywhere to receive their training, as they had their tutors go to the students - and they also offered the special "IMERSION PROGRAM," an off-site faciltiy where such language programs were given such training.

To further advance student knowledge in a particular language, DLIFLC has designed an IMMERSION PROGRAM which consists of an off site facility where students spend from one to three days in an isolated environment with their instructors and are not allowed to speak English. The facility is equipped with kitchens and sleeping quarters, while the program consists of real-world exercises, from bargaining for food and clothing at a marketplace, to going through customs, or making hotel reservations. Each year the Institute ships more than 250,000 LSKs to deploying forces.....consisting of an interactive 80-hour self-paced DVD which teache sbasic language, culture and limited reading and writing.....is also the home of the FIELD SUPPORT AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS DIVISION, which provides pre-deployment basic language.... in two days to four weeks of training, depending on the demands of the requesting unit.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alaric Rosman's 2010 Dealey Plaza Echo article is titled: Rosaleen Quinn - A Clue to the Assassination. The title of a talk he presented on April 17, 2010 was worded a little more strongly: Rosaleen Quinn: "The Key to the Assassination"

In the November 2008 issue of DPE Rosman contributed an article titled: Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker. In 2008 this was obviously a work-in-progress for Rosman.

Greg Parker has quoted some of Rosman's comments on Armstrong, but he has done so incompletely and misleadingly. I'm not surprised.

For example:

Jim, this is specifically about Oswald's language skills. Armstrong did not produce nearly a thousand pages of new research on that one issue.

In fact, according to Aleric, "his[Armstrong's] coverage [of this issue] is surprisingly inadequate."

Greg falsely makes it appear as if Rosman is saying Armstrong's coverage of Oswald's language skills is "surprisingly inadequate."

It's clear that Rosman was referring specifically and only to Armstrong's coverage of Rosaleen Quinn.

And if Greg had quoted Rosman in full it would be clear that Rosman also wrote that "besides John Armstrong..... he could not think of anyone post-Epstein who has expatiated on Rosaleen Quinn."

Michael, on second reading, you're right. I took it out of context. It was late at night and I am chronically sleep deprived. I know you will not accept any excuse from me, but no matter; I apologize for the error.

But once again, in looking for a nit to pick with me, you overlook far more egregious errors of others. Where is your rap over the knuckles for Jim for stating that Armstrong produced nearly a thousand pages of research on Oswald's Russian language ability? But he gets a free pass, does he not, as a fellow member of the freaky little two two Oswald cult?

So what was Aleric actually saying then? That Armstrong spent surprisingly little time on a person Aleric considers a key to the assassination.

Aleric doesn't agree that "two Oswalds" are necessary to explain the language ability. Bill agrees with Aleric on that point. I agree with Aleric on that point.

Anyone who doesn't agree that options exist, apart from Armstrong's theory, may just be too close to that theory to see past it.

Then why did Alaric Rosman title his 2008 article: Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker?

Why did he write this in 2011?

He obviously had a change of heart in the intervening 3 years because in 2008 he clearly indicated then that he leaned toward a scenario which had one Oswald with his entire background nothing but a legend.

The evidence for the belief that Robert Oswald's kid brother Lee was not the Russian-speaking man shot by Jack Ruby does NOT
solely depend
on the doppelganger

evidence of John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee (
great though Armstrong's work was
), but is contained in Commission Exhibit 2015 and in the abundantly supportive

evidence contained in its hearings, this evidence being
very supportive
of both CE2015
and John Armstrong's position
. It should have been obvious over 40 years ago

that the man interrogated (allegedly for 12 hours) by the Dallas Police Department
was not the Lee Oswald born in Alvar Street
in New Orleans October 39, but an

immigrant of Baltic origin
, using the Alvar street identity, and therefore claiming to be Robert Oswald's kid brother. (Bolds mine)

If that's not two Oswalds, what is?

It's an imaginary two Oswalds. It's like one religion interprets the bible one way... while others interpret it differently. It helps to have some hold on reality. Foreign languages can be picked up very quickly with the right techniques. And people with Asperger's can mimic the accent of those they listen to.

Alaric Rosman was awarded the 2010 Dealey Plaza UK Annual Achievement Award. The vote was unanimous. That's an impressive accomplishment.

Sheesh. And I got a New Frontier Award from Lancer in '09. That was nice of them...

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I answered your query about Monterey above. The Monterey reference in the executive session hearings is quite nebulous. It says they have a report he was there. When was he there? How long was he there? What did the report consist of? Unless we know those things then we do not know how much progress he could have made.

But no one seems to want to tackle the Asperger's solution.

Why is that? Too off the wall?

An estimated 2 - 3 people out of every 1,000 have Asperger's in the US.

Compare that two any intelligence program known to exist that is similar to Armstrong's theory. There are NONE. Yes, I know he uses 2 examples... but in doing so, he is comparing apples and oranges.

So which theory is more off the wall?

This is from Language Without Limits based in the UK

As far as handling language is concerned, many of those diagnosed as having Asperger syndrome have good general language skills from an early age, and will have copedcompetently with work in their first language in primary school, before coming to another language. They may well have been good, even precocious, readers and can have an excellent range of unusual words within their conversational speech. Quite a few adopt a non-local accent for their everyday speech – frequently an American one, although there can be some surprises. Interestingly, this phenomenon also exists in the USA also, where, it is said, a city kid may adopt a 'hillbilly' accent. These pupils tend to be good 'literal' mimics of the foreign accent and lack the self-consciousness of their peer group in trying to copy a foreign accent accurately from the teacher or tape. They have the potential to have the best accents in the class.

So all of the language/speech/accent you guys use to prop up this unrivaled CIA program can be explained by Asperger's - something that at least does exist in the real world and real life examples can easily be found.

And not only do Aspies take to foreign language like ducks to water, there are, as Bill has pointed out, fast-track learning techniques.

Here is one:

http://www.fourhourw...r-plus-a-favor/

A person with AS would be a perfect CIA agent. We all know the saying that the only way 3 people can keep a secret is if two are dead.

But there is a twist to that. Only if 2 are dead... or all 3 are Aspies...

Here is one person with AS talking about how he would make a perfect spy. Think about Oswald as you read:

I always thought I would make a great secret agent. Since about age 5 I've wanted to join MI6/SIS which is England's version of the CIA/NSA. I have no emotions and ones I do are very limited. If I am told to eliminate my target, then even if that target is my best friend then orders are orders "Sorry, Bro. But you know how it is - you gotta get - before you get got.." *silenced pistol shot to the head*.Before I get taken out myself by a Russian agent I was working along side to try and take out some Chechen's trying to smuggle arms into Afghanistan. *Hears shotgun pump, turns towards Vladimir*I'd say "это так, как оно есть, право, друг мой?" . Then to be dead and face the eternal oblivion of death which I don't care about at all. We'll all be there soon enough as it is, may as well go out with a bang. icon_cool.gif I have virtually no facial expressions and I'm a very no nonsense guy because of AS. I play no games and pull no punches. I used to have the inability to lie, but my monotonous voice and lack of facial and bodily expressions makes lying an easily developed skill that I can do very well and nobody can tell. I'm not a big xxxx but I practiced when I was a kid because I couldn't and now with my natural poker face and my understanding of lies and how to use and detect them, I think this would make me a very useful person when.Not to mention the fact that I never make small talk, I only say what needs to be said. I couldn't possibly give anything away. One of the things that makes me socially awkward is because I have no time nor the desire for other people's bulls**t. There's no room in MI6 for people's problems or people's objections or whatever reason people act as weird and stupid as they do. They are in charge of national security and whatever other dodgy dealings that goes on behind the scenes of this world. There would be no "Well, I said this, but if you had social skills you would know what I meant was this..." unless there was some kind of code that I have had to learn.I don't think I'm easy to manipulate. I know what I know and because I don't work the same as other people and don't talk when I have to and people couldn't manipulate and because I think that most people are full of #######4 I always finding myself having to scan what people say for information. I have taught myself things note when people are talking to understand their motives or emotions behind it, even if its a lie or if somebody is taking the piss which pretty much puts me on my guard. I don't let people in easily if at all. If somebody wanted information out of me it would be impossible to. The only way to get into out of me is some kind of torture that involves moths. I'm a total ice cube. I don't build and emotional attachment to people or things. The only people I do have are my immediate family. This isn't to say that I'm a self controlled psycho killer but if I was given the order doing the kind of work that MI6 and CIA do, then I wouldn't have problem with it. I can accept if somebody wants to kill me, and I can accept the danger involved and the fact that I won't live long enough to retire, and me killing somebody who has done the same and has worked hard to get into that line of work doesn't bother me. If they work for the enemies secret service then they are against us and need to be eliminated, they would do the same to me and I'm not killing an innocent. No big deal. I read a book about become obsessed with the job of my choice and never half-a$s it. That's the kind of job where you work 24/7 and don't really have time for outside distractions that I don't really want. Its been shown countless times that a person with high functioning Asperger's is capable of extreme success in careers that are within their obsessions. When I see somebody like myself who has one of these obsessions then its impenetrable by anything, no person or situation take take their (in this case, my) mind away from it. I know a guy who is a life long engineer and started out as an apprentice and now lives in Zurich earning roughly £400,000 a year working for a multi-national corporation.I think people with AS would be the most useful in that kind of work. I just find it annoying because my path has been destroyed. I went to college to study the necessary subjects, went to join the military and got denied because I have AS. I say I'm not taking it hard. Dream of a job and then end up with a career in sales.

For a better formatted (easier) read, go to:

http://www.psychforu...topic71977.html

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...