• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Robin Ramsay

Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

1,654 posts in this topic

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.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Nall @ #1305

You write:

"... there's very little I would put past the US Government."

As to which, I say, yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

We are all so sorry you remain so terribly confused over these issues mate...

How again do they discuss Sputnik, the term itslef, prior to the launch?

Why does the management of Pfisterer's confirm Palmer's info?

Why did the FBI need to debunk Palmer the week after the assassination when the rest of these investigations into ciritcal facts and evidence does not begin for months?

Have you ever proven that these 1956 riots are what they refer to?

Have you still forgotten that you can't add ? 200 days in 125 available school days genius... make it work

NYC%20school%20days%20counted%20in%20exc

Zoo%20photo%20-%20FBI%20report%20-%20NYC

As for Queens' PS44 class of June 1953... it was an example of how school photos are taken, that Oswald was not in this PS44 and that there were indeed 3 of them at the time.

All you ever have are questions mate... that you don't like or accept the answers only makes them wrong in your eyes... the rest of us can see just fine.

We also see that all your support has left.... Tommy, Bernie, Tracy have left you to your own devices while Paul T now tries to have your back ....

and then there's that ever deepening hole of faith-based crap you shovel at us.

Still no proof about your statements concerning Bobby Newman or your father/uncle confusion... and your song and dance about the 200 days of school the FBI counted from the NYC records THEY created being fit into only 125 days of actual school as shown above is always good for a laugh

:up

Am I running a psywar ops on you as well mate? Paranoia runs deep, into your heart it will creep.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How again do they discuss Sputnik, the term itslef, prior to the launch?

The confusion is all yours. All that McBride told the FBI was that they discussed "Russian success". I have posted two headlines from 1956 which discuss the success of the Russian space program.

That Armstrong assumed/wanted/needed those discussions to be about Sputnik doesn't make it so.

Why does the management of Pfisterer's confirm Palmer's info?

Because they want to be helpful? Because they have been manipulated by the patented homespun wholesomeness of Armstrong's Travelling Medicine Show? Who knows. They are wrong.

Why did the FBI need to debunk Palmer the week after the assassination when the rest of these investigations into ciritcal facts and evidence does not begin for months?

That the FBI investigation didn't follow your imagined investigative priorities is neither here nor there. For the most part they tackled what cane in, as it it came in.

Have you ever proven that these 1956 riots are what they refer to?

What "they"? I have found a report that matches the September 1956 time-frame and has all the known elements of Oswald's letter.

Have you still forgotten that you can't add ? 200 days in 125 available school days genius... make it work

You are trying to use an FBI report to make your case because you know damn well that you have been screwing up in your reading of the actual school records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all so sorry you remain so terribly confused over these issues mate...

Not me. I'm not. I think it's funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all so sorry you remain so terribly confused over these issues mate...

Not me. I'm not. I think it's funny.

Great! Then you should have no trouble explaining why and how I am confused. Any refusal to do so should and will be seen for what it is - you having no clue - just rooting for your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:clapping:clapping:clapping

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...

:up

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:clapping:clapping:clapping

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...

:up

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're selling your theory like it's a used car you've been stuck with past tax day.

who ties your shoes, Greg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.