Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

So, I guess my question to you is:

How do pre-teens help explain the Kennedy assassination?

Clearly, they don’t.  

They do, though, because that’s what the EVIDENCE shows.  I believe Hoover and his FBI made every effort to collect and destroy the evidence for the two LHOs, but it is difficult to make an entire life disappear, and they made enough mistakes that we can piece together what actually happened.

Why did FBI agents appear within hours of the assassination to seize all the original school and early employment records of “Lee Harvey Oswald?”  In any honest investigation, Hoover could not possibly have determined whether there were co-conspirators or whether other U.S. government officials were also targeted.  And yet he spent considerable resources seizing and promptly losing all sorts of records about a child.  

As John Armstrong and the ARRB’s Joe Freeman discovered, all the original copies of the school and employment records of LHO disappeared, replaced by b&w photographic copies.


ARRB_copies.jpg

We know from surviving correspondence that in 1964, for some reason, the Warren Commission asked the FBI for the originals of the NYC school records of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” but that, even at that early date, they had already disappeared.  New York City officials, including Judge Florence Kelley and NYC Mayor Robert Wagner were involved in a correspondence attempting to ascertain what had happened to the original school records of LHO, which apparently disappeared after Judge Kelley personally handed the originals to FBI SA John Malone.

In this post, I present John’s evidence, including five supporting documents, showing how the original NYC school records disappeared in 1964.  Why did Hoover decide that all this material had to disappear?  What was he hiding?

I know.

One of the ways I know is the evidence presented in this very thread.

You suggest also that LHO learned Russian because he was secretly tutored in it while in the Marines.  This is very logical assumption, one that John A. carefully considered in the opening pages of Harvey and Lee.  John took this possibility seriously enough that he began tracking down and questioning soldiers who knew LHO from the Marines (in this case, actually the American-born LHO).  One person was Zack Stout, who worked with LHO for nearly a year in Atsugi, the Philippines, Corregidor, and Subic Bay.  Here’s what Zack said to John during a lengthy interview from the 1990s:

I asked Zack if [he] ever saw Oswald study the Russian language. Zack said, "Most of the time we were with a mobile radar unit. Shortly after he arrived we left Japan and traveled constantly from location to location in the South China Sea (beginning in November 1957). I know Oswald didn't attend any Russian classes or read any Russian books or listen to any Russian records. He didn't have anywhere to get such materials and if he had them we (Stout and fellow Marines) would have known about it. We slept in the same bunkhouse and most of the time worked on the same radar crew. The idea that Oswald studied Russian in Japan is ridiculous--it just didn't happen."2Harvey and Lee, p. 5

But soon afterward, we have Comrade Oswaldovitch reading Russian newspapers, listening to Russian music, and carrying on a Russian conversation with a Russian language student at the little Marine Corps Air Facility in Santa Ana, California.  (At the same time, the American-born LHO was at the larger  Marine Corps Air Station in nearby El Toro, California.)  

Next up is Mother Russia.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

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.

 

I have used dictionary definitions to prove that a person telling what happened -- without being sworn in -- is giving "testimony." It's unsworn testimony, but still it's testimony.

Just because you don't like the definitions I point out doesn't make them non-existent or untrue. Just because you don't use a word a certain way doesn't mean that others can't either.

You know, you're treating dictionary definitions just the way you treat H&L evidence... you simply ignore what you don't believe.

Above, you gave a hand-picked list of "testimony" definitions from dictionaries thinking that they would make the one's I pointed to disappear. Well guess what... there are plenty of dictionaries whose definitions of  "testimony" include unsworn statements.

  • A declaration of truth or fact. (Collins)
  • A spoken or written statement that something is true, esp. one given in a court of law, or the act of giving such a statement. (Cambridge)
  • A declaration or statement made under oath or affirmation by a witness in a court, often in response to questioning, to establish a fact; any affirmation or declaration. (Websters)
  • A formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law. (Oxford)
  • Firsthand authentication of a fact. (Merriam-Webster)
  • Evidence of a witness; evidence given by a witness, under oath or affirmation; as distinguished from evidence derived from writings, and other sources. ( The Law Dictionary )
  • An assertion offering firsthand authentication of a fact. (Princeton WordNet 3.0)
  • An account of first-hand experience. (Wictionary)

 

Do you still claim that a person's statements cannot be called "testimony" if he wasn't under oath? According to dictionaries?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Addressed to Jim:

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.

 

Leave Jim out of this. Fact is, he told me that he doesn't use the word "testimony" and he politely asked I would refrain from doing so too. I said no, because there is nothing wrong with using that word.

In the environment I grew up and learned in, we use the word "testimony" synonymously with "sworn or unsworn testimony." Apparently others have been exposed to "testimony" being synonymous to "sworn testimony." Well the dictionaries show that either case is acceptable. It's only RCD who cannot accept what the dictionaries say. He wants everybody to believe that I am intentionally misleading people by referring to the "testimonies" given to John Armstrong. He says I should call them "chats."

 

8 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

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.

 

See?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You know, you're treating dictionary definitions just the way you treat H&L evidence... you simply ignore what you don't believe.

Whereas you've demonstrated a belief in things that don't exist, and simply ignore when people say "your evidence is not compelling."  Or worse yet, "nonexistent."

 

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Above, you gave a hand-picked list of "testimony" definitions from dictionaries thinking that they would make the one's I pointed to disappear.

Nothing hand-picked about it.  Cherry picking is what led to H&L.  It's to be avoided.

As stated at the top of the post, I sought out the primary definitions - you know, the first ones; the ones called "primary" because they are the most commonly used  - and supplied them.   Verbatim.  You could check that, or you could withdraw your accusation that I selected them for a dishonest skew.   If I did that, I'd have to pay H&L royalties.

You'd know that if you'd actually read my post.  But, once again, into the breach lads, let's prevail at all costs.   By proving repeatedly we haven't read what we're replying to.

And by the way, you didn't cite "one's" (sic) but "one."   Shall we now look up the definitions for "singular" and "plural?"

And if you'd actually read my post, you'd realize that you've just cribbed definitions that were in the list I posted.  As though they were somehow your discovery.

Amazing how quickly you forget things you claim to have read.  But didn't.

Comedy gold.

Do continue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Leave Jim out of this. Fact is, he told me that he doesn't use the word "testimony" and he politely asked I would refrain from doing so too. I said no, because there is nothing wrong with using that word.

So, when writing about people John Armstrong talked to, a published author doesn't use the word "testimony" because he knows what it means, and that it's an over-reach he doesn't need to get called out for. 

And he's asked you to refrain from using it, because he knows what it means.  And because he knows that's it's an over-reach that reflects poorly on the hypothesis every time you do it.  And yet you can't help yourself.

Do a word search for the contents of H&L and let us know how many times John Armstrong uses the word "testimony" for people not sworn in under oath. 

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

RCD ...wants everybody to believe that I am intentionally misleading people by referring to the "testimonies" given to John Armstrong.

If you aren't misleading people, Jim wouldn't ask you to refrain from using a word whose meaning he knows.

Is your misleading deliberate, or unwitting?  Only you would know that for certain. 

Jim's asked you not to do precisely what I've asked you not to do.   For precisely the same reason.

Doesn't matter which side requests it, you won't do it either way.

Because..... courage!

How can you possibly think you're helping the cause?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

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?

 

Looks like we need to have a lesson on hypercorrection.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
10 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

How do pre-teens help explain the Kennedy assassination?

Clearly, they don’t.

This proves RCD doesn't understand the H&L theory.

Oh he understands the theory.  (Exemplary use of language for accuracy; acknowledging that it is a theory and not factual nor proven.  Very even-handed of you, Sandy.)

He also understands that the hypothesis is unnecessary, superfluous, and in excess to requirements.

He said so here not long ago... oh yes, here's what he said:

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.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2020 at 8:51 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:
On 8/9/2020 at 8:15 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Leave Jim out of this. Fact is, he told me that he doesn't use the word "testimony" and he politely asked I would refrain from doing so too. I said no, because there is nothing wrong with using that word.

So, when writing about people John Armstrong talked to, a published author doesn't use the word "testimony" because he knows what it means, and that it's an over-reach he doesn't need to get called out for. 

 

If I were writing a book, I would be more specific with the word "testimony." Because "testimony" can mean either sworn or unsworn testimony and formal writing should be more specific than that.

But I'm not writing a book, I'm making comments on a forum. I am free to use words that are less precise when it doesn't matter much what the precise meaning is. Especially when readers can tell what I'm talking about from context.

John's witnesses (oh dear, do I dare call them witnesses???) generally did not have a motive to lie, and so I accept their statements just as readily as I would a sworn-in witness. So I have no problem with calling what they said "testimonies," PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT, BY DICTIONARY DEFINITION, WHAT THEY SAID ARE INDEED TESTIMONIES. No oath taking is required for witness statements to be called testimonies. No matter how strenuously RCD denies this proven fact. Proven by simply reading the definitions of "testimony."

RCD is a classical example of an ideologue. He doesn't believe there is such a thing as unsworn testimonies, even though most dictionaries state otherwise. He doesn't like those definitions and so he simply ignores them. As David J. says, he can't know what he doesn't want to know.

RCD is the same way with H&L evidence. The H&L concept doesn't fit into his ideology. So regardless of how strong and compelling a piece of H&L evidence is, he will simply ignore it. Just like he ignores word definitions he doesn't like.

Carry on RCD.

 

Quote

And he's asked you to refrain from using it, because he knows what it means.

 

No... he (Jim) asked me to refrain from using "testimony" because he knew you'd make a big deal of it. You've proven him right.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

He said so here not long ago... oh yes, here's what he said:

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.

 

Another example of RCD not understanding the H&L theory.

We all know, except for RCD, why the teenaged boys were chosen. It is a fundamental part of the theory. But RCD doesn't know it because he doesn't want to know it. He just wants to say "No pre-teens required."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

RCD is a classical example of an ideologue. ... The H&L concept doesn't fit into his ideology. So regardless of how strong [sic] and compelling [sic] a piece of H&L evidence is, he will simply ignore it. ... We all know, except for RCD, why the teenaged boys were chosen. It is a fundamental part of the theory. But RCD doesn't know it because he doesn't want to know it. He just wants to say "No pre-teens required."

I'm sure Robert can answer these accusations for himself, but I'd just like to make a couple of points.

Firstly, in the pot and kettle department, it takes a bit of nerve for a 'Harvey and Lee' believer to accuse someone else of being an ideologue. The 'Harvey and Lee' cult requires its disciples to believe that persons unknown set up a long-term doppelganger scheme in which a number of preposterous things happened. For example:

- two unrelated boys from different parts of the world, native speakers of two different languages, were chosen at a young age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look virtually identical;

- and, magically, the two unrelated boys did turn out to look virtually identical a decade or so later, apart from the fact that one of them had a 13-inch head;

- and each of the unrelated but virtually identical boys had a mother named Marguerite, each of whom was unrelated but virtually identical to the other;

- and one of the unrelated but virtually identical Oswalds followed the other unrelated but virtually identical Oswald around Dallas on the day of the assassination, framing him for the murders of JFK and Tippit;

- and the unrelated but virtually identical Oswald who framed the other unrelated but virtually identical Oswald blew the lid on the long-term doppelganger scheme, not only by getting himself arrested in the same place at the same time, but by telling the cops that his name, too, was Oswald;

- and one of the unrelated but virtually identical Oswalds, together with one of the unrelated but virtually identical Marguerites, vanished without a trace immediately after the assassination, possibly into the witness protection program, which didn't exist at the time.

It's all a bit silly, isn't it?

People who question that sort of nonsense are not ideologues. People who proclaim that sort of nonsense are ideologues.

Secondly, what was the purpose of the ridiculous long-term doppelganger scheme, in Sandy's opinion?

By the way, congratulations to Sandy on his new professorship!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If I were writing a book, I would be more specific with the word "testimony." Because "testimony" can mean either sworn or unsworn testimony and formal writing should be more specific than that.

But I'm not writing a book, I'm making comments on a forum. I am free to use words that are less precise when it doesn't matter much what the precise meaning is. Especially when readers can tell what I'm talking about from context.

So, if the occasion warranted, such as writing a book, you’d be precise in your use of words.

But since you’re only riffing here for a bunch of non-book readers, it matter less.    

You seem to be saying that words change meaning depending on who reads them?

Got it.  Very gracious of you to admit that you have one level of literacy for one occasion, and an entirely different one for others.

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

RCD is a classical example of an ideologue. He doesn't believe there is such a thing as unsworn testimonies, even though most dictionaries state otherwise. He doesn't like those definitions and so he simply ignores them. As David J. says, he can't know what he doesn't want to know.

When in fact the issue is that you cannot teach me (or anyone) what you cannot prove, or teach.  That’s gotta hurt.

No wonder you save such special venom for me.  Just a boy who won’t do as he’s told by teachers.  Who don’t know their own subject.

Noted.

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

CD is the same way with H&L evidence. The H&L concept doesn't fit into his ideology. So regardless of how strong and compelling a piece of H&L evidence is, he will simply ignore it. Just like he ignores word definitions he doesn't like.

Dude... you’re the one who uses words precisely or imprecisely depending on whether it’s for a book and just the yokels and rubes who read internet stuff.  By your own admission.

Wow.  What victory for you.

I’m sorry, but when was the last time you posted anything “strong and compelling?”  I don’t read all your stuff, admittedly, because it so rarely contains anything “strong and compelling.”  

Was it when you admitted that you believe there were second mastoid surgery records, despite the fact that nobody in the world had ever seen them, heard of them, or known anything about them?  You know: "just because they don’t exist, doesn’t mean they never did."

You know, like unicorns.

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Carry on RCD.

Oh I plan to.  No worries there, mate.

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim) asked me to refrain from using "testimony" because he knew you'd make a big deal of it. You've proven him right.

Very gracious of you to admit that when cornered,  the various members of the crack H&L squad are in regular contact with each other, plotting strategy for how to deal with upstarts who keep poking holes in your collective (yet evolving) delusion.  

But if you're all in tight communication, why does each of you wander off script so many times, contradicting each other, and sometimes even your own evidence.

Don't get me wrong; it's comical and enjoyed by many.

But how is it that you can conspire together and still not be on the same page?

All this freelancing must drive Jim and John nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2020 at 9:27 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

So, if the occasion warranted, such as writing a book, you’d be precise in your use of words.

But since you’re only riffing here for a bunch of non-book readers, it matter less.    

You seem to be saying that words change meaning depending on who reads them?

Got it.  Very gracious of you to admit that you have one level of literacy for one occasion, and an entirely different one for others.

When in fact the issue is that you cannot teach me (or anyone) what you cannot prove, or teach.  That’s gotta hurt.

No wonder you save such special venom for me.  Just a boy who won’t do as he’s told by teachers.  Who don’t know their own subject.

Noted.

Dude... you’re the one who uses words precisely or imprecisely depending on whether it’s for a book and just the yokels and rubes who read internet stuff.  By your own admission.

Wow.  What victory for you.

I’m sorry, but when was the last time you posted anything “strong and compelling?”  I don’t read all your stuff, admittedly, because it so rarely contains anything “strong and compelling.”  

Was it when you admitted that you believe there were second mastoid surgery records, despite the fact that nobody in the world had ever seen them, heard of them, or known anything about them?  You know: "just because they don’t exist, doesn’t mean they never did."

You know, like unicorns.

Oh I plan to.  No worries there, mate.

Very gracious of you to admit that when cornered,  the various members of the crack H&L squad are in regular contact with each other, plotting strategy for how to deal with upstarts who keep poking holes in your collective (yet evolving) delusion.  

But if you're all in tight communication, why does each of you wander off script so many times, contradicting each other, and sometimes even your own evidence.

Don't get me wrong; it's comical and enjoyed by many.

But how is it that you can conspire together and still not be on the same page?

All this freelancing must drive Jim and John nuts.

Brilliant Robert and its great to see you posting again. Been a while since I've personally seen you around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...