A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If Jim or Sandy believe that the information at this link

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

really "proves nothing", perhaps they could explain why.

It proves nothing because it makes false assumptions, leads to false answers, and is generally incoherent.

One example is this equation of Greg's:

62 days + 5 half days + 3 days absent + 1 day tardy + 8 half day absences = 71.8 days --- the exact figure we find on the Beauregard records.

Add those numbers and see if you get "71.8 days." You won't.

Greg get's close to that number (72.5) if he treats a "half day" as literally  0.5 days. For example, he treats 5 half days as 2 1/2 days. Greg doesn't understand that "half day" really means "partial day." If a child was late for the first class, he would be marked as tardy. If he came in after the first class, or left before the last class, he would be marked as absent one "partial day." The reason the school used the phrase "half days" instead of "partial days" is because half days could be abbreviated in the records. For example, being absent "5/2" days meant that the student was absent for parts of 5 days. (The abbreviation is "5/2.") (See EDIT below.)

So in the equation above, when adding up the total number of days, "5 half days" should be treated as 5, not 2 1/2.

So why was Greg happy to do the equation the way he did? Because it adds up to 72.5, which is close to the number 71.8, which is a number he found on the record. Unfortunate for Greg, 72.5 is not 71.8, and the 71.8 is located on the record on a row that has nothing to do with the Fall semester of 1953 that we are talking about.

There is more, but I will spare you.

 

Quote

Then anyone who is interested in the topic of Oswald's school records can take the simple step of clicking on the link, to compare the two interpretations.

By all means, do!

 

EDIT: I need to re-examine my remarks about "half days." I may be wrong about that.

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Of course, Oswald never had a "near perfect command of the Russian language", and he never "mastered the Russian language"

Oswald may not have mastered writing in Russian (this I do not know), but he certainly did master speaking and comprehending Russian. Jim has posted the evidence for that fact numerous times and it is quite conclusive.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

<blockquote>The theory is that Russian speaking HARVEY immigrated to the United States when he was in about the 4th grade. And that would explain why Oswald would pass the Russian Test -- designed for native speakers, according to Bugliosi -- with poor scores. He spoke at a 4th grade level. (At least that's my understanding of the theory.)</blockquote>

But there is only a very remote chance that the hypothetical Hungarian boy would have been brought up in a Russian-speaking family, and the only piece of evidence we have about the ages at which Russian was taught in Hungarian schools states that it was taught only from grade 5 onwards. The hypothetical Hungarian boy could not realistically have left Hungary with a native speaker's knowledge of Russian when he was in the fourth grade.

I'll bet that the odds of that happening are greater than the odds of a person teaching himself Russian in his spare time and mastering the language a few years later.

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Tracy Parnell writes:

<blockquote>I would take your "evidence" for two Oswalds to the US Congress, an investigative journalist such as Morley, or any other official or person in authority and see how far you get. You will be laughed at.</blockquote>

Of course the evidence will be laughed at by any sensible person.

Just like those "sensible" scientists around the world who laughed at Einstein for his bizarre theories of relativity.

sensible  ≠  genius 
consensus  ≠  truth

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just like those "sensible" scientists around the world who laughed at Einstein for his bizarre theories of relativity.

sensible  ≠  genius 
consensus  ≠  truth

 

When you have proved the H&L theory and it is accepted as a historical or scientific fact as was Einstein's theory let me know. I'm not going to hold my breath though because the theory as presented in Armstrong's book has been disproven.

Edited August 24, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Greg Parker puts the final nail in the coffin in the "two Oswalds attending schools in NO and NYC" silliness that Armstrong (masquerading as Hargrove?) is passing on as a real-life event

LOL What Greg Parker said is complete nonsense, and Michael has no idea of that because he understands none of this.

Maybe he would understand it if he actually tried to.

 

[Michael Walton]

I'll  just never be able to understand  how Larsen prides himself on being a cold calculating by the book evidence man that when real solid evidence is brought forth like Parker did he calls it nonsense and it proves nothing.

Meanwhile he also claims he's  on the fence about this entire case. He claims he's  still studying and making a decision. Talk about a mass of contridictions.

This is probably why such a person who claims he posseses superior intelligence  and is clear eyed claimed many months ago he saw one of the old guys up on the knoll brandishing  a pistol in his hand as Kennedy's  head blew up.

You read that right.

When I  called him out on it he claimed he was only joking. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

When you have proved the H&L theory and it is accepted as a historical or scientific fact as was Einstein's theory let me know. I'm not going to hold my breath though because the theory as presented in Armstrong's book has been disproven.

Tracy,

You are fibbing. The theory has not been disproven. (And neither has the book.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

40 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I'll  just never be able to understand  how Larsen prides himself on being a cold calculating by the book evidence man that when real solid evidence is brought forth like Parker did he calls it nonsense and it proves nothing.

Micheal,

With that statement you have admitted that you will take as evidence something you do not understand at all. (I know you don't understand it because I have read it, I understand it, and I know it is nonsense. Jim Hargrove has proven so with evidence and reason.)

Congratulations... you are proven yourself to be one of the ignorati.

 

40 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Meanwhile he also claims he's  on the fence about this entire case. He claims he's  still studying and making a decision. Talk about a mass of contridictions.

I announced some time ago that I am no longer on the fence. I believe the Harvey and Lee Theory is correct. Not every aspect of it, but most of it.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

30 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

You are fibbing. The theory has not been disproven. (And neither has the book.)

 

Yes it has by the 1981 exhumation and by the scientific evidence presented by the HSCA.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

What Armstrong should do is rewrite the book and this time hire an editor and get it down to about 300 pages. In the rewrite, he would have to account for all of the debunking (by making up new fables) that has been done by myself, Greg Parker, Jeremy and others. But his ego will not allow him to do that.

[Jim Hargrove]

Still waiting for an H&L critic to respond to this issue, which I posted more than a month ago....

Harvey Oswald’s ability to understand Russian, and his attempts to hide that fact, were noted by a Russian doctor during Oswald’s earliest days in the USSR. In October 1959 Harvey made a false suicide attempt hoping the act would help him complete his intel assignment in Russia.  One of the doctors at Botkinskay Hospital in Moscow who attended him wrote, "The patient apparently understands the questions asked in Russian. Sometimes he answers correctly, but immediately states that he does not understand what he was asked."

 

Harvey Oswald’s Russian ability was noted by many people before he even “defected" to the Soviet Union, including Rosaleen Queen and a number of Marines.  This has been discussed many times before.

Tracy Parnell wants us to believe Harvey Oswald didn't hide his Russian language abilities while in the Soviet Union (although he clearly did, from all but a couple of people). How does Mr. Parnell explain the document above?
 

[Jim Hargrove]

To someone just happening on this page and wondering what all the outrage is about, click here and see for yourself:

HarveyandLee.net

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy Parnell wants us to believe Harvey Oswald didn't hide his Russian language abilities while in the Soviet Union (although he clearly did, from all but a couple of people). How does Mr. Parnell explain the document above?

He simply distrusted the doctor and assumed as an authority figure that he was reporting to the KGB.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy Parnell wants us to believe Harvey Oswald didn't hide his Russian language abilities while in the Soviet Union (although he clearly did, from all but a couple of people). How does Mr. Parnell explain the document above?

Hey Jim,

It's occurred to me that, if Oswald hid his Russian speaking skills, that would be pretty good evidence in itself that his defection was an intel operation. Because we know he could carry on a two hour conversation before his defection. Most people who could speak some Russian would have wanted to do so while in Russia, especially a Russian enthusiast like Oswald.

This would especially be the case after Oswald had been in Russia for a while. Because at that point he was able to read the classics, etc. etc. If he was still hiding his skills at that point, it surely was because he was an intelligence agent.

So do you know of other witnesses who said that Oswald didn't speak much Russian while in Russia, or didn't speak it well?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey Jim,

It's occurred to me that, if Oswald hid his Russian speaking skills, that would be pretty good evidence in itself that his defection was an intel operation. Because we know he could carry on a two hour conversation before his defection. Most people who could speak some Russian would have wanted to do so while in Russia, especially a Russian enthusiast like Oswald.

This would especially be the case after Oswald had been in Russia for a while. Because at that point he was able to read the classics, etc. etc. If he was still hiding his skills at that point, it surely was because he was an intelligence agent.

So do you know of other witnesses who said that Oswald didn't speak much Russian while in Russia, or didn't speak it well?

 

Sure, Sandy!

Just last Saturday, W. Tracy Parnel wrote:

Unfortunately for Armstrong, In 1995, three years before she talked to Armstrong, Ziger told an Argentinian publication that “Nobody could say anything [about lies LHO told] because he spoke Russian poorly Dad would translate ...” 

There is other evidence, but I do love it so when Mr. Parnell provides it!!!

What more can I say?