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

The Lee Harvey Oswald of fame was most certainly NOT dyslexic. The other Oswald "Lee" in the John Armstrong lexicon, may have been, but certainly not "Harvey" who was the Oswald of fame.

Dyslexia means, literally, difficulty with reading. However, it affects all aspects of language, including speaking. A dyslexic person will often mispronounce words, particularly complex words. And it affects their writing, where they misspell words, and particularly complex words. 

The Oswald of fame was an excellent speaker. At this link, you can listen to almost an hour of Oswald speaking. And he says some difficult words, the kind of words that a dyslexic would stumble over, such as "allegiance" "subversions" "organization" "non-intervention" "independent" "hemisphere" "individual" "committee" "futile" "exploit" "irrevocably" "Czechoslovakia" "Yugoslavia" "Sino-Russian" (how many Americans, even today, are handy with that expression referring to Chinese-Russian?) "parallel" "systematically" "sympathetic" "inconsistent" "preoccupied"  "necessity" "Nicaragua" "hemisphere" "liberating" "apparel" "covertly" "defunct" "inclinations" "technicalities" "diversification."    

https://oswald-on-the-radio.blogspot.com/

Oswald said every one one of  those words perfectly, and he sounded lucid, intelligent, and very verbal. 

And repeatedly he said "New Or-leans" and not New Orlins, as the natives there do. If you just listen to his voice, you  know that he was not born and raised in New Orleans. Oswald had an East Coast accent that was not remotely Southern. 

Oswald was the most eloquent one in that discussion. There wasn't a hint of dyslexia in his speech. 

What about his reading ability? In Minsk, he befriended medical student Ernst Titovets, and it was partly because Ernst could speak English. And he recorded Oswald reading Shakespeare. And Oswald did it without mangling words. He read Shakespeare far better than most Americans could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7F2w-9z42E&list=PLC64D68DA3AEE7EC6

So, what about his writing? First, realize that we need to be suspicious of all of it. We certainly can't go by what some handwriting analyst claims. Let's take an example of what is most certainly a phony letter of Oswald's.

That's the transcription of it, and you can see that "concerning" is spelled "concerding." But, "information" "discuss' and "suggesting" were all spelled correctly. The letter was sent anonymously to Penn Jones from Mexico City during the HSCA in 1977. How could a letter from Oswald to Hunt (presumably E. Howard Hunt) wind up in Mexico City when Oswald never went there? John Armstrong has established that Oswald never went there, and so did Mark Lane before him. In his "Lawyer's Brief" published in December 1963, Mark Lane destroyed the claim that Oswald ever went to Mexico City. And of course, Oswald, himself, said he never went there. 

Now, the content of the letter to Hunt is so vague; it is completely devoid of any concrete content at all. But understand something: there is NO CHANCE that Hunt, or anyone else involved in the assassination, divulged anything Oswald. They weren't going to do that. He didn't need to know anything. They had no reason to tell him anything. And if they did tell him something, then they would have been arming with information to tell the police, should he spend any time in custody before he could be properly killed - which could and did happen.  

Oswald stated at the Midnight Press Conference, "I don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything."

And he, obviously, didn't have anything to tell the police about the assassination, and they were very confident that he didn't know anything. Do you think they would have put him in front of world microphones, able to blurt anything he wanted, if they thought he had anything? He didn't have anything, and the FBI certainly knew that. 

So, what was the purpose of sending that bogus letter to Penn Jones? You need to realize that the perpetrators of the assassination very much wanted to control the direction that the JFK resistance movement went. They wanted to make sure it went towards a conspiracy that included Oswald because that kept Oswald up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, rather than standing in the doorway, which is where he was. They knew there were going to be naysayers and they wanted to make sure that those naysayers, unwittingly, did their bidding. 

Now listen: If you maintain that the official story is a lie, but that Oswald was a shooter, or that he collaborated in some way in the assassination, then you are pumping bullets into John F. Kennedy, and you are doing the work and the bidding of his killers. Oswald was standing in the doorway during the assassination, and he knew absolutely nothing about it. There is NO  CHANCE that Oswald had any "position" to discuss with E. Howard Hunt. This letter was foisted as fodder for the conspiracy crowd so that they would keep Oswald up on the 6th floor shooting. You see, the truth is, that the perpetrators don't care if you believe in conspiracy. They pretend to care, but they really don't. If you believe that Oswald did it alone, that's fine, but if you believe he did it in cahoots with the CIA or the Mafia or both of them, that's fine too! Of course, it makes no sense for the CIA or the Mafia to get a shooter who spent 3 years working in a radio factory in Minsk and then a year and a half doing odd jobs in Dallas and New Orleans. And it makes no sense for Oswald to do it when he liked and admired Kennedy, and there isn't a stitch of evidence that they offered him a red cent. So, what would have been his motive to do it for them? The whole idea is ridiculous, and the people who believe in it are stupid. It's just an alternative to the lone gunman story. "You don't like our Story #1? Then try our Story #2."

There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that that letter is real. But, I know a guy who is all fired up about it because of the misspelling of concerning as "concerding." Because, of course, everyone knows that Oswald was dyslexic. This guy actually believes that the Oswald of fame, whom we can hear speaking so literately, made these spelling errors:

There is no way in Hell that someone who could speak as well as Oswald spoke, could possibly write that badly. He sounded like the most intelligent person in the room at the Midnight Press Conference. They had to put noise over his voice in the recordingof it  just to distract from it. It sounds like they were dragging something heavy and metallic across the floor. Then you hear a man yelling, "At ease!" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxvxgODFxEo&t=57s

There can no coexistence here. There is no way that the Oswald that we can hear could have spelled that badly. It was concocted for two reasons: to demean him and to authenticate what they claimed he wrote. So, we've got this guy now who is going on Youtube claiming that "concerding" proves that Oswald must have written that letter to E. Howard Hunt. 

It's all mind games. They are screwing with your head, and you shouldn't fall for it. Oswald was very intelligent, and he was a lingual genius. That's the reason they picked him for what became known as the Oswald Project when the CIA decided to merge the identities of two boys, one an American from New Orleans, and the other an East European, Russian-speaking World War II refugee who arrived in New York City and right away showed an incredible ease and tremendous capacity to learn English and learn it well. Oswald was the opposite of dyslexic. He was a language savant. Read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong.