1953-54: Harvey and Lee in Three Consecutive School Semesters

[David Josephs]

2 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

Keep calling it context, maybe one day if you click your heels when you do it'll actually be true.

Until then...it's just a pre-conceived notion

So when Lee is treated for STD in Atsugi while Harvey is pulling guard duty in the Philippines....   who's "pre-conceived notion" are you referring to?

When a 5'4" 115 lb 8th grade boy is described as barely 4'8" and scrawny a year later.... did the streets teach you that puberty makes boys smaller?

Mark - your myopic take on the subject... your iceberg view... is tiresome.   

Declare victory... do a little dance...  pretend you don't see.... or just stay blind to anything you can't grasp...

If this and the Brennan threads are you at your best....  

      

As to your compliment... that's very gracious of you.  I'd prefer we drop this little Tet-a-Tet and move forward on subjects where we have some common ground....

John Butler and Jim will keep sparring with you I think... but i for one am done.

Any other topics pique your interest?

[David Josephs]

40 minutes ago, John Butler said:

David,

Your saying that my speculation of another time for the hunting trip could be valid?  Lee was on leave after his oriental service and that was from 23 Nov. 1958 to 18 Dec. 1958.

There is also no mention of leave in Feb., 1958.  Can't be Harvey in that photo (except for the head).   

Lee also went home after his March, 1959 discharge, maybe.  Did Robert get both dates wrong?  Two many Lees to keep up with? I say two many to keep up with? 

 

The photo is Lee John....   Robert had nothing to do with the March 59 date...that was Gorsky or did you find something referring to that?

Maybe Harvey was there in Feb '58... yet that was the time they lived at the Senator Hotel and he worked for Pfisterers....

Robert's in this up to his eyeballs....  or at least he has some amazing inside knowledge....   well at least Sept is closer than Feb

Mr. OSWALD. I would say in between the leave in 1958, and his letter received, postmarked in June 1959, I would not have received over two or three letters.
Mr. JENNER. His leave in '58 was when, again, please?
Mr. OSWALD. I recall this to be in the early fall of the year-perhaps September.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

The photo is Lee John....   Robert had nothing to do with the March 59 date...that was Gorsky or did you find something referring to that?

David,

Sorry.  There's a slight confusion here.  If Lee Oswald is discharged from the Marines in March, 1959 (according to Gorksy) then there is an opportunity for Lee Oswald to take that hunting photo in March, 1959.  It is just a possibility.  So, when did Robert take that photo of Lee?

Feb., 1958

Nov., 1958

March, 1959

Sep., 1959

He said at various times when Lee was home on leave- first in Sept., 1959 at the WC- Feb., 1958 in the book photo caption.

You brought up Nov. 1958.  Good call.  I should have remembered he came home on leave from Japan in Nov., 1958.  It's a possibility the hunting photo was taken then.

I hope that clears that up.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Robert's in this up to his eyeballs....  or at least he has some amazing inside knowledge....   well at least Sept is closer than Feb

I have to agree.  I think when all is said and done Robert will turn out to be a bona fide member of the Oswald Project.  Not as a double (although their may be a couple of instances of that, maybe) but in a support role.

[David Josephs]

Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection. 
Mr. JENNER - All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner, there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in that picture? 
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962, his profile. 
Mr. JENNER - Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is pointing her finger at him? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. 
Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. 
Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. 
 

Edited August 6, 2020 by David Josephs

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/4/2020 at 9:19 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

You see, all English dictionaries have as their number one definition variants of what is contained in the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary:

“A solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official.”

You know, the way the vast majority of the English speaking world defines "testimony."

 

Do you know what the word usually means? In this instance it means  Y O U    A R E    W R O N G.

Because it means that one definition of testimony is "a solemn declaration," period. That's right, no oaths or lawyer needed.  And that is the definition of the word as I use it.

But you knew that. It is just your snarky attitude that is making you say dumb things.

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

  On 8/4/2020 at 11:19 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

You see, all English dictionaries have as their number one definition variants of what is contained in the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary:

“A solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official.”

You know, the way the vast majority of the English speaking world defines "testimony."

 

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you know what the word usually means? In this instance it means  Y O U    A R E    W R O N G.

Because it means that one definition of testimony is "a solemn declaration," period. That's right, no oaths or lawyer needed.  And that is the definition of the word as I use it.

But you knew that. It is just your snarky attitude that is making you say dumb things.

Here he is, back for more:

And still doesn’t get it.

Yes, Sandy, I do know what the word “usually“ means.  It means nearly always.  It means normally.  It means in the majority of cases.  You’d like to widen that a tad by disregarding what even “usually” means.  

Because when you are schooled about English, you have the amazing fallback position that words mean whatever you intend them to, dictionaries be damned.

One guy says LHO’s Stripling attendance was “common knowledge;” you know, like everybody knew it.

But if they did, where is the long list of teachers and students who verified that claim?

Doesn’t exist.  (How can that be?  It was “common knowledge.”   So who knew it?)
 
Neither exists the lengthy list of teachers purportedly provided to John Armstrong.

Because for the purposes of corroboration, those people don’t exist either.  

But you’ll press the point that it’s still “common knowledge” because it was said 40+ years later by a guy with no personal knowledge from first-hand experience.

You rely upon somebody who doesn’t know something himself, to assert what he doesn’t know himself is nevertheless “common knowledge.”  And cannot cite a single person in agreement from that lengthy list of teachers Jim Hargrove maintains was given to John Armstrong.  How unusual for John to not cite from that list the people who shared that “common knowledge.”

Btw - your remote viewing psychoanalysis of me and others is every bit as on point as your use of English.  Reduced to arguing about definitions of the words you and the crack H&L squad use to overstate your points.

Comedy gold.

Do continue.

[David Josephs]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But you knew that. It is just your snarky attitude that is making you say dumb things.

Truly amazing how enjoyable this thread becomes with certain people on ignore...

just sayin'

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Yes, Sandy, I do know what the word “usually“ means.  It means nearly always.  It means normally.  It means in the majority of cases.  You’d like to widen that a tad by disregarding what even “usually” means.

 

So you're struck on the "usually?" clause, are you? Because according to your dictionary, "testimony" USUALLY has to be sworn and include lawyers?

Well, don't be!  Because below is how the Collins English Dictionary (Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014) defines testimony:

( Look ma, no oaths or lawyers needed!  And it's definition #1!  Wow, I was right all along! Again!)

 

testimony

(ˈtɛstɪmənɪ)

n, pl -nies

1. a declaration of truth or fact

2. (Law) law evidence given by a witness, esp orally in court under oath or affirmation

3. evidence testifying to something: her success was a testimony to her good luck.
4. (Bible) Old Testament

a. the Ten Commandments, as inscribed on the two stone tables

b. the Ark of the Covenant as the receptacle of these (Exodus 25:16; 16:34)

[C15: from Latin testimōnium, from testis witness]

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Truly amazing how enjoyable this thread becomes with certain people on ignore...

just sayin'

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, dueling dictionaries, is it?

Because some remedial reading seems to be in order, I’ve taken the liberty of compiling the first meanings listed for the word “testimony” in a number of dictionaries.  ( Did you really think I hadn’t already done that, Sandy?)

  

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So you're struck on the "usually?" clause, are you? Because according to your dictionary, "testimony" USUALLY has to be sworn and include lawyers?

 
Dude... you’re the guy who highlighted “usually” in red.  And asked me what it meant.  I had already posted what it says in most English dictionaries.  You may remember this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testimony

a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official

 

Or perhaps you prefer your dictionary to have less Merriam and more Webster.  Come to think of it, so do I.  Because Webster dispenses with your favorite word, “usually.”

https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/testimony

A solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.

 

Do you know what a “solemn declaration” or “solemn affirmation” mean?  Because if you don’t, there are some interesting dictionary websites you might want to peruse.

I would never accuse you of deliberately misinforming Forum members, because that would be gauche.  Yet I can’t help but notice the discrepancy between your edition of the Collins dictionary and mine, vis a vis the FIRST definition listed:

 

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

testimony

(ˈtɛstɪmənɪ)

n, pl -nies

1. a declaration of truth or fact

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/testimony

In a court of law, someone's testimony is a formal statement that they make about what they saw someone do or what they know of a situation, after having promised to tell the truth.
His testimony was an important element of the Prosecution case.

Now how could it be that the very same dictionary gives you and I different FIRST definitions for the same word?  You got any suggestions how that might be so?
    
Here’s a definition you might accept, given that its old. And English.  And from a dictionary:

https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/159867

Senses relating to the documentation or recording of facts, events, etc.
 
 1. Law. The fact or condition of being, or of having been, written down as evidence of a legal matter, esp. as part of the proceedings or verdict of a court of law; evidence which is preserved in this way, and may be appealed to in case of dispute.

 

Does that sound like it describes John Armstrong asking people questions on camera?

But perhaps you think Oxford is too stuffy, and you prefer the upstart Cambridge:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/testimony

(an example of) spoken or written statements that something is true, especially those given in a law court:
Some doubts have been expressed about his testimony.

Why apparently the Cambridge dictionary has even read passages from H&L.  Wow.

Maybe you’re not so much interested in the word’s meaning as its derivation.  Cool.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/testimony

"proof or demonstration of some fact, evidence, piece of evidence;" early 15c., "legal testimony, sworn statement of a witness

“Proof or demonstration of some fact.”  Does that describe what Armstrong got from your “witnesses?”

Or maybe that’s just too arcane for you.  Perhaps you’d like something a tad more au courant.      

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/testimony

a formal statement about something that you saw, know, or experienced, usually given in a court of law

eyewitness/expert testimony

But you’re likely to dismiss that one because it’s, you know, “British.”  After all what do the English know about speaking English?

Maybe you’re one of the hip and with-it guys who relies more upon the internet for your definitions.  I think there’s a few of those somewhere too.  Oh, here they are.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/testimony

Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.

https://www.definitions.net/definition/testimony

a solemn statement made under oath

https://www.lexico.com/definition/testimony

A formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law.
‘the testimony of an eyewitness’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/testimony
law) Statements made by a witness in court.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/testimony

a. A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body.
b. All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/testimony

Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.

https://www.yourdictionary.com/testimony
Testimony is defined as a statement or declaration given under oath in a court of law or the of sharing information about a religious experience.

An example of testimony is the story a witness tells on the witness stand in court.
An example of testimony is what a person says about a religious lesson he believes he learned from God.

Any of your “witnesses” ever take a “witness” stand in court?  Did they get a lesson from God?

Care to try again?  Because every time you do, it doesn't seem to turn out well for you.

You see, as I’ve tried to warn you several times without success, your use of the word “testimony” is designed to imbue “witness” statements with a credibility that is unearned.  

Under law.

And under English.

But since you don’t seem to think either law or English should apply, I’ll just let you and DJ go back to the echo chamber where toasting each other with beer steins, or whatever those crayon drawings are, seems to be all the rage.  Maybe you can compare word counts with Doc.

You can put me on ignore all you like.  I’m staying put, just to let a little air out of your recurring premature declarations of triumph.

If you guys had actually gotten anywhere in the past few  decades, I wouldn't be arguing these points with you.  I'd be arguing instead with the legions of like-minded souls, rather than the rag tag handful who post here.

Do continue.

 

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Question for RCD:

Why do you care more about the definition of "testimony" than you care about the evidence that "Lee Harvey Oswald?" was a U.S. government asset? 

Are you just trying to provoke fights here?  Why?

What do you want to accomplish?

 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Jim:

I thank you for actually directly addressing me, or anyone who criticizes the book for which you have become the public face.  Doesn’t happen often enough, it seems.  

Too easy to just unload another pre-fab volley of derp, rather than address the concerns brought to your attention.

But since you’ve asked, I’ll reply

First, a few words to ensure that nobody is so slow they do not understand me.  

(I cannot be blamed for those who attack without reading my posts.  Why just the other day, your pal the Doc responded to one of my posts within four minutes.  It would have taken him longer than four minutes to read the post, so one deduces that - as with DJ and Sandy - passionate desire for retribution takes precedence over actually reading what they’re replying to, but whatever....  I’m not sure you can herd all those cats anyway, what with their spitball freelancing.  Must drive you nuts.)

Because I am only human, I still have a bit of fondness for you.  And very much respect your loyalty to John.  I say that honestly and seriously.  (A real shocker for some, I think.)   
                                    
Which leads to my disappointment that so much of your valuable time is wasted re-loading another page of pre-fab derp, rather than confronting directly the points raised by critics.  You do yourself no favors by refusing to answer legitimate questions.  It makes you look like you’re running away.  Which you are.  Why?

And when you do, the H&L choir chime in during your absence.  And they do you precisely zero favors.  

Back-slap each other all you want, tell each other all you like about the far-reaching influence of H&L, Mr. This and Doctor That; the average consumer in the marketplace of ideas isn’t lining up here, or anywhere, to rally support for the book.  Where are the legions who have been swayed by reading H&L?  Not here.  Or anywhere, that I can locate.

Why is that?  Where are all the people who should be singing praises for H&L?  Because I count a half dozen true believers and a few half-hearted souls in this vicinity.

Where something is demonstrated to be incorrect, accept that fact gracefully and be thankful that a mistake made, or not caught, by your camp has been rectified.  To make the end product less easily assailed for sloppiness, inaccuracies, errors of omission and commission, and whatever else you need not be a party to.  When you refuse, you wear the error, not us.

I found a lot of merit in latter portions of John’s book.  I would quibble with some of that too, because John’s not always correct.  Or available to acknowledge it when it transpires he’s not correct.  .  Nor am I (but I don’t have a book that requires significant alteration to be taken seriously.)

I thought I had made abundantly clear that the better parts of the book - my opinion, only, you understand - could have stood alone as a better, more believable and, frankly, more honest book.

Where it was accurate

So I wish to make it plain that I think John did not completely waste his time in research, nor mine in reading it.  That doesn’t make his hypothesis true, nor does it require me to pretend otherwise.

I’ve droned on in the past about the very first thing that raised my bs-meter, which was also - sadly - the very first thing in the book.  So, I’ll cut to the chase and simply state the predicate of Gordon Lonsdale is in no way shape or form similar to the double Oswald project at the heart of the hypothesis.   To compare them is a sham.  Hell of a way to start a book.

Simply helping yourself to the use of a dead Canadian kid’s ID is in no way proportionate with or the equivalent of the scouting, spotting, recruiting, training undertaken by CIA in your scenario.  For a “project” that “might” pay dividends ten years later?  Please.  

How many doubles before somebody tumbles and it’s kaput?

I notice that there were a number of defections roughly coinciding with Oswald’s.  Did the CIA also do pre-teen twin work with them?  

Or was it simply enough for them to show up and claim they were defecting, without requiring a body double?  

If so, why not just teach somebody Russian - on the downlow - then build the necessary legend to make their defection plausible? 

You know, like they did with Oswald.

No pre-teens required.  So what necessity required this arcane Oswald project?  

None.

I’m one of those oddballs who agrees with Agency complicity to the prelude, the event itself, and cleaning up in the aftermath.  Hence, it very much bugs me that the very same scenario is made a mockery of by the conceit of two preteens being selected a decade before one or both are of any possible use.   

Not only is it wrong on its face (your set of facts don’t actually support the conclusion), but it is also the kind of book rightly made fun of by the usual suspects.  What is good about the book is neutered by what is not.

I’m also one of those oddballs who would very much like to see the truth of the assassination made plainly evident for all to see.  Before I shuffle off this mortal coil.

So, I guess my question to you is:

How do pre-teens help explain the Kennedy assassination?

Clearly, they don’t.  

But they provide entirely predictable ammunition for those who’d prefer the assassination be left to lay where it is, and has been for more than half a century.  If your collective interest is sincere, you’re doing more to help the CIA dodge history than you are to prosecute them.

Coincidental.  I Assume.

As for the issue of “testimony” it is of a piece with “common knowledge.”  Saying a word or term doesn’t make it true.  Words still do have meaning.

Any honest writer would never confuse “testimony” with “chatting with John Armstrong,” simply because they are not the same thing at all.  Which I actually demonstrated, to your apparent chagrin.  I saw the word “school” in the thread title and soon noticed that somebody or bodies required schooling.  Sorry you don’t care for that sort of thing.

So when such a word as “testimony” is employed, it is not just the result of a writer’s ignorance.  It is deliberately being used in a propaganda role, designed to confer upon the “chats with John” a respectability that is both untrue and unmerited.

You’re a writer, Jim.  Published author, too, as I recall.  I thought you’d have more respect for the written word than that.  

I know you cannot police the activities of those who think they’re helping you.  

But they’re not helping you.

You asked.

Do continue.
                       

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/7/2020 at 8:40 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

On 8/7/2020 at 11:55 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

So you're struck on the "usually?" clause, are you? Because according to your dictionary, "testimony" USUALLY has to be sworn and include lawyers?

 
Dude... you’re the guy who highlighted “usually” in red.  And asked me what it meant.  I had already posted what it says in most English dictionaries.

 

Apparently you didn't get my sarcasm. Allow me to explain, as it is a rather funny witticism whose punchline you'll not want to miss.

You claimed that my use of the word "testimony" is wrong because I use it for unsworn statements. You cited this definition to support your position:

“A solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official.”  [Sandy's highlight]

You apparently focused on the clause that begins with the the word "usually," because my use of the word "translate" does not comply with that portion of the definition. In your mind you made this optional portion of the definition mandatory by simply ignoring the word "usually."

I sarcastically brought this to your attention by asking if you knew what the word "usually" meant. Because if you did then you should realize that two meanings of "testimony" are given in the definition, not just the one you preferred. And that my use of the word "testimony" DOES comply with the other one.

(Just in case you still don't get it... without the clause that begins with "usually," the definition i "A solemn declaration." That is the definition that my use of "testimony" complies with. And while it may be "non-usual," it is nonetheless a definition. And is a #1 one.)

Here is how I asked the question:

"Do you know what the word usually means? In this instance it means  Y O U    A R E    W R O N G."

LOL, I crack myself up!   

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

On 8/7/2020 at 8:40 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Dude... you’re the guy who highlighted “usually” in red.  And asked me what it meant.  I had already posted what it says in most English dictionaries.

You claimed that my use of the word "testimony" is wrong because I use it for unsworn statements. You cited this definition to sup

 

BTW, if you were right, that the word "testimony" implies an oath is taken, then why is it that the phrase "unsworn testimony" is sometimes used? And wouldn't "sworn testimony" be redundant?

Why the need to differentiate between sworn and unsworn testimony?

 

P.S. I agree that the word "testimony" implies an oath when the context of the word is a court setting.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/7/2020 at 8:40 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I would never accuse you of deliberately misinforming Forum members, because that would be gauche.  Yet I can’t help but notice the discrepancy between your edition of the Collins dictionary and mine, vis a vis the FIRST definition listed:

 

On 8/7/2020 at 11:55 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

testimony

(ˈtɛstɪmənɪ)

n, pl -nies

1. a declaration of truth or fact

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/testimony

In a court of law, someone's testimony is a formal statement that they make about what they saw someone do or what they know of a situation, after having promised to tell the truth.
His testimony was an important element of the Prosecution case.

Now how could it be that the very same dictionary gives you and I [sic] different FIRST definitions for the same word?  You got any suggestions how that might be so?

(I'm no grammar cop, but since you found the need to point out my mistake many posts ago, I am pointing out yours here as a reminder that even you make mistakes.)

 

You and I get different definitions from Collins dictionaries because you are citing from their learner's edition, Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. This is for people learning English as a second language. Learner's dictionaries leave out definitions of words that can be easily used wrong when there are safer alternative words to use instead.

I got my definition from my favorite online dictionary, The Free Dictionary, which lists definition and synonyms from multiple dictionaries. Search for "Collins" in this page:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/testimony