Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Reponse to Bud on McAdams' forum:

No. They didn't respond; you did. And you responded with false analogies. Perhaps you meant to say that they were your responses to the ideas that I expressed. That would have been a better way to put it, but as I said, you don't use the English language as well as I do. 

When I said that Oswald was teaching some Russian, I was referring to Nelson Delgado saying that Oswald taught him some Russian. You retorted that you could teach someone some "things" in a foreign language without knowing the language. I am not sure what you meant by "things." But, by your reasoning, no claim that attests of someone knowing a language should be respected. After all, if he could teach someone how to say some things in the language, you could do that, so it doesn't count. If he's observed reading newspapers in the language, that doesn't count because you could breeze through a Russian newspaper and get something from it, so what the heck. Reject whenever you think you have a twist which disqualifies it. That's your motto. "It doesn't count because given this, that, or the other thing, I could do it." When can't you say that, Bud? You're just playing a game with imaginary trump cards. That's all you're doing. 

Take, for instance, your dismissal of Rossilyn Quinn, a woman who was formally studying Russian at the Berlitz School. Was she proficient? Did she know enough to determine if Oswald was proficient? But, you don't ask those questions about Mack Osborne, do you. His ability to make observations about Oswald's Russian goes unexamined and unsuspected by you. But what did he say? We'll get to that momentarily. 

But, you are in denial about a very important thing, and that is, that there is no way that Oswald could have studied Russian independently. Maybe a person who spoke some other Slavic language could study Russian independently. But an English speaker? Forget about it. No way. Picking up a few words and phrases is about all one could do by oneself, and it really would not constitute learning the language. So, you're being very glib and naive about what's involved here, and comparisons to Spanish won't help you. We're talking about Russian; not Spanish. 

And what Mack said of a concrete nature is that Oswald was reading newspapers. Well, if you're reading newspapers, you already know the language. I dare say that to be at the point of being able to read a Russian newspaper, you know the Russian language well. Well, not in comparison to a native Russian speaker, but light years ahead of an English speaker who is just starting out. 

And the fact that he had a Russian/English dictionary? Are you kidding? Do you think that bridged the gap? You think a Russian/English dictionary got him launched in being able to read Russian newspapers? You think that's all it takes, do you? 

You have obviously never tried to learn Russian. 

And listen up: I didn't ask you why multiple choice questions are used in language proficiency exams. I asked you the basis on which you claim that the specific exam Oswald took was entirely multiple choice. That's because my understanding is that it included other things, including answers that he had to generate without having choices. And in the end, he got more answers right than wrong. That's Russian we're talking about. Russian. 

And how many times do I have to tell you that you cannot compare Spanish to Russian. It's like comparing Basic Algebra to Calculus. 

Thanks to you, we now have a published statement from Mark Osborne that Oswald read Russian newspapers. Perhaps you would like to now ask how Mark knew that Oswald was actually reading them.

And there you go again with the false analogies. You can't compare martial arts to speaking Russian. Everybody knows SOME martial arts. If you were attacked, you would fight back. You'd be using martial arts. You would do the best you could, and necessity would be the mother of invention. If push comes to shove, you're going to fight. But, someone says read a Russian newspaper or die, then the vast majority are going to die. You can't compare physical fighting with speaking and reading and writing Russian. 

But, even though it's false analogy, you still used it wrong. If you're going to say that effectiveness in fighting proves that one has had training, then Oswald's effectiveness in Russian (including his getting more answers right than wrong on a Russian proficiency exam) proves that he had training in Russian. 

But, the thing is, he didn't, and that's why the John Armstrong thesis is so compelling. In martial arts, doesn't training entail instruction? And demonstration? And guidance? There is no evidence that Oswald had any instruction prior to taking that proficiency exam. There is no evidence that he had anyone demonstrate anything to him, not even the correct pronunciation of the words. And there is no evidence that he received guidance from anyone. Yet, you cited Mack Osborne who stated flatly that Oswald read Russian newspapers.  

This is the section that you highlighted:

"Oswald was at that time studying Russian. He spent a great deal of 
his free time reading papers printed in Russian--which I believe he bought 
in Los Angeles--with the aid of a Russian-English dictionary. I believe he 
also had some books written in Russian, although I do not remember their 
names."

Well, we know for a fact that, in the sense that the word "studying" is commonly used, Oswald was NOT studying Russian. He had no Russian teacher, and neither was he reported to have any of the audio/visual tools that would constitute a surrogate for a teacher. There are things that you can learn without a teacher, but Russian is not one of them. 

Then it says that he was "reading Russian newspapers." That is a categorical statement. It means what it means: he was reading the newspapers. It says with the help of a Russian/English dictionary, but that doesn't mitigate anything. 

Let's say I gave you a Russian newspaper, and I also gave you a Russian/English dictionary. How much comprehension do you think that would afford you? Bud, you are very naive about what is involved here. 

And finally, it also says "books that were written in Russian" but what is the implication of that? It's not that they were Russian learning manuals. It's simple that they were books written in the Russian language, books that would take a significant degree of progress in the acquisition of Russian before any comprehension could take place. 

All in all, that section you highlighted is a powerful testament to Oswald's proficiency in Russian. 

And finally, we have accomplished much more than a stamp collector. We held a national conference covered by newspapers, radio, and television. And, all of the presentations from the Oswald Innocence Campaign Truth Conference, held in Santa Barbara CA on November 22, 2013 are going up on Youtube soon. You ought to listen to each one, Bud. You might then realize that we are not shooting blanks. We are shooting holes in the official story of the JFK assassination, and alas, she ain't going to recover.