Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up. How's the 'research' going on it, Glenn? Has it verified that they are correctly reading the school records? Has it found any 1958 FW riots which vindicate that Oswald wrote to McBride that year? Has it uncovered the relevance of a 1953 Queens PS 44 class photo? Let me know. I have a lot more questions on your 'research' after that. 1 - I used the term 'researched' within apostrophes as the term applies to my own reading and sorting through literature with which to learn something - NOT as it applies to you professional types who think everything they read and every thought they form is directly from God. 2 - I don't know who you think you are, or how many books you've written, or whether they're worthy of holding the back kitchen door open on a hot day in the outback, or are of actual value, or if you were Norman Mailer or Stephen King, but the way you talk to human beings tells ME who you are and what kind of person you are - AND that your opinions, no matter how well you do or do not write, aren't worth the oxygen they required to leave your mouth. so personally, you can ask all the effin' questions you want. i do not give A DAMN. no offense. Not apostrophes, Glenn. Quote marks. The trouble with limiting yourself to reading books is that you are forced to take them (or not) on face value. People like Armstrong count on you doing that. You are far more likely to become a believer that way. So here you are criticizing someone who has dug into the records to prove or refute Armstrong's claims when you refuse to do the same. Personally, I don't give a damn. I am reaching out to the THINKING person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up. How's the 'research' going on it, Glenn? Has it verified that they are correctly reading the school records? Has it found any 1958 FW riots which vindicate that Oswald wrote to McBride that year? Has it uncovered the relevance of a 1953 Queens PS 44 class photo? Let me know. I have a lot more questions on your 'research' after that. 1 - I used the term 'researched' within apostrophes as the term applies to my own reading and sorting through literature with which to learn something - NOT as it applies to you professional types who think everything they read and every thought they form is directly from God. 2 - I don't know who you think you are, or how many books you've written, or whether they're worthy of holding the back kitchen door open on a hot day in the outback, or are of actual value, or if you were Norman Mailer or Stephen King, but the way you talk to human beings tells ME who you are and what kind of person you are - AND that your opinions, no matter how well you do or do not write, aren't worth the oxygen they required to leave your mouth. so personally, you can ask all the effin' questions you want. i do not give A DAMN. no offense. Not apostrophes, Glenn. Quote marks. The trouble with limiting yourself to reading books is that you are forced to take them (or not) on face value. People like Armstrong count on you doing that. You are far more likely to become a believer that way. So here you are criticizing someone who has dug into the records to prove or refute Armstrong's claims when you refuse to do the same. Personally, I don't give a damn. I am reaching out to the THINKING person. Thinking people are not paying your theories any attention, Greg. You can think you're getting through to someone all you want, but you're wrong. What Mr Healey just described is both accurate and revelatory to me. The big difference between yours and my participation in here is that I'M NOT trying to sell anything; i'm discovering who is respectable and intelligent and honorable in their participation in this forum and am learning from them. You fit none of those descriptions. I have nothing to learn from you; the only reason i haven't blocked you like I blocked DVP is because you do provide the occasional Sesame Street type comedy. I'm frankly surprised that with your attitude you've attracted the attentions of any reputable publisher. no offense. any other punctuation of mine you need to attack? i remember how it was to have no defense... oh - and your statement about not trusting books is just about the stupidest thing i've ever heard. If that were the case, then no one would ever have learned anything from books. maybe you're referring to your own minimal readership... perhaps they're errant in trusting you as a source, then...? is that it? that's what it is, isn't it. you're worried you won't break into the double digits in sales... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up. everyone did their job. You sometime wonder if they don't have a "Pounce" button on their keyboards which kicks in their "Post faith-based beliefs without proof once again" auto-reply functionality... David, H&L has many folks running in circles as to just WHO was Lee Harvey Oswald? It's been my experience that when "JFK researchers" start attacking another researchers project, the attackers own project(s) foundation, yes foundation is crumbling... If one can't figure out, just who LHO was, it makes little or no difference how many books or videos one is producing covering the JFK assassination. That project will fail! And chance for failure is much higher these days... Lifton's book concerning LHO was suppose to be out, what, 14-15 years ago? It seems David has a problem with LHO's identity too! The Zapruder film has been called into question, as have other Elm St. assassination films and photos. All questions challenging the WCR findings concerning conspiracy are now met with deaf ears and indifference... LHO, the alleged assassin, his identity is challenged, that is met with fear! It's simple, post ones project research and results (tentative or final), that's it... There is no reason to DEBATE that research result. Researchers looking for endorsement(s), will get them or not. On and off-line. As far as I'm concerned Greg and his team are biding time concerning release of their books/video programs. That's telling in and of itself. They're simply not sure of their results, or worse yet, some might be trolling for results, and doubly worse, make unnecessary arguments regarding the results they've arrived at. Hence, the recent bravado, arrogance and posturing. And frankly another wholesale assault on an already fractured research community, and of course that attracts a certain type of attention, usually the wrong kind, but attention none-the-less... Why some persist doing this, despite the best of intentions (one hopes) is a wonder in and of itself. It's happened what seems like hundreds of times, and here it is again. Keep on truckin', might be time for a book, eh? --David Very revealing, David. as having only been a part of this forum for a short time, i'm still annoyed at the very lengthy rabbit trails and back biting that is so prevalent. I'm not ignoring the fact that i'm sucked into it, as well, but i try very hard to duck out when i can. I blocked DVP for this very reason. I was not able to avoid below the belt comments, and i'm not proud of that. as well with his highness in this thread. we all know what kind of people we're dealing with, at least for the time being. perhaps these are otherwise fairly 'all right' people; but i haven't observed it. I don't like mean people when they're mean for no reason. your point that it is serving to divide (and conquer?) is quite true. there are spurts of constructive dialogue from which I learn something, but the few whose intentions are to poke and jab really make it not so much fun. in my brief experiences in other forums, I happen to think that this is a pretty solid group of people, with a high-end, if not 'versatile' intellect. there seems to be more civility in here than elsewhere, but not lately, but i could be wrong. i have the impression that this is a cyclic thing and that it's been on the ebb for a bit. as you've stated, it seems that one or two are trying to awaken the monster for some reason. and the passionate in here cannot help but respond. like i do. I don't like mean people, Greg is one, and he doesn't have a clue that this doesn't sell cars, books or good reputations. or, like DVP, he doesn't care. i'm here to learn, as i've stated before, and to occasionally have something new to offer, like a new approach, or a Jedi Mind Four Cards Game. I intend to get something from this group. As a fairly successful web developer for over 12 years, i know the power of Forums. I've learned most everything I know about coding from the very benevolent and generous and brilliant people in forums. And often there's a lot of fun to be had by people who appreciate the joy of learning. It seems obvious to me that it would behoove the genuine ones in here to step away from the id10Ts and concentrate more on teaching and learning. It's an absolute fact that we just don't know when and from whom a game changing item or piece of evidence or idea is going to come. a lot of good could come from this little group here, and some others who are most definitely reading it might be more apt to participate if it were a bit more inviting. you just never know. anybody remember an all girl rock band from the 70's called Fanny? wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) H&L has many folks running in circles as to just WHO was Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes, I'd put a question mark on that assumption, too David. The absurdity is that an entrepreneur and a PR photographer cobbled together the most ludicrous theory they could based on memory lapses, perceived differences in photographs, deliberate and elaborate distortions of the records and a host of other tomfoolery, and anyone at all buys it. But they know their market. Those who mistrust the government, and those too dumb or too lazy or too inept to do any fact checking. Let's look at some of the latest to come from the Three Amigos. The Fake Marguerite was Margaret Keating - Robert Oswald's first wife. A 1953 photo of a class from Queens PS 44 which shows - horror of horrors - the tallest pupils at the back - proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was at the Bronx PS 44 while Harvey was at Beauregard because Lee was tall. Like the fellow at the back of the Queens photo. Because the re ad number for the 1954-55 school year equates to the number of days attendance for Oswald at Beauregard, the re ad figure must also equal the number of days attendance in the 1953-54 school year. The fact that this does not work unless you have been enrolled for the whole school year is lost on them. But not out of stupidity. I am sure the reality has finally sunk in. It is now just a matter of defending the faith, no matter what the facts are. It's been my experience that when "JFK researchers" start attacking another researchers project, the attackers own project(s) foundation, yes foundation is crumbling... And it is my experience that people in this field who say stupid things really are stupid and/or are forced to say stupid things out of personal bias or in defense of stupid theories. Edited August 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Anyone who thinks I'm here to sell anything has rocks in their heads. I'm not the one linking to my website in every post, or insisting anyone must read my book in order to discuss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 you're selling your theory like it's a used car you've been stuck with past tax day. who ties your shoes, Greg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 you're selling your theory like it's a used car you've been stuck with past tax day. who ties your shoes, Greg? Okay. Give me an example of this theory, Glenn. And again I ask that you show me exactly what I'm not understanding from the 3 Amigos. You can't do either. Your bias is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 it's not MY bias, Greg. i don't adhere to any of the prevalent theories floating around in here, for the mere reason that I'm working on my OWN ideas. An understanding of Dallas, and of the politics and of the motives and of some of the moving parts is but a glimpse into a very complex organism. i have no "theory" - i have several "theories." some line up with some of these in here, but it's not because of any loyalty, it's because two people came to similar conclusions by thinking on our own. I left my mind open to the idea of two O's in order to weight the many pieces and decide on my own what works and what doesn't, but you failed to either notice this or acknowledge it. You immediately accused me of collusion with others for the sake of being lazy and possibly attacking you. You have some idea that I'm unable to think for myself, or think at all, when I happen to be more and more convinced that much of my intellect is a good bit superior to yours, mainly because I don't berate others' in order to strengthen my own, and i'm not trying to sound the battle cry that I've discovered the solution, boy you just wait and all that bullxxxx. All because i didn't do exactly what you're accusing me of and fall in line behind you. i have no idea what you think in theory because i don't place enough value on your posts to remember them. When you said what you said to Steven, i confirmed what i already knew about what kind of person you are. You have nothing positive to offer anyone here. The others for some reason want to argue with you in hopes of changing your mind, but I'd rather go watch Ishtar all night than listen to your drivel. the sad thing is, you probably have some good ideas, some quality research that would find some interest if you weren't such an - I'm thinking I'll never know. For about 6 more seconds I'm thinking that. Then I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) It's not MY bias, Greg. i don't adhere to any of the prevalent theories floating around in here, Who said anything about the theories you adhere to? You have a personal bias against me. I left my mind open to the idea of two O's in order to weight the many pieces and decide on my own what works That's BS because it is IMPOSSIBLE to weigh this theory up WITHOUT recourse to fact checking and you've already made it clear that you have an aversion to that. i have no idea what you think in theory because i don't place enough value on your posts to remember them. Then how can you claim I am here pushing a theory, as you did? How can you claim I have no understanding of the "evidence" being presented by the 3 amigos, as you did? Every time you address me, you display your bias making claims about me you won't and can't substantiate. When you said what you said to Steven, i confirmed what i already knew about what kind of person you are. And you ignore what they say to me. Gaal sank so low as to start a thread accusing me of being anti-Semitic because of my work on members of the Straus family. Meanwhile Josephs tries to smear me every chance he gets by trying to connect me to witchcraft and the occult because I mentioned it in one article - that because someone of interest in this case had an interest in the occult. That becomes the coward's invitation for smears. There is no other way to describe that kind of behavior except cowardice. You have nothing positive to offer anyone here. The others for some reason want to argue with you in hopes of changing your mind, but I'd rather go watch Ishtar all night than listen to your drivel. Yet here you are... Edited August 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 This is a side by side comparison of a section of the PS 44 records. On the left is from MFF. On the right is what David Josephs uses. I put it to members here that the Josephs document has a slightly darkened area around the height and weight section and that some of the numbers within it have a slightly different appearance to the MFF document. Both these aspects of the document are indicative of it having been tampered with. I am aware that distortions may be present, but even with that taken into account, those indistinct 5's have been transformed into 6's while the 5 in 115 has been made look more 5-like to distinguish it and perhaps allay any chance of comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) This is a side by side comparison of a section of the PS 44 records. On the left is from MFF. On the right is what David Josephs uses. I put it to members here that the Josephs document has a slightly darkened area around the height and weight section and that some of the numbers within it have a slightly different appearance to the MFF document. Both these aspects of the document are indicative of it having been tampered with. I am aware that distortions may be present, but even with that taken into account, those indistinct 5's have been transformed into 6's while the 5 in 115 has been made look more 5-like to distinguish it and perhaps allay any chance of comparison. Greg, OMG. This reminds me of when I used to change my grades on my report card, but I did a better job! LOL Yes, I see the dark area you're talking about and I can see that the first number in the second row of both columns has been reworked to make it look like a "6," and a "5" has been "improved." Whoever did that was a very sneaky son of a gun. --Tommy Edited August 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 This is a side by side comparison of a section of the PS 44 records. On the left is from MFF. On the right is what David Josephs uses. I put it to members here that the Josephs document has a slightly darkened area around the height and weight section and that some of the numbers within it have a slightly different appearance to the MFF document. Both these aspects of the document are indicative of it having been tampered with. I am aware that distortions may be present, but even with that taken into account, those indistinct 5's have been transformed into 6's while the 5 in 115 has been made look more 5-like to distinguish it and perhaps allay any chance of comparison. Greg, OMG. This reminds me of when I used to change my grades on my report card, but I did a better job! LOL Yes, I see the dark area you're talking about and I can see that the first number in the second row of both columns has been reworked to make it look like a "6," and a "5" has been "improved." Whoever did that was a very sneaky son of a gun. --Tommy This is why you rarely, if ever, see these people use documents and photos direct from the archives or MFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 And don't forget Tommy... this "community" is diminished by me wanting to clear the table of such fraud - not by the fraud itself. I am supposed to play nice with these hucksters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) This is a side by side comparison of a section of the PS 44 records. On the left is from MFF. On the right is what David Josephs uses. I put it to members here that the Josephs document has a slightly darkened area around the height and weight section and that some of the numbers within it have a slightly different appearance to the MFF document. Both these aspects of the document are indicative of it having been tampered with. I am aware that distortions may be present, but even with that taken into account, those indistinct 5's have been transformed into 6's while the 5 in 115 has been made look more 5-like to distinguish it and perhaps allay any chance of comparison. Greg, OMG. This reminds me of when I used to change my grades on my report card, but I did a better job! LOL Yes, I see the dark area you're talking about and I can see that the first number in the second row of both columns has been reworked to make it look like a "6," and a "5" has been "improved." Whoever did that was a very sneaky son of a gun. --Tommy This is why you rarely, if ever, see these people use documents and photos direct from the archives or MFF. I went to BAYLOR ARMSTRONG RECORDS LINK looking up in the search PS 44 ==================== http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/18326/rec/ clicked on download button on the right. PDF file pages 1 to 79 ==================== "SEPT 1952 to JAN 1954 TAB TITLE PS 44 " on page 27 p FBI REPORT WHICH HAD WRITTEN OUT HEIGHT SIXTY FOUR INCHES ,WEIGHT 115 POUNDS on page 49 the Health Card showing HEIGHT 64 inches and weight 115 lbs. ################################################################################################ " I am supposed to play nice with these hucksters." ( PARKER QUOTE RE Harvey and Lee pro posters on PS 44 height and weight records see post # 1336) thanks gaal see link >>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/25792994@N04/5424377128 Edited August 22, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Yeah, Steve. I've already addressed the FBI report. The figure is indistinct. They misread it. You guys are quick to trash FBI reports when they go against you, but boy the love that pours out when they support you is just plain scary. Now address the evidence of tampering that shows on the copy of the school report used by Josephs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts