Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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

Recommended Posts

"but" - the nice way of saying "forget what I've said to this point"

A person's earnings is their own for life...

You get all huffy-puffy and then rather than man up and apologize for basically SCREAMING thru your post at Jim AND being wrong...

you defer to Horne,

who was, if I remember correctly, not focused on the complete lack of consideration of the rest of Oswald's earnings prior to 1962 both in the Marines and as a civilian in the figuring of Marina's benefit amount.

If I'm wrong about Horne... I'm sorry Doug... GP can post the relevant info or link... I'll look it up later.

It seems each and every one of your rebuttals remains, just a little off or just a little wrong or just a little unsupported by the facts.

yet you keep railing on as if you've accomplished something... exposed some POV which upsets the H&L myth just enough for the true non-believers to see and hang their hat on...

that's real good Greg. yet you always seem to come up just a little short... and then proceed on as if it was your right to be wrong, just to be heard, to grace these pages with your "almost" rebuttals..

Helluva way to back a position on something buddy. Keep on Truckin' :up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but" - the nice way of saying "forget what I've said to this point"

A person's earnings is their own for life...

You get all huffy-puffy and then rather than man up and apologize for basically SCREAMING thru your post at Jim AND being wrong...

you defer to Horne,

who was, if I remember correctly, not focused on the complete lack of consideration of the rest of Oswald's earnings prior to 1962 both in the Marines and as a civilian in the figuring of Marina's benefit amount.

If I'm wrong about Horne... I'm sorry Doug... GP can post the relevant info or link... I'll look it up later.

It seems each and every one of your rebuttals remains, just a little off or just a little wrong or just a little unsupported by the facts.

yet you keep railing on as if you've accomplished something... exposed some POV which upsets the H&L myth just enough for the true non-believers to see and hang their hat on...

that's real good Greg. yet you always seem to come up just a little short... and then proceed on as if it was your right to be wrong, just to be heard, to grace these pages with your "almost" rebuttals..

Helluva way to back a position on something buddy. Keep on Truckin' :up

Dear David,

It seems to me that you are hypocritically trying to provoke Greg into getting angry by using demeaning language and enlarged / highlighted text.

Are you trying to get Greg's posting rights suspended again?

Thank you,

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but" - the nice way of saying "forget what I've said to this point"

A person's earnings is their own for life...

You get all huffy-puffy and then rather than man up and apologize for basically SCREAMING thru your post at Jim AND being wrong...

you defer to Horne,

who was, if I remember correctly, not focused on the complete lack of consideration of the rest of Oswald's earnings prior to 1962 both in the Marines and as a civilian in the figuring of Marina's benefit amount.

If I'm wrong about Horne... I'm sorry Doug... GP can post the relevant info or link... I'll look it up later.

It seems each and every one of your rebuttals remains, just a little off or just a little wrong or just a little unsupported by the facts.

yet you keep railing on as if you've accomplished something... exposed some POV which upsets the H&L myth just enough for the true non-believers to see and hang their hat on...

that's real good Greg. yet you always seem to come up just a little short... and then proceed on as if it was your right to be wrong, just to be heard, to grace these pages with your "almost" rebuttals..

Helluva way to back a position on something buddy. Keep on Truckin' :up

Dear David,

It seems to me that you are hypocritically trying to provoke Greg into getting angry by using demeaning language and enlarged / highlighted text.

Are you trying to get Greg's posting rights suspended again?

Hopefully he won't take the bait you offer this time.

Thank you,

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BORIS AND NATASHA HUNT

MOOSE AND SQUIRREL


From Harvey and Lee, p. 799:


NOTE: In a 1997 interview Robert Webster told JFK researcher and author Dick

Russell that he met Marina Prusakova in Moscow in the summer of 1959 and spoke with

her in English. Webster said that Marina spoke English well, but with a heavy accent.


A year after Webster was sent to Leningrad by the Soviet Government, 400 miles from

Moscow, he met Marina again shortly after he applied for an exit visa so that he could

return to the US. [interview of Robert Webster by Dick Russell at Cape Cod, MA. 1997]


Marina's friend in Dallas, Katya Ford, said that when she asked Marina why Oswald

went to Russia, Marina told her that he worked for the Rand Corporation and helped

set up the American exhibit at the World Trade Exposition in Moscow.[WC Document 5,

p. 259; FBI interview of Katherine Ford by SA James P. Hosty, 11/24/63] Marina had

momentarily confused Harvey Oswald with Robert Webster, the 1st US "defector," whom

she met in Moscow (1959) and again in Leningrad (1960).


It is not a coincidence that both Webster and Oswald "defected" a few months apart in

1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of

possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both

returned to the United States in the Spring of 1962. These US "defectors," acting in perfect

harmony, were both working for the CIA.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Doug Horne already explained it, then you should be able to tell us why the Social Security Administration's summary of Lee Harvey Oswald's LIFETIME EARNINGS did not include any of his income from work prior to his service in the Marine Corps. By all means please explain why, with his cover letter, Robert Bynum said he was including, "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to his service in the Marine Corps." That sounds pretty strange to us simple folk who, as you tell it, don't know how to analyze things properly!

It is all explained here, including the law on provision of tax records and about the computer update in 1964. It is disingenuous to present one side of a debate. You knew about the Horne piece, but instead of stating why it's wrong in your ramblings and musings on the tenets of Armstrongism, you simply ignore it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/horne.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but" - the nice way of saying "forget what I've said to this point"

A person's earnings is their own for life...

You get all huffy-puffy and then rather than man up and apologize for basically SCREAMING thru your post at Jim AND being wrong...

you defer to Horne,

who was, if I remember correctly, not focused on the complete lack of consideration of the rest of Oswald's earnings prior to 1962 both in the Marines and as a civilian in the figuring of Marina's benefit amount.

If I'm wrong about Horne... I'm sorry Doug... GP can post the relevant info or link... I'll look it up later.

It seems each and every one of your rebuttals remains, just a little off or just a little wrong or just a little unsupported by the facts.

yet you keep railing on as if you've accomplished something... exposed some POV which upsets the H&L myth just enough for the true non-believers to see and hang their hat on...

that's real good Greg. yet you always seem to come up just a little short... and then proceed on as if it was your right to be wrong, just to be heard, to grace these pages with your "almost" rebuttals..

Helluva way to back a position on something buddy. Keep on Truckin' :up

Excuse me. I'm still waiting for an apology from YOU for telling untruths about past posts of mine.

And what I said was "I'll happily admit to being wrong if it can be demonstrated with citations that I am." What I was given instead of a citation was an anecdote. Regardless, I thanked Mark for providing it, and I think it is obvious I accepted it, though still not proven with proper citations. I then did further checking and found Horne's work on this that I had forgotten about - but should not have needed to search for in any case. It should have been referred to by Jim, with an explanation as to why he didn't accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me. I'm still waiting for an apology from YOU for telling untruths about past posts of mine.

Oh great and powerful Parker... please accept my apology for ever telling any untruths about anything you've ever posted. Yours are the truest of true words and the wisest of wise thoughts.

Get over yourself already

and my dear friend Tommy... yes indeed... the people that read what he writes who agree, do find him effective. These are the same type who follow a Ms. Baker.

Faith Tommy... ya gotta have FAITH and you too can get a few followers, guaranteed.

Still have yet to hear a convincing argument to explain the timeline conflicts of CE1961 and CE1962.

Care to give it a shot or maybe defer to the rabbi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me. I'm still waiting for an apology from YOU for telling untruths about past posts of mine.

Oh great and powerful Parker... please accept my apology for ever telling any untruths about anything you've ever posted. Yours are the truest of true words and the wisest of wise thoughts.

Get over yourself already

and my dear friend Tommy... yes indeed... the people that read what he writes who agree, do find him effective. These are the same type who follow a Ms. Baker.

Faith Tommy... ya gotta have FAITH and you too can get a few followers, guaranteed.

Still have yet to hear a convincing argument to explain the timeline conflicts of CE1961 and CE1962.

Care to give it a shot or maybe defer to the rabbi?

Dear David,

Why in the world would I ever want to defer (or even refer) to you instead of Greg Parker?

Sorry but I'm not into cults, and IMHO Harvey and Lee is an elaborate, paranoiac cult which ultimately does not help us to figure out who killed JFK, but just makes us madder than hornets at "the powers that be" in a vague, self-destructive kind of way.

Peace, Mahalo, and Shalom,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Doug Horne already explained it, then you should be able to tell us why the Social Security Administration's summary of Lee Harvey Oswald's LIFETIME EARNINGS did not include any of his income from work prior to his service in the Marine Corps. By all means please explain why, with his cover letter, Robert Bynum said he was including, "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to his service in the Marine Corps." That sounds pretty strange to us simple folk who, as you tell it, don't know how to analyze things properly!

It is all explained here, including the law on provision of tax records and about the computer update in 1964. It is disingenuous to present one side of a debate. You knew about the Horne piece, but instead of stating why it's wrong in your ramblings and musings on the tenets of Armstrongism, you simply ignore it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/horne.txt

I see we're being scolded again, this time for being "disingenuous," eh?

Have you actually read the Horne report you linked above? It doesn't discuss at all the Lifetime Earnings report on Oswald. That's what we are talking about, remember? The Horne report mostly talks about two 1995 letters from the IRS stating that the Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) for Dolly Shoe and Pfisterer Dental Lab were created in 1964! That's what the "computer update in 1964" you cited above was used to explain. Again, the report you link says NOTHING about the lifetime earnings report of Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just hidden a number of posts within which a member attempted to manipulate language from being inappropriate. Next tine the said member does this again a more severe action will be taken. The administrators have made their position very clear on this issue.

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Doug Horne already explained it, then you should be able to tell us why the Social Security Administration's summary of Lee Harvey Oswald's LIFETIME EARNINGS did not include any of his income from work prior to his service in the Marine Corps. By all means please explain why, with his cover letter, Robert Bynum said he was including, "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to his service in the Marine Corps." That sounds pretty strange to us simple folk who, as you tell it, don't know how to analyze things properly!

It is all explained here, including the law on provision of tax records and about the computer update in 1964. It is disingenuous to present one side of a debate. You knew about the Horne piece, but instead of stating why it's wrong in your ramblings and musings on the tenets of Armstrongism, you simply ignore it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/horne.txt

I see we're being scolded again, this time for being "disingenuous," eh?

Have you actually read the Horne report you linked above? It doesn't discuss at all the Lifetime Earnings report on Oswald. That's what we are talking about, remember? The Horne report mostly talks about two 1995 letters from the IRS stating that the Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) for Dolly Shoe and Pfisterer Dental Lab were created in 1964! That's what the "computer update in 1964" you cited above was used to explain. Again, the report you link says NOTHING about the lifetime earnings report of Oswald.

Post the whole document instead of part of it. You talk about a "month after..." but the date along with other possible helpful data is not included by you. "A month after" what? The 12th of Never?

If it was prior to the 1964 computer upgrade, that may have some bearing on the missing data.

Is it also not possible that Oswald was simply issued another Social Security Number after returning from the USSR?

Explain how this works again. Was the SSA complicit in the conspiracy? How much do you claim was forged? Who worked at those places in 55/56 if not LHO?

My problem is that Armstrong takes real anomalies and bends them to his theory. He also invents anomalies that you have to learn to speak in tongues to comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me. I'm still waiting for an apology from YOU for telling untruths about past posts of mine.

Oh great and powerful Parker... please accept my apology for ever telling any untruths about anything you've ever posted. Yours are the truest of true words and the wisest of wise thoughts.

Get over yourself already

and my dear friend Tommy... yes indeed... the people that read what he writes who agree, do find him effective. These are the same type who follow a Ms. Baker.

Faith Tommy... ya gotta have FAITH and you too can get a few followers, guaranteed.

Still have yet to hear a convincing argument to explain the timeline conflicts of CE1961 and CE1962.

Care to give it a shot or maybe defer to the rabbi?

Typical. You whine claiming I never apologized for being "wrong" (when in fact, I qualified what I said as "my best guess") and then have the hide to me to get over myself when I point out it is you who owes an apology. I demonstrated beyond any and all doubt that your claims about what I said in William Weston's thread was a total mischaracterization.

Baker inserts herself into history.

Armstrong inserts a figment of his imagination into history.

I study history and write about it.

Who can pick the odd one out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda...

Since no one seems very interested in your work on its own versus those who follow the work of Armstrong, attacking him and H&L at least garners you some attention so you can pitch your view of history and sell a few books...

your version of the American dream I suppose.

:up

Maybe spend a little time here focusing on what YOU have to offer and what YOU'VE discovered rather than continue to post hollow promises of amazing revelations related to Oswald & the "real" History while urging people to just buy my book -

Sure sounds alot like JVB's approach to the "facts" while requiring "faith" in the author - just buy my book.

Your two major contributions against H&L are the tonsils grew back and Asperger's syndrome... fatal blows to the credibility of the research GP - I don't know how it is that H&L survives such an effective onslaught

:rolleyes:

Again... we're so sorry that you cannot find the time or have the ability to delve honestly into the evidence behind H&L for yourself..

So rather than list yet another batch of conflicts within the records, we can just leave it lay.

You have books to sell and people to convince that H&L is not possible... so have at it.

oh, and good luck with your sales! Maybe you'll sell as many as Posner !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda...

Since no one seems very interested in your work on its own versus those who follow the work of Armstrong, attacking him and H&L at least garners you some attention so you can pitch your view of history and sell a few books...

your version of the American dream I suppose.

:up

Maybe spend a little time here focusing on what YOU have to offer and what YOU'VE discovered rather than continue to post hollow promises of amazing revelations related to Oswald & the "real" History while urging people to just buy my book -

Sure sounds alot like JVB's approach to the "facts" while requiring "faith" in the author - just buy my book.

Your two major contributions against H&L are the tonsils grew back and Asperger's syndrome... fatal blows to the credibility of the research GP - I don't know how it is that H&L survives such an effective onslaught

:rolleyes:

Again... we're so sorry that you cannot find the time or have the ability to delve honestly into the evidence behind H&L for yourself..

So rather than list yet another batch of conflicts within the records, we can just leave it lay.

You have books to sell and people to convince that H&L is not possible... so have at it.

oh, and good luck with your sales! Maybe you'll sell as many as Posner !!

Dear David,

Seems like you're "casting aspersions" here on Greg's integrity. Using inflammatory language, too.

Are you trying to provoke Greg into saying something rash?

Isn't "casting aspersions" on another member's character a violation of the EF's code of conduct?

Perhaps it is you whose posting rights should be suspended this time.

Peace, Mahalo, and Shalom,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that there is a "simple" explanation for anything related to Oswald flies in the face of 50 years of research by independent citizens. It does, however, echo the views of "professional" journalists and historians. Everything about Lee Harvey Oswald is confusing and open to question. To state otherwise is to ignore much of the information available to us, not to mention all that's been destroyed, lost or remains classified.

If there were merely a few anomalies about Oswald's height or something, that would probably be easy to explain. But Oswald was a supposed minimum-wage loser that attracted the much older, upper-crust, intelligence-connected George DeMohrenschildt as a best friend. He can be connected to pro-Castro and anti-Castro activists and to American intelligence. He was called "Private Oswaldovicth" according to the similarly intriguing Kerry Thornley, but all the rest of his Marine colleagues remembered him differently. It was recalled, for instance, that he was proud to have been named after the great Robert E. Lee. How does an affinity for Robert E. Lee jibe with a die hard leftist so enamored of the communist ideology that he defected to the Soviet Union?

Excusing all the unconnected instances of someone seemingly impersonating Oswald in the period just before the assassination is something that the authorities and "professional" journalists would do. If Oswald was being set up to be the patsy, whether through Armstrong's theory or otherwise, those incidents represent some of the strongest evidence we have of conspiratorial behavior. None of these encounters has been demonstrated to be less than credible, no matter how many Oswalts and alleged mental issues can be injected into the discussion. Again, that is the sort of thing that mainstream reporters would do, or government authorities "investigating" the case would have done, and did in fact do.

There are huge discrepancies regarding Oswald's height, the schools he attended, etc. Yelling that this isn't so doesn't contradict the data, or cause reasonable people to turn off their skepticism. Jack White's ground-breaking work on the photographic record regarding Oswald remains important, no matter how many times posters on a forum say otherwise.

I am aware of the problems with Armstrong's theory. I don't agree with it all, particularly in his reliance upon what I think is dubious evidence of Oswald's post-assassination movements. But I value his effort, and the fact that he added a new element to the database, much as David Lifton did (and again, I can recognize Lifton's importance without buying the entire body alteration theory).

"Harvey and Lee" is just a theory. It makes no sense to be as devoted to condemning it as John Armstrong is to promulgating it. Regardless of the theory, no one can deny that Armstrong did a great deal of work and unearthed a lot of valuable information. That information certainly doesn't bolster the official fairy tale, with or without the theory. The theory doesn't detract from "serious" research or researchers, and in fact adds to our understanding of the case.

Edited by Don Jeffries

Share this post


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

×