12-12-2013, 11:08 AM
Thank you, James. You were quite right to take me to task on my impertinent question. I guess I simply wanted to see what kind of reaction it would get. I have no idea why the video interview of Myra Darouse Larue seems to give such contradictory information about "Harvey". To even suggest a possible personal motivation was totally out of line. All I really needed to say was that I think that any conclusion based on Mrs. Larue's interview is premature until we know exactly what she said. I appreciate civility in this discussion as much as you and David so I apologize. I sense that we are all three in the same boat, researchers inspired by John Armstrong to look at the early years of LHO and let the evidence take us where the evidence will.
The Larue interview that I saw was sponsored by Poage on Youtube so I thought it was the official video. But I will take a look at the link you provide and see if I can see any differences.
As for being a "smarty pants", I have known quite a few over the years myself and I know how annoying they can be! But I'd say I was rather the little boy who keeps asking questions because he wants to understand, not because he wants to show how smart he is. I plead ignorance on a lot of this stuff because I simply do not know. But I would like to know very much. These students can be just as annoying, but I guess I have a tender spot in my heart for them because I was and am one. And we're worth it!
Also I should add that my approach to doing this kind of research is perhaps a bit different from the norm. My early schooling was all math and science. I got a BS in Chemical Engineering and worked for a big oil company for five years. After traveling around the world a couple of times and doing a lot of reading, I fell in love with history and went back to school to get an MA in American Studies and a PhD in History. I was a college professor for a few years before getting fed up with academia and becoming a high school history teacher where I have been happily employed for the past dozen or so years. I am passionate about historical research, but my whole approach is rooted in the kind of problem solving I did as an engineer. I approach historical problems just as I approached engineering problems. I immerse myself in the evidence until I can come up with a working hypothesis. Then I continue to pit my working hypothesis against all the evidence I can muster to see if it continues to stand up, modifying or jettisoning the working hypothesis as necessary.
You are also quite right to observe that in my first two posts I have not added anything "to advance our understanding and interpretation of the evidence about Oswald in New Orleans in 1953-55". Rest assured that at this stage in game, after having immersed myself in all the evidence I could find, I have come up with a working hypothesis which goes way beyond the 1953-55 years. I even went so far as to have communicated my working hypothesis to John Armstrong. He promptly rejected my hypothesis, saying I had no evidence. When I sent him part of the evidence, he rejected the evidence, saying it was faulty. When I asked him why it was faulty and what made his evidence better, he promptly cut me off. The running theme through the entire e-mail conversation was "READ MY BOOK! IT'S ALL THERE!" I had suggested to John in passing that I would eventually like to bring my hypothesis and evidence to some public forum, which he pooh-poohed as a waste of time. But I am not willing to give up just yet!
As for what my working hypothesis is, I would like to reserve that for the present because I know there is a lot of evidence that it does not explain and I don't want to get into a premature debate about what is wrong with it until I get a better handle on the evidence. So that is why I am focusing so much here on questioning the evidence. In my contributions I do want to focus on the 1953-55 years because my gut tells me this is where we can best sort through these two Oswalds. And, yes, my working hypothesis does involve two Oswalds and two Marguerites!
So I thank you for sticking with me despite my indiscretions. I'll keep plugging away at all the interesting evidence and ideas that you and David (and anybody else out there) raise and interjecting some evidence and ideas of my own as welL. But please don't get mad at me if I have trouble keeping up with you guys in upcoming posts. I'm still a working stiff and have a bunch of US History exams to grade!
The Larue interview that I saw was sponsored by Poage on Youtube so I thought it was the official video. But I will take a look at the link you provide and see if I can see any differences.
As for being a "smarty pants", I have known quite a few over the years myself and I know how annoying they can be! But I'd say I was rather the little boy who keeps asking questions because he wants to understand, not because he wants to show how smart he is. I plead ignorance on a lot of this stuff because I simply do not know. But I would like to know very much. These students can be just as annoying, but I guess I have a tender spot in my heart for them because I was and am one. And we're worth it!
Also I should add that my approach to doing this kind of research is perhaps a bit different from the norm. My early schooling was all math and science. I got a BS in Chemical Engineering and worked for a big oil company for five years. After traveling around the world a couple of times and doing a lot of reading, I fell in love with history and went back to school to get an MA in American Studies and a PhD in History. I was a college professor for a few years before getting fed up with academia and becoming a high school history teacher where I have been happily employed for the past dozen or so years. I am passionate about historical research, but my whole approach is rooted in the kind of problem solving I did as an engineer. I approach historical problems just as I approached engineering problems. I immerse myself in the evidence until I can come up with a working hypothesis. Then I continue to pit my working hypothesis against all the evidence I can muster to see if it continues to stand up, modifying or jettisoning the working hypothesis as necessary.
You are also quite right to observe that in my first two posts I have not added anything "to advance our understanding and interpretation of the evidence about Oswald in New Orleans in 1953-55". Rest assured that at this stage in game, after having immersed myself in all the evidence I could find, I have come up with a working hypothesis which goes way beyond the 1953-55 years. I even went so far as to have communicated my working hypothesis to John Armstrong. He promptly rejected my hypothesis, saying I had no evidence. When I sent him part of the evidence, he rejected the evidence, saying it was faulty. When I asked him why it was faulty and what made his evidence better, he promptly cut me off. The running theme through the entire e-mail conversation was "READ MY BOOK! IT'S ALL THERE!" I had suggested to John in passing that I would eventually like to bring my hypothesis and evidence to some public forum, which he pooh-poohed as a waste of time. But I am not willing to give up just yet!
As for what my working hypothesis is, I would like to reserve that for the present because I know there is a lot of evidence that it does not explain and I don't want to get into a premature debate about what is wrong with it until I get a better handle on the evidence. So that is why I am focusing so much here on questioning the evidence. In my contributions I do want to focus on the 1953-55 years because my gut tells me this is where we can best sort through these two Oswalds. And, yes, my working hypothesis does involve two Oswalds and two Marguerites!
So I thank you for sticking with me despite my indiscretions. I'll keep plugging away at all the interesting evidence and ideas that you and David (and anybody else out there) raise and interjecting some evidence and ideas of my own as welL. But please don't get mad at me if I have trouble keeping up with you guys in upcoming posts. I'm still a working stiff and have a bunch of US History exams to grade!