Dealey Plaza Echo

[Greg Parker]

Ok Bill, then who was the tutor? Any idea, any guesses?

Then you say the imersion program was offered off site.

Again, do you understand what this means?

Language immersion theory is a program which is sometimes called "sink or swim". Its when you literally throw the student into an environment where everyone is speaking the target language, all the time. ANd he is then forced to acquire it or fall behind. It is a highly controversial program and its success rate is very much debated.

But for our practical purposes, where and at what time before he left for Helsinki, would Oswald be in such a program? He would have to be placed at some base where he disappeared for like 8 hours a day for months on end. I know of no witness on record who can attest to that.

Jim,

He had what... about 6 or 7 weeks "brig" time at Atsugi?

He is sent back to Atsugi after an alleged breakdown in Tawain. The trip back takes how many days compared to the one day it took to get there...?

He is put on "general duty" between Oct 6 and Nov 7. What did he do during that time...?

Back in the US, he takes 30 days leave. How much of that can be accounted for?

-----------------------------

Why no comment on this?

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.

Or this?

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/

Or this?

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:

Quote

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. 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

I mean... I know AS it's not sexy like a doppelganger theory.... nor requires the enormous time and effort to learn a language that you say must have been required.... but the language thing on top of multiple other signs of AS in Oswald should not be ignored. It only makes it look like you want it to go away because it rationally explains the whole record.

[Michael Hogan]

[quote name=Greg Parker' date='24 September 2011 - 08:54 PM'

timestamp='1316912093' post='235454]

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?

Let's keep some things straight Greg. My comments on what you wrote were not nit-picking. Let me remind you that that my post dealt specifically and only

with your mistaken assertions about what Rosman wrote about John Armstrong's research.

Your claim that Jim's "error" was far more egregious than yours? Not worth debating that with you. I didn't read Jim DiEugenio's statement the same way

you do and even if I accept your interpretation, it's obvious that wouldn't be what Jim meant.

Your comments were a totally different situation.

I was more interested in discussing your erroneous claims about Rosman's articles than I was discussing Jim DiEugenio's thoughts about John Armstrong's book.

It was Rosman that had the articles in the Dealey Plaza Echo, the topic of this thread.

Your comment about the "freaky little two two Oswald cult" is childish and ugly. It's definitely not funny. Is that the tenor with which you want to discuss things with me?

Greg, your comments above are the reason I don't want to get into an extended dialogue with you. You'll do anything to steer the discussion away from the original topic.

[quote name=Greg Parker' date='24 September 2011 - 08:54 PM'

timestamp='1316912093' post='235454]

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

If you would have quoted him completely and correctly there would be no question as to what Alaric Rosman was actually saying.

And if you put yourself on a first name basis with someone, why not spell their name correctly? If I had wanted to nit pick with you I would have mentioned it in my last post.

[quote name=Greg Parker' date='24 September 2011 - 08:54 PM'

timestamp='1316912093' post='235454]

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.

You failed to take his "change of heart" into account in your summation of Rosman's beliefs re Armstrong. When I pointed it out, you called it nit picking:

[quote name=Greg Parker' date='24 September 2011 - 08:54 PM'

timestamp='1316912093' post='235454]

[quote name=Michael Hogan' date='25 September 2011 - 02:13 AM'

timestamp='1316877219' post='235434]

From Rosman's 2010 DPE article:

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.

My post had nothing to do with whether or not Alaric Rosman (or Armstrong) was right or wrong about Oswald's language skills. It was strictly about your failure

to quote Rosman completely and accurately in reference to his comments about Armstrong.

I think Alaric Rosman has some hold on reality. Your belief that Oswald suffered from Asperger Syndrome is your speculation. It's certainly not reality by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[William Kelly]

Ok Bill, then who was the tutor? Any idea, any guesses?

Then you say the imersion program was offered off site.

Again, do you understand what this means?

Language immersion theory is a program which is sometimes called "sink or swim". Its when you literally throw the student into an environment where everyone is speaking the target language, all the time. ANd he is then forced to acquire it or fall behind. It is a highly controversial program and its success rate is very much debated.

But for our practical purposes, where and at what time before he left for Helsinki, would Oswald be in such a program? He would have to be placed at some base where he disappeared for like 8 hours a day for months on end. I know of no witness on record who can attest to that.

Jim, so your alternative to Oswald quickly and secretly learning a language courtesy of the Monterey Language Institute is that another completely different person was exchanged for the person who we know as Robert's brother? But instead of coming up with a time Oswald could have studied Russian while in the Marines, you adopt the substitution theory and don't bother to wonder what the real Oswald was going while his double was running around the USSR for three years?

I think if you ask the question of how Oswald learned Russian so quickly and secretly, the Monterey program, first introduced during a secret Warren Commission meeting, is a good answer, a possibility that is not mentioned in the article devoted to the subject.

And the conclusion, one that you apparently accept, that Oswald was substituted by a completely different person for his defection, is not the correct answer, as neither Armstrong, Rosman or you have convincingly made the case for two Oswalds, when it is also possible that others intentionally impersonated him after he defected.

Edited September 25, 2011 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

I have real doubts concerning this photograph:

Compared to the Oswald that most of us are familiar with:

There are others as well.

Hi Lee,

I don't have any problem saying that I think they are one and the same person.

People change and photos deceive.

Photo evidence will never provide proof that there were two Oswalds, though perhaps there are photos of those who intentionally impersonated Oswald at various times after his defection.

BK

[Greg Parker]

Let's keep some things straight Greg. My comments on what you wrote were not nit-picking. Let me remind you that that my post dealt specifically and only

with your mistaken assertions about what Rosman wrote about John Armstrong's research.

Can you point to these assertions? What you responded to was my taking a quote from a 2008 article out of context. I admitted the error. It was inadvertent, but I understand you will never accept that. Why on earth you believe I would deliberately take the quote out of context to change the meaning when I could easily be shown as wrong, is beyond me - accept that it suits you as an opening to attack me.

Anyone who really knows me, knows if I only two choices in a sports contest: throw the game or win by cheating, I'd choose the former. They'd also tell you how competitive I am and how much giving everything my best shot means to me.

Your claim that Jim's "error" was far more egregious than yours? Not worth debating that with you. I didn't read Jim DiEugenio's statement the same way

you do and even if I accept your interpretation, it's obvious that wouldn't be what Jim meant.

Your comments were a totally different situation.

Not worth debating? What a shock.

This was Jim's opening comment where the discussion had been solely about various theories regard Oswald's Russian language ability:

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.

Please explain exactly what Jim was responding to with that? No one had attacked Armstrong or his book. All I said was that you don't need a doppelganger or a false background to explain Oswald's language ability. Was Jim simply looking for a fight? Are you?

was more interested in discussing your erroneous claims about Rosman's articles than I was discussing Jim DiEugenio's thoughts about John Armstrong's book.

It was Rosman that had the articles in the Dealey Plaza Echo, the topic of this thread.

Your comment about the "freaky little two two Oswald cult" is childish and ugly. It's definitely not funny. Is that the tenor with which you want to discuss things with me?

Greg, your comments above are the reason I don't want to get into an extended dialogue with you. You'll do anything to steer the discussion away from the original topic.

1. At this point in time I don't believe there was anything erroneous about the claims I made regarding the 20008 article. In my original post in this thread, I said: "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'."

Having re-read that article a couple of times since, I stand by that interpretation. He states (to me, fairly clearly) he is talking about one Oswald whose entire background was a legend. But the author is (or was?) a member here. I'd be happy to stand corrected by him. That you are more interested in discussing what you claim is an error on my part rather than a complete non sequitur response from Jim, says it all. Your claim that I made an error is based on your own mistaken belief that there is no difference between conclusions in the most recent article compared to the 2008 one. I wasn't even aware of the latter one when I made my first post. I searched for the article referenced by Robert and landed on the 2008 one somehow.

2. It is a freaky little cult. I have been told by an insider about the levels of weirdness going on in the Dallas phase of the research and how another prominent and respected researcher was - what could only be described as excommunicated - by the group during the writing for the heresy of questioning the wisdom of one very very small part of what was going into it. It's adherents now talk of "Harvey" as historical fact much like certain cultists talk of super-beings as historical fact and will not countenance any logic, argument or evidence which disturbs that faith. It is a freaky little cult. Call it ugly and childish all you want. It's it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck.

3. Yes, my initial post and Jim's initial post were totally different. It wasn't me who tried to change the topic to Armstrong and his book. That was Jim - you know - the guy beyond criticism. Mine was on topic and non-inflammatory, so I'm not surprised you're upset.

If you would have quoted him completely and correctly there would be no question as to what Alaric Rosman was actually saying.

And if you put yourself on a first name basis with someone, why not spell their name correctly? If I had wanted to nit pick with you I would have mentioned it in my last post.

1. I agree. In this instance, I made an error in not quoting more fully. I have explained the circumstances. That you don't accept what I said is no skin off my nose, but I'm in exactly the same situation posting here as Lee Farley - though for different reasons. For example, this post has so far taken several hours and it's still not complete. My computer stays on as I dash back and forward looking after my home-based business for 12 hours a day, 6 days a week - then trying to fit in accounting, on-line stock ordering and family time after that. Result: Chronic lack of sleep and occasional lapses in posting. Maybe I should just quit posting altogether.

2. Now you're taking offence by proxy for Alaric because I misspelled his name? If you're lurking, Alaric, my apologies.

You failed to take his "change of heart" into account in your summation of Rosman's beliefs re Armstrong. When I pointed it out, you called it nit picking:

You pointed out no such thing. These was the opening lines you used in response to ME saying there appeared to be a change of heart: Then why did Alaric Rosman title his 2008 article: Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker? Why did he write this in 2011?

You were, far from pointing out any change of heart, actually stating his 2008 position was no different than his 2010 one. IOW, it's the exact opposite of what you now claim.

My post had nothing to do with whether or not Alaric Rosman (or Armstrong) was right or wrong about Oswald's language skills. It was strictly about your failure

to quote Rosman completely and accurately in reference to his comments about Armstrong.

I think Alaric Rosman has some hold on reality. Your belief that Oswald suffered from Asperger Syndrome is your speculation. It's certainly not reality by any stretch of the imagination.

What I was responding to was your quote from a 2010 article and then asking "if that's not two Oswald's, what is?"

In quoting from a 2010 article, you have introduced material not referenced by me, nor material that I was even aware of. I did not know that Alaric had revisited the same theme and assumed the article I read was the one Robert was talking about.

It's not reality that Oswald had Asperger's? I suppose that holds for you - even if it turned out to be fact.

People with AS

can learn foreign languages more easily than others, and are far better at mimicking accents.

have trouble making eye contact (Ruth Anne Kloepfer told me he would not look her in the eye)

can learn to use their flatness to lie without detection

can sound robotic (described that way by more than one police officer)

have trouble with normal social discourse (now who said that about Oswald? Oh yeah. Everyone)

have average to above average intellect

often have intense interests

can have problems spelling yet be prolific readers

will sometimes speak with regional or foreign accents instead of their natural one.

To "steal" your line, If that doesn't describe Oswald, what does?

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

Anyone who can us 6-7 weeks of brig time to say that this was language immersion program does not know anything about language acquisition and is just grasping at straws.

Hence i did not reply.

Jim,

you failed to reply before I mentioned anything about the brig time. Anyone who says that, using the right techniques, someone with AS cannot learn a language and sound native in the time-frame I mentioned (which was much more than just the brig time!) should do themselves a favor and bone up on AS.

But you won't look into it or address it. Nothing must shatter the myths created by Armstrong.

Carry on...

Edited September 26, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I jumped on here because I thought you and Greg were discounting and being unfair to Alaric. That is all.

Jim,

here is how you opened you response:

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.

You're using a perceived slight against Alaric in order to "defend" Armstrong.

Here was my opening post:

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://reopenkennedy...s-than-dyslexia

I was saying I believe his 2008 theory was closer to the truth than Armstrong's, so please explain where and how I was being unfair to Alaric.

Never mind.

I must have been. You said so. And I'm sure Michael will agree with you. Case closed.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Bernice Moore]

Ok Bill, then who was the tutor? Any idea, any guesses?

Then you say the imersion program was offered off site.

Again, do you understand what this means?

Language immersion theory is a program which is sometimes called "sink or swim". Its when you literally throw the student into an environment where everyone is speaking the target language, all the time. ANd he is then forced to acquire it or fall behind. It is a highly controversial program and its success rate is very much debated.

But for our practical purposes, where and at what time before he left for Helsinki, would Oswald be in such a program? He would have to be placed at some base where he disappeared for like 8 hours a day for months on end. I know of no witness on record who can attest to that.

Jim, so your alternative to Oswald quickly and secretly learning a language courtesy of the Monterey Language Institute is that another completely different person was exchanged for the person who we know as Robert's brother? But instead of coming up with a time Oswald could have studied Russian while in the Marines, you adopt the substitution theory and don't bother to wonder what the real Oswald was going while his double was running around the USSR for three years?

I think if you ask the question of how Oswald learned Russian so quickly and secretly, the Monterey program, first introduced during a secret Warren Commission meeting, is a good answer, a possibility that is not mentioned in the article devoted to the subject.

And the conclusion, one that you apparently accept, that Oswald was substituted by a completely different person for his defection, is not the correct answer, as neither Armstrong, Rosman or you have convincingly made the case for two Oswalds, when it is also possible that others intentionally impersonated him after he defected.

hi bill; one question, please, if there were not two singular beings under the name of oswald, why then are there reports re military medical information, on two different men, at times in two different places at the same time, thanks.b

[Greg Parker]

I have real doubts concerning this photograph:

Compared to the Oswald that most of us are familiar with:

There are others as well.

Lee,

I'll qualify this by reaffirming I am no photographic expert. Looking at the two shots, I can see where you're coming from. But here are two photos of one of my twins, and hopefully you will see why I don't agree the Oswald shots necessarily shows two different people:

Both shots were taken this year, a few months apart. In the first one, there is a different light source and his hair is slicked down with gel. The second shows his hair as it is normally.

Also he is holding his head at a different angle, and the shots were taken at different angles... just as with the two LHO pics.

We also have the expert opinion of Shasteen (that is, if like me, you accept it was Oswald who got his hair cut there)

Mr. SHASTEEN. Oh now I think your hair is---it's a shade of black. It's not a dark black. I would say his hair was about the color of yours--it might have been a little bit darker. It might have been a little smuttier. You see, hair is a funny thing--a guy can be dark headed and if he puts oil on it, he looks real black and if he washes the oil out it's got a smutty look and he never did wear much oil because about the only time he ever come in the shop, never had his hair combed and he never had any oil on it or nothing and naturally after we cut his hair and put a little oil on it, it made it look darker.

Mr. JENNER. It darkened it up?

Mr. SHASTEEN. My hair is a whole lot darker with a little oil on it. Now this fellow here, referring to Mr. Davis----

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Davis, you're talking about?

Mr. SHASTEEN. His hair, if you took the oil off of his hair and washed it out with some kind of heavy shampoo, it would almost be what you call a blonde or light red, is that right?

Mr. DAVIS. (No response.)

Mr. JENNER. How much hair did he have? A full head of hair?

Mr. SHASTEEN. To me, he didn't have a full head of hair. It was rather short and thin around here by the temples and the way his hair lies back, he would have been bald if he had been 40 years old.

Mr. JENNER. He had hair around the center, but he was losing his hair around the sides of the forehead?

Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; there was just a little crease that started back here. Naturally, a barber would notice that because the hair is much finer back here, you see, than it was down here [indicating]. In other words, I have as much hair as I ever had but it's just so fine you can't see it and that's what happens to a guy when he gets bald-headed. The hair is still there but it just doesn't grow. It's just little fuzz, and that hair of his, in another 5 or 6 years he would have been bald-headed. You can believe it.

[William Kelly]

Ok Bill, then who was the tutor? Any idea, any guesses?

Then you say the imersion program was offered off site.

Again, do you understand what this means?

Language immersion theory is a program which is sometimes called "sink or swim". Its when you literally throw the student into an environment where everyone is speaking the target language, all the time. ANd he is then forced to acquire it or fall behind. It is a highly controversial program and its success rate is very much debated.

But for our practical purposes, where and at what time before he left for Helsinki, would Oswald be in such a program? He would have to be placed at some base where he disappeared for like 8 hours a day for months on end. I know of no witness on record who can attest to that.

Jim, so your alternative to Oswald quickly and secretly learning a language courtesy of the Monterey Language Institute is that another completely different person was exchanged for the person who we know as Robert's brother? But instead of coming up with a time Oswald could have studied Russian while in the Marines, you adopt the substitution theory and don't bother to wonder what the real Oswald was going while his double was running around the USSR for three years?

I think if you ask the question of how Oswald learned Russian so quickly and secretly, the Monterey program, first introduced during a secret Warren Commission meeting, is a good answer, a possibility that is not mentioned in the article devoted to the subject.

And the conclusion, one that you apparently accept, that Oswald was substituted by a completely different person for his defection, is not the correct answer, as neither Armstrong, Rosman or you have convincingly made the case for two Oswalds, when it is also possible that others intentionally impersonated him after he defected.

hi bill; one question, please, if there were not two singular beings under the name of oswald, why then are there reports re military medical information, on two different men, at times in two different places at the same time, thanks.b

I don't know what military medical information you are talking about on two different men. I'd like to see it. I think the medical reports are important. Oswald was given a physical exam before he left USMC and one with Marina at the US embassy in Moscow before returning to USA. The doctor who gave him the physical in Moscow was later implicated by the Soviets as an intelligence operative in the Penkovsky affair, and for some reason had given Oswald the name and phone number of his mother in Atlanta. So I suspect the doctor who gave Oswald his parting physical in the USMC was also more knowledgeable about Oswald's mission than we know.

As for the many - apparently dozens of cases of Oswald being intentionally impersonated, i think many of those cases can be explained by closer examination - and the impostor identified as someone other than a person who was also named Lee Harvey Oswald and substituted for the brother of Robert at any time.

Ruby's employee Larry Crafard has been tentatively identified as one of those who posed as Oswald at the Texas Employment Commission, the outfit that sent him to Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval.

I'm all for going back over each incident - the guy who impersonated Oswald in Louisiana trying to buy jeeps for the Cuban exiles for instance - he should be identifiable.

And whoever impersonated Oswald in Mexico City must be limited to people we know were at least there at the relevant time, especially when Oswald wasn't.

The idea that one person was responsible for all of the impersonations just doesn't hold water, though I highly respect the research that Armstrong and others have put into that theory. I just disagree with them, and the idea that we'll never know the truth because its now beyond our grasp.

Can you post some of the medical records you say indicate there were two different Oswalds?

Thanks

[William Kelly]

I have real doubts concerning this photograph:

Compared to the Oswald that most of us are familiar with:

There are others as well.

Hi Lee,

I don't have any problem saying that I think they are one and the same person.

People change and photos deceive.

Photo evidence will never provide proof that there were two Oswalds, though perhaps there are photos of those who intentionally impersonated Oswald at various times after his defection.

BK

I agree, Bill. Photos can deceive. That is why I simply have doubts and remain unconvinced. I wasn't posting the photographs as an endorsement of any theory because I've yet to make up my mind.

We really do not know what was truly going on with Oswald during his time in the Soviet Union but I do have a quick question. How convinced are you that Oswald was "fluent" in the Russian language before he entered the USSR?

Well I just read the article in the DPE that quotes Ms. Quinn as saying he was pretty good, and after he got there he fooled Marina, so I'd say based on just those two witnesses that he was pretty good at it.

And I don't think that is explained by him being exchanged for a namesake lookalike who really did speak Russian fluently as a native.

I think he wanted to learn the language, was determined to do so, took it on as a mission, was encouraged to do so, and was helped considerably by others in the US military who facilitated his learning, probably those connected with the Defense Language Institute at Monterey who were responsible for doing exactly that for those about to deploy on overseas missions.

BK

Edited September 26, 2011 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

I think Bernice is talking about the school records in New York when Oswald was supposed to be in New Orleans.

And also Zach Stout, who says he knew LHO for ten months in the service, and said he never heard him say a word in Russian or saw him studying the language.

I thought you said you read Armstrong's book Bill?

As per Greg, wow.

I have no comment about AS, since I never studied AS per language acquisition and not once was it ever brought up by any of my instructors. Nor was it in any of the five textbooks consisting of over a thousand pages that I read. Maybe Greg wants to enlighten the instructors and authors with this new and revolutionary info. After all, maybethey have been in the dark about it?

Per Greg's second point, Alaric's article is clearly influenced by John's work. What I said was that the unfairness to John has now extended to Alaric. I then demonstrated why.

Which Greg did not quote.

Jim, I have read Armstrong's book and know of all of the contradictions - but Bernice said she was referring to Oswald's medical records and not school records and she didn't mention Armstrong.

So now, instead of referring to the examples and case studies of impersonation, we just refer to Armstrong as if we have to take his theory or leave it, and the documents and witnesses he discusses are left out.

Why not discuss the cases and as Alaric glaringly left out the whole Monterey Language Institute answer to his question regarding Oswald's Russian language ability, perhaps there are other answers to those contradictions that Armstrong focuses on.

What are clearly not contradictions in the records are the dozen or so intentional impersonations of Oswald, many of which cannot be explained by Armstrong's two Oswald substitution theory.

Maybe Bernice has something with the medical records.

Let's take a look at them, because I think that whoever set Oswald up as a patsy in the assassination must have had good access to all of his records, which certainly limits the suspects.

[Greg Parker]

I have real doubts concerning this photograph:

Compared to the Oswald that most of us are familiar with:

There are others as well.

Hi Lee,

I don't have any problem saying that I think they are one and the same person.

People change and photos deceive.

Photo evidence will never provide proof that there were two Oswalds, though perhaps there are photos of those who intentionally impersonated Oswald at various times after his defection.

BK

I agree, Bill. Photos can deceive. That is why I simply have doubts and remain unconvinced. I wasn't posting the photographs as an endorsement of any theory because I've yet to make up my mind.

We really do not know what was truly going on with Oswald during his time in the Soviet Union but I do have a quick question. How convinced are you that Oswald was "fluent" in the Russian language before he entered the USSR?

Lee,

When Oswald was hospitalized in the USSR for Otitis Media, there was a secondary diagnosis of ascariasis - round worm infestation.

http://www.maryferre...5&relPageId=464

"Signs of infection include less conclusive symptoms such as a runny nose, nighttime restlessness and blisters on the lower lip inside the mouth. If you become infected, be prepared for a rough time. Infected individuals may feel bloated, tired and hungry. They may have allergies, anemia, lethargy, fuzzy thinking, headaches and roller coastering blood sugar levels. They may experience restlessness, hair loss, diarrhea, arthritis, mineral imbalances and nighttime teeth grinding. One or more symptoms may occur to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the individual.

http://www.diagnose-...nd/C171466.html

The treatment may also have resulted in hair loss.

I came across the above while looking for this report from a psychiatrist at Bodkin Hospital:

"A few days ago the patient arrived in the Soviet Union in order to apply for our citizenship. Today he was to have left the Soviet Union. In order to postpone his departure he inflicted the injury upon himself. The patient apparently understands the questions asked in Russian. Sometimes he answers correctly, but immediately states he does not understand what he was asked..."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1135&relPageId=484

Edited September 26, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

sorry. duplicate post

Edited September 26, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I think Bernice is talking about the school records in New York when Oswald was supposed to be in New Orleans.

And also Zach Stout, who says he knew LHO for ten months in the service, and said he never heard him say a word in Russian or saw him studying the language.

I thought you said you read Armstrong's book Bill?

As per Greg, wow.

Wow, indeed Jim.

I have no comment about AS, since I never studied AS per language acquisition and not once was it ever brought up by any of my instructors. Nor was it in any of the five textbooks consisting of over a thousand pages that I read. Maybe Greg wants to enlighten the instructors and authors with this new and revolutionary info. After all, maybethey have been in the dark about it?

Greg has been providing that advice from the experts.

For example, this is the first thing I provided:

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)

Did I just pull out of thin air that Aspies have a natural talent and special interest in foreign languages? No. It came from a recognized expert in the field.

"Tony Attwood is well known for sharing his knowledge of Aspergers Syndrome. He has an Honours degree in Psychology from the University of Hull, Masters degree in Clinical Psychology from the University of Surrey and a PhD from the University of London. He is currently adjunct Associate Professor at Griffith University in Queensland."

http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/

But you and Michael have made it pretty clear you have no interest in exploring alternatives to a doppelganger theory. In fact, you're quite content to keep saying Oswald had dyslexia - even though that was never diagnosed. Yet when a condition is presented that actually ticks all the boxes for a positive diagnosis, you look the other way. Why? Only one reason: dyslexia helps your case - AS obliterates it.

Per Greg's second point, Alaric's article is clearly influenced by John's work. What I said was that the unfairness to John has now extended to Alaric. I then demonstrated why.

Which Greg did not quote.

Greg quoted you in entirety and responded point by point in the first instance. Go back and check. You don't even bother quoting me at all in your response. It gives you the leeway to suggest things like an "unfairness" to Alaric as your back door method of bringing Armstrong and his book into it. Far from being unfair to Alaric, I actually said his 2008 theory was closer to the truth than Armstrong's... but please -- if you can show I was unfair to Alaric in my initial post - provide the quote - otherwise what you say about it is just plain nonsense.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Greg Parker