Hargrove misrepresents Petrov

Jim Hargrove wrote:Of course, Vladimir Petrov, head of the Slavic Language Department at Yale University, had a different opinion.  In a letter to John Tower in regard from a letter purportedly written by Oswald, Petrov said, “ I am satisfied that letter was not written by him [Harvey Oswald]. It was written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English.”


Petrov’s letter was written on Dec 8, 1963, a little more than two weeks after the  assassination.  Despite the fact that he said his opinion was “based on a quotation from his [Oswald’s] January 1962 letter,” Petrov’s letter surely wasn’t written in a vacuum, insulated from the news of the day.


In the days after the assassination, that weird voice of Harvey Oswald’s—hardly sounding like the accent of a Good Ole Boy born and raised in the American South—was all over the radio and television airwaves.  I doubt it could be missed, even in the high ivory tower of the Head of Slavic Languages at Yale.


I don’t know if any of the Russian writings of Harvey Oswald made it to the public immediately after the assassination, but if Petrov had a clue about Harvey’s uncommon mastery of the Russian language—which amazed the Russian immigrants in Dallas who met him—it would have given additional ammunition to his theory.  There seems little reason to believe Dr. Petrov’s basis for his opinion completely ignored the around-the-clock news coverage of the assassination.

jim hargrove wrote:In his letter to John Tower, Petrov wrote “I am satisified that the letter was not written by him.  It was written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English.  I assume it was signed by Oswald.”

In his diatribe against me, Parker fails to mention that the very next sentence in Petrov’s letter begins “The rest is sheer speculation….”  Parker fails to tell his tiny readership that Petrov was confidant about the letter writer’s Russian-language roots, but was just guessing about everything else. 

Despite what Petrov said, the whole thing, including who authored the letter, was speculation. 

Why does Parker leave out that little detail?

I didn't. As you pointed out, I linked to all of Armstrong's evidence. It was you doing the cherry-picking by zeroing in on the letter and taking it out of the context of Petrov's theory thus creating the appearance that Petrov's claim supported Armstrong. It doesn't. Petrov's claim was that the Soviet authorities authored the letter.

All of this was abundantly disclosed in my very first post on page one of this thread, which showed Petrov’s full letter to John Tower, including what he was sure of (that the letter was written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English), and his sheer speculation (which is everything else in the letter.)

Yep. You cherry-picked the quotes that, out of context, give the appearance that the letter was written by an Oswald impostor. No link provided like I did so readers could see the whole thing in proper context. Thanks for the admission. One small step at a time.

Parker concludes with a link to the Petrov section of the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University, which just includes more on Petrov’s “sheer speculation” about “Oswald.”

Petrov's "sheer speculation" about Oswald is based on a similar standard of evidence used by Armstrong. Suck it up, honey-pie. You're not drivin' me crazy (just yourself).

Parker still has no legitimate explanation for how “Oswald” attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans,
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

or how he was treated for VD at Atsugi station in Japan while on board the Skagit and in Taiwan.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1399-the-skagit-according-to-a-former-crew-member

To return his compliment to me, Parker is a disgrace.

It's not me cherry-picking and misrepresenting. Not my style, Jimbo.