Jump to content


Greg Parker

Member Since 28 May 2004
Online Last Active Today, 02:01 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The suspension of posting privilages

27 March 2015 - 12:47 PM

What is said and done at any other forum should not have any effect on this forum. It is only what is said and done on this forum that should count.


What has upset some - and not just at my forum is the baiting of myself and Lee Farley here, and that includes from one of the moderators. It is disgraceful and hypocritical and his words and actions in particular should be your biggest concern.


I do note that a reply I made to this moderators last attempt at baiting me has been left up, while what I was replying to has been completely wiped. It should have been left so that everyone can see what I have had to deal with. As it is, it looks like I've replied to no one.


You guys had the power to nip this in the bud before it started by having a quiet word to David Josephs for the smears and untruths  about me that brought me here in the first place.


Lee, as far as I can tell, has done nothing but try and follow your rules here. His suspension is unwarranted, but also unfortunately entirely unsurprising. 

In Topic: A few Harvey & Lee questions

27 March 2015 - 06:48 AM

. A member
will not use this board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or
defamatory, inaccurate,
I ask people like Greg to read the book so he can address the topic with some credibility and intelligence, not to spout off ideas he has about doctors in 1945 or school records he cannot comprehend.  I do not dismiss his arguments for lack of reading the book - but for lack of substance and source.  Whenever he does offer a source - it's wrong and/or does not address the rebuttal he offers.  (the boy had a tonsilectomy while the dead man has intact tonsils...  did they grow back?  well, maybe, if that was the one and only singular piece of evidence which creates a conflict between the boy born Lee Oswald and the man Ruby killed - but it's not.


In Topic: Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

26 March 2015 - 10:42 PM

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?  That's the subject of this diary.


The issue isn't whether Greg is right or wrong.  Or what I think.


The issue is whether the cover-up had a "life" continuing until today that was independent from any acts taken by any party to set up Marina's husband as JFK's killer.


I doubt "Oswald" was set up by a third party.  I believe he was framed.


The real issue here, I believe, is whether the frame is the same thread as the cover-up.

I feel your pain, Jon. After watching thread after thread I started on Oswald being hijacked here a few years back, I was told by one of the main hijackers that no one has proprietary ownership of threads. This was not disputed by the  forum owners or moderators at the time. Maybe that policy has changed? 

In Topic: Oswald Obsession; a Study of the Murder, or the Cover-Up?

26 March 2015 - 06:38 AM



thanks for detailed response. My concern remains the same. There are dozens upon dozens of books which pick out quotes from various people to  weave their theories around.


Hunt's "confession"


Alleged comments by LBJ at an alleged party


The Marcello "confession"


Alleged comments by JFK about ripping the CIA into a thousand pieces has spawned at least as many theories.


What I have is a bit more tangible than that.

In Topic: Oswald Obsession; a Study of the Murder, or the Cover-Up?

26 March 2015 - 12:18 AM





I think the Oswald Forum here is the proper venue for these questions...


If Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing directly to do with the murder of JFK why is it assumed that his handlers had something directly to do with the assassination?


Greg Parker has mentioned that Oswald leads to "the frame," as well as "plotters" and "players" in the murder.


I ask which frame:  Oswald the Red Agent, or Oswald the Lone Nut?


And LHO leads to the top plotters of JFK's murder? 


Sloppy plotters...




Okay, so I can take it that this is a high degree speculation on your part, Greg?


More like immaculate dot connecting. Some of the people involved in this had a high degree of knowledge of historical events and communist cases.  


The dots I'm connecting lead to one guy who had supreme knowledge of historical events and communist cases.


On what basis did you choose your first dot, Cliff, if not via a connection with the patsy?  Some hitherto unknown mathematical formula? Cosmic vibrations? A computer generated random selection? There are no shortages of people and groups with motive, and no end to the leaps it takes for those people to actually be involved.


He bankrolled them.


He bankrolled what? Historical events and communist cases?


But the guy I'm connecting dots with sure as hell wasn't connected in any way to Lee Harvey Oswald.


Then how was Oswald made the patsy?


I'm curious to see what you've got.


More revealed in vol 2 - the full solution revealed in vol 3


Three volumes, eh?


I'll sum it up in five words -- Elite Drug Gang Rub Out.


Or so my dots connect...


Wrong dots. 


So I'll ask again -- if Oswald leads to "the frame," as you put it, which "frame"? Red Agent or Lone Nut?




So Oswald's handlers set him up to be a Lone Nut?


Not initially.


I don't buy it.


Who first put the Oswald as Lone Nut frame in the public eye?


Uber-blue-blood Jock Whitney who stopped the presses at his New York Herald Tribune the evening of 11/22 to write an editorial blasting the lone assassin.


McGeorge Bundy admitted to a Newsweek journalist he called LBJ on AF1 the afternoon of 11/22 and said the lone assassin was in custody, no evidence of conspiracy.


Averell Harriman allegedly told LBJ the USG's top Soviet experts to a man thought the Soviets were not involved in the assassination.


But there was no meeting of top USG Soviet experts on 11/22.


Jock Whitney -- Yale, Scroll & Key


McGeorge Bundy -- Yale, Skull & Bones


Averell Harriman -- Yale, Skull & Bones


Not an Oswald in sight.



The problem is that the Cold War produced so much "theory" and "potential plotter" fodder that what you have is replicated a thousandfold by others. Only the names are different.


And what plotters and players you've got...I'm all ears.


If you can get Douglass, diEugenio or Newman to publicly lay out the details of any books they may be working on, I'd do the same. Deal?



Who isn't working on a book?


If you can get those guys to come on the Oswald Forum and claim that LHO connects to the guys who murdered Kennedy I'm gonna ask them to put up more than their rep to support.


Like that matters one iota.


(I have no dog in the H&L fight, btw, other than it's a rabbit hole when it comes to JFK's murder.)


Rabbit holes are where giant white rabbits live. Everyone interested in clearing the decks of all the dreck should have a dog in the H & L fight, the JVB fight, the Cinque fight and others.


Fake debate over bollocks is a waste of time.


Letting them get away with this BS for 50+ years is actually dooming us to another 50+ years. Why do you think the excellent work done by Sean Murphy on PM has not taken off? Cinque's muddying of the waters is one reason. Every time PM is raised in some quarters, it is mistaken for part of Cinque's circus.