Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

Gene Kelley "You would believe and trust a Russian biochemist who came out after 50 years over an American researcher? "   That is about the strangest and above all most biased sentence I have come across here. Not sure you win a price though......

Yep, that jumped straight out at me too, Bart. What? A Russian's word? Over an AMERICAN'S? Poppycock! Don't listen to him. He's probably a baby-eating commie like all the rest!

The level of debate on this forum has gone beyond infantile...

Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot forget about this document here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=295

Where Peter Gregory vouched for LHO's ability to be at least a translator...we have to deal with this document as well. I also believe Walt Brown doesn't believe LHO knew Russian (please correct me if I'm wrong!) and has arguments for such a position.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, Mr. Copeland!

"Lee Harvey Oswald's" feigned ignorance of the Russian language while he was in the USSR, versus his sheer mastery of it when he came back to America, is just stunning.  He quite clearly had some considerable Russian language abilities while still in the Marines, but his fluency in that difficult language after just two and a half years in Moscow and Minsk amazed the White Russians in Dallas who met him in 1962 and 1963.  George DeMohrenschildt may have said it best in his unpublished manuscript:

DeMohren_Russian.jpg


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone with a Russian wife who has floundered around in the Russian language for a decade, I will say again (based largely on personal experience):  The minimal level of Russian it takes to impress one's fellow Americans that you "really know Russian," which I personally acquired in about six months of self-study, is ... ABOUT THE SAME as the minimal level of Russian it takes to impress Russians that you "really know Russian" (at least in comparison to 99% of the Americans they meet) if you are careful to stick to what you do know and just nod and smile the rest of the time, which in turn is ... ABOUT THE SAME as the minimal level of Russian it takes to convince a Russian that you "have no understanding of Russian at all" if you are forced to engage in a rapid-fire conversation on a substantive topic.  The level of Russian it takes to impress an American who himself has a deep knowledge of the language that you know Russian "well enough to function as an interpreter" is quite different but not surprising after you have been completely immersed in the language and culture for 2+ years.  On the flip side of this, my wife literally didn't know ten words of English when she arrived in 2008 at the age of 54 - but now, with no formal language training whatsoever, she is a 75% fluent U.S. citizen.  I take Gregory's endorsement of LHO as an interpreter with a grain of salt, but I see NOTHING in the widely varying reports of LHO's Russian proficiency to raise any huge red flags.

The author of this excellent site, http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm, told me in an email that he went to Minsk convinced he would document a connection between LHO and American intelligence.  Like everyone I know who has gone to Minsk under the same illusion, he came away convinced the Warren Commission basically got things right.  As someone who has been to Minsk several times, I can tell you the notion that LHO was a CIA operative as opposed to merely a mixed-up goofball will be greeted with horse laughs by anyone who had any knowledge of him during that era.  But, please, dream on ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance,

When "Lee Harvey Oswald" took his U.S. Army Russian language affinity test, before he ever traveled to the USSR, he got two more answers right than wrong, which was graded "Poor."  However, as Lt. Col. Alison Folsom pointed out to the Warren Commission, Oswald was also given a number of tests in English, and was also graded "Poor."  Why did this high school dropout do as well in Russian as in English before he even traveled to the USSR?

From Dr. James Norwood's Ed Forum post of 9/19/2017:

Regarding Oswald's exam score on the  Department of Army's Russian language proficiency test, Lt. Col. Alison Folsom provided a breakdown of the results for the Warren Commission. There were three components to the exam, suggesting that this was a comprehensive test.  Oswald's scores were as follows:   understanding (-5), reading (+4), writing (+3), with the composite +2 indicating that Oswald answered two more questions correctly than those that he missed on the exam.  So, the young man scored better than 50% on this challenging exam.

Another factor needs to be considered, based on Col. Folsom's testimony:  Oswald was also administered tests in cognitive abilities in English, including reading and vocabulary; arithmetical computation; and pattern analysis.  His scores on these tests were all rated as “poor.”  Oswald was even administered a “radio code test,” in which Lt. Colonel Folsom indicated that Oswald’s score was in the bottom, or the “lowest” in results.  

For those who claim that Oswald had an innate intelligence that permitted him to learn Russian by self-study and "immersion," how can one explain the all-around negative scores he received on basic cognitive abilities?

The Warren Commission interview with Lt. Colonel Allison Folsom may be read at the following site:


http://www.whokilledjfk.net/oswsald_learning_russian.htm
 

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bart Kamp:

My comment was not meant as a slight to either nationality or profession. Regardless of how we feel about the premise of Harvey and Lee, I do consider that John Armstrong has more than demonstrated his bona fides as an unbiased and sincere researcher.  He has appeared at conferences and forums, made his work available for scrutiny, and allowed criticism of his fact finding. Not so, in my view, about Mr. Titovets ... who comes out of the blue (at the 50-year anniversary) and makes a case - less about LHO's language skills - but more for his innocence as far as intelligence connections or motives. Therefore, I don't understand how one would side with Titovets (a relative unknown, given his background and associations) over the more credible John Armstrong.  I don't see that as a bias ... its simply my opinion.  For the record, I too have doubts about the ambiguities of Harvey and Lee.  But there are a large set of associated facts that seem mighty fishy and bear more scrutiny.  However,  I don't feel the  animosity that many express for Armstrong's work ... nor do I feel compelled to demean it with sentiments such as "fairy tale" or "rubbish".     

Gene Kelly

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking once more....

Why did high school dropout "Lee Harvey Oswald" get the same scores in Russian and English language affinity in U.S. Army exams?  How did he manage to have a two-hour conversation, in Russian, with Rosaleen Quinn, a year before he ever set foot in the USSR?  Why could he speak NO RUSSIAN in Russia?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:41 AM, Gene Kelly said:

 Regardless of how we feel about the premise of Harvey and Lee, I do consider that John Armstrong has more than demonstrated his bona fides as an unbiased and sincere researcher.  

Gene Kelly

Except that a dozen eyewitnesses and Oswald acquaintance  in Minsk prove Armstrong wrong. They are still alive, like Titovets. They are nails in the Coffin of Armstrong HARVEY AND LEE. (BTW: ME&LEE the book of Judyth Vary Baker, another eyewitness (Oswald in New Orleans) and Oswald friend, is another death nail.   HARVEY AND LEE.  is a rabbit whole of enormous dimension, which IMO was created intentionally, to swallow honest researchers.  Here we have Armstrong, and there the eyewitnesses and Oswald friends and contemporaries, who don't give a damn about this book and it's silly theory.  If you want to know something about the one and only Oswald, (who had various doppelgangers, but can't be dived in a Harvey and  a Lee), I recommend the following books: I AM A PATSY by de Mohrenschild, ME AND LEE, by JUDYTH VARY BAKER and OSWALDS RUSSIAN EPISODE by Ernst Titovets. Those books fit together like parts of a puzzle and show you the real Oswald. HARVEY AND LEE IS A DEATH TRAP. Edward Haslam does not believe in it, Judyth Vary Baker does not believe in it David Lifton does not believe in it, James Fetzer does not believe in it ... I know of no living Oswald friend or acquaintance, who believes in it. Jim Hargrove is the PR man for a death horse. 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every alleged Oswald interview Karl has cited so far was supposedly conducted by CIA-defending Ernst Titovets, who called Oswald’s connection to American Intel the “wildest speculation.... A James Bond fantasy.”  For Millicent Cranor’s expose of Titovets, CLICK HERE.

If Titovets wants us to believe Oswald spoke Russian in Russia, why does he not have any recordings proving it?  Why does Oswald speak only English in every recording Titovets released?  RELEASE THE TAPES!

Why did a Russian doctor at Botkinskaya Hospital in Moscow say this of Oswald after his fake suicide attempt?

"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."

Botkinskaya.jpg

 

Norman Mailer, who won the Pulitzer prize for  journalism, made use of Soviet documents that were released at the end of the Cold War to discover the truth about Oswald’s use of language in Russia.  In “Oswald’s Tale” Mailer wrote about his private Moscow Intourist guide, Rimma Shirakova.

He didn’t seem to know a single word of Russian, so Rimma spoke to him in English.

Mailer also wrote:

People laughed at him when he talked.  His Russian was so bad people laughed, not mocking, but friendly.  He would try to pronounce words, get them wrong.  They would laugh….  You have cows in America? You have pigs in America?  He couldn’t understand their words, so they showed him with sign language, made animal sounds, and he laughed.

Some other examples....

  • Oswald dated only English-speaking Russian girls in Minsk.
  • Oswald befriended Titovets because TITOVETS SPOKE ENGLISH!
  • Russian KGB had Oswald’s apartment bugged from 1960 through 1962.  Not once do their files indicated Oswald spoke Russian.
  • May 1961--When Stellina Ivanova learned of Oswald's marriage she said, "How can that be? You don't know Russian well enough. How can you communicate to this person? Does she know English?" Oswald told Stellina that Marina knew two phrases "Switch off the light" and "kiss me, please," in English.85  It seems obvious, from her conversations with Robert Webster in 1959 and 1960, that Marina spoke English quite well. [from H&L, p. 339]

For the truth about Oswald’s hidden command of the Russian language while in the Soviet Union, read Dr. James Norwood’s account:

Oswald’s proficiency in the Russian Language

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl

Perhaps fools rush in, where angels dare not tread.  But I’ll go out on that limb and compliment John Armstrong's book. On reading the entire book, its hard not to appreciate the thorough research. And while many strive to disparage the two-Oswald aspect, there’s a lot more in his book than just the Lee versus Harvey theme. His dissection of the rifle mail order issue is impressive, as is his chapter on Mexico City, comparable in importance to the Lopez Report and John Newman's work. There exist 2,000 notebooks at Baylor and microfilm that is invaluable for anyone digging into the assassination story, compiled from the author's considerable time at the National Archives.  Responsible critics cite H&L as one of the most original books in the field, with original (sourced) footnotes and very few references to other books. For me, that is a credible researcher, and it seems penny-wise and pound foolish to criticize Armstrong over minor technical details (some of which may be inaccurate) rather than the larger issues at hand. Armstrong goes well beyond the enigmatic Harvey and Lee characters ... for example, he shows the absurdity of Marina Oswald’s conflicting, ever-changing testimony. Most interesting (and convincing) for me is his exposition of Laura Kittrell, of the Texas Employment Commission.  I do not understand how one can dispute her telling observations and the differences between the Oswald she’d interviewed earlier and the alleged Teamster who showed up at her office in mid-October 1963 (when the legendary Oswald was working at the TSBD).  Ms. Kittrell cited differences in the behavior and appearance of the two individuals, and later wrote a 90-page manuscript (available for reading at the Baylor site) ... one that the authorities had no interest in her telling observation:

“A fellow who was pretending to be the man whose wife has just had a baby, and who has been coached upon how to answer certain questions ….” 

Gene Kelly

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 8:50 AM, Gene Kelly said:

Karl

Perhaps fools rush in, where angels dare not tread.  But I’ll go out on that limb and compliment John Armstrong's book. On reading the entire book, its hard not to appreciate the thorough research. And while many strive to disparage the two-Oswald aspect, there’s a lot more in his book than just the Lee versus Harvey theme. His dissection of the rifle mail order issue is impressive, as is his chapter on Mexico City, comparable in importance to the Lopez Report and John Newman's work. There exist 2,000 notebooks at Baylor and microfilm that is invaluable for anyone digging into the assassination story, compiled from the author's considerable time at the National Archives.  Responsible critics cite H&L as one of the most original books in the field, with original (sourced) footnotes and very few references to other books. For me, that is a credible researcher, and it seems penny-wise and pound foolish to criticize Armstrong over minor technical details (some of which may be inaccurate) rather than the larger issues at hand. Armstrong goes well beyond the enigmatic Harvey and Lee characters ... for example, he shows the absurdity of Marina Oswald’s conflicting, ever-changing testimony. Most interesting (and convincing) for me is his exposition of Laura Kittrell, of the Texas Employment Commission.  I do not understand how one can dispute her telling observations and the differences between the Oswald she’d interviewed earlier and the alleged Teamster who showed up at her office in mid-October 1963 (when the legendary Oswald was working at the TSBD).  Ms. Kittrell cited differences in the behavior and appearance of the two individuals, and later wrote a 90-page manuscript (available for reading at the Baylor site) ... one that the authorities had no interest in her telling observation:

“A fellow who was pretending to be the man whose wife has just had a baby, and who has been coached upon how to answer certain questions ….” 

Gene Kelly

 

I would like to add the following to Gene's praise of John Armstrong contribution to JFK research. And that is that his work has led to overwhelming evidence that there WERE indeed two boy Oswald's. People are quick to closing their eyes to that possibility simply because they can't bring themselves to believe something so unusual. Something that doesn't fit in their comfort zone.

Everybody knows that people used to believe that the Sun revolved around Earth, and that the Earth was flat. They thought that because that is what it looks like. They resisted the idea of a spherical Earth revolving around the Sun because it made no sense to them... it was outside their comforts zones. It took hundreds of years for average people to finally accept the truth about that.

These days I think that most people would not accept several facts discovered by Albert Einstein... if it weren't for his celebrity status and the fact that Einstein's physics are widely accepted. Facts like these: The faster something travels,  1) the heavier it gets;  2) the thinner it becomes; and,  3) the slower it ages. I'm pretty sure there are some reading this who won't believe those things, even though the evidence shows otherwise.

The same thing is true with the Harvey & Lee evidence. There are a number of cases where the evidence shows Oswald to be in two places simultaneously. Or both missing and having the same tooth simultaneously. People say, ah, but these things are clearly clerical errors. The problem with that line of thinking is that the odds of so many such errors happening to a single individual are astronomically small. So small that it is more likely that there were two Oswalds than all those mistakes were made.

So Armstrong's work is not only impressive as far as his depth of research goes, but also as far as making the case for there being two boy Oswalds.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...