Greg Parker Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Why am I not surprised you're supporting another fraudster?But I am not going to drawn into a debate about alternative medicine. The topic here is "Harvey & Lee". Stay on topic or stay out of the way. If you keep trying to change the debate, I will report it. Edited May 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) From Harvey and Lee: Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January 17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02 Is what I've highlighted above a true statement or not? Just a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is required. No Greg... given that there is a possibility that the tonsils can grow back, there is a chance that Lee Oswald's did just that enough to cause him the pain we see treated in the USMC record. I don't speak for John, I speak with him. Does the chance that they did grow back negate the one and only thing which suggests the existence of the two men? do we agree that this is not the only conflict in who-what-where-when-how stated within the USMC/FBI/CIA/etc records and it was these same USMC Discharge documents which state he was 71" and 150 lbs in Sept 1959.... is that not official enough? do we agree the man ruby killed was not 71" nor 150 lbs - or do I need to post the autopsy too... See, you posted the first half argument already - the photo of the marine getting bigger after basic... Ozzie gets bigger in the marines and from 17 to 20 as any man would... but the getting smaller part over the next few years, you don't seem to say much about that Greg. Your argument is that there is no official measurement of Oswald at 71"... I posted the image. What else ? =========== You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it. Will your response to the height issue will be based on a better probability of occurring then tonsil regrowth? "You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it." Greg - why do you go back and ask me again about this passage when I replied and asked you how to reconcile the height reduction after the USMC measured him at 71"... to his death height of 68"-69" How did he get shorter in those 4 years? Edited May 18, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Hey there Greg... On page 455 of CE985 is the translation for Oswald's visit to a Russian Hospital. It includes the words: "tonsils not enlarged". If what you claim is true, and the small amount of tissue that was left allowed a tiny version of the tonsils to regrow (we both read the same articles that said they don't grow back anywhere near the size of the originals) wouldn't the observation be "tonsils undersized" or "small regrowth tonsils"... they were checking for the normal enlargment that may occur... So LEE has them removed yet HARVEY in Russia has a full set... and dies at least 2 inches shorter than the man the USMC measured in Sept 1959... Do tell..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Posted 16 May 2015 - 05:19 AM Steven Gaal, on 15 May 2015 - : Steven Gaal, on 15 May 2015 - Your citations are not direct rebuttal to the quote I supplied from RP's testimony. They are meaningless for that reason.// PARKER ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Like sworn statements from DMV people that there was a LHO drivers license (not made out of any possible self-interest) . vs SPOOKY RUTH PAINE TO EACH HIS OWN (GAAL) -------------------------------------- What on earth are talking about? This has NOTHING TO DO with whether he had a license or not. It is about her saying that Lee was under the wrong impression that he needed a car to take the test. There is NO direct rebuttal to that. Either you have some serious comprehension issues, or you deliberately clouding the issues.//PARKER ============================================================= If he has a drivers license ,then no need to take a test........GAAL ======================== Moronic. They said it was all stained brown and dirty like it had sat in someone's wallet for a while. That sounds a lot like his application to me...// PARKER ===================================================================================== The DMV people made sworn statements it (LHO's) was a License and not an application. The DMV people know the difference. (GAAL) =============================================================== ################################################################################ Why am I not surprised you're supporting another fraudster? But I am not going to drawn into a debate about alternative medicine. The topic here is "Harvey & Lee". Stay on topic or stay out of the way. If you keep trying to change the debate, I will report it.// Parker ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) How quickly we forget Mr. Parker. YOU brought up the topic of alternative medicine on this thread yourself. Please report yourself....old man....... and BTW Parker in calling my post moronic is a violation of post rules .....I should report it (GAAL) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh yes and your post had this below which is in support of my position and not yours...THANK YOU> (do you read what you paste/post ?? hum.....?) ---- In 1974, after protest and lobbying by influential and prominent DOs, the California Supreme Court ruled in Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California v. California Medical Association, that licensing of DOs in that state must be resumed.[3] Edited May 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Hey there Greg... On page 455 of CE985 is the translation for Oswald's visit to a Russian Hospital. It includes the words: "tonsils not enlarged". If what you claim is true, and the small amount of tissue that was left allowed a tiny version of the tonsils to regrow (we both read the same articles that said they don't grow back anywhere near the size of the originals) wouldn't the observation be "tonsils undersized" or "small regrowth tonsils"... they were checking for the normal enlargment that may occur... So LEE has them removed yet HARVEY in Russia has a full set... and dies at least 2 inches shorter than the man the USMC measured in Sept 1959... Do tell..... Again, more duplicity. It just goes on and on. A report that states the tonsils were "not enlarged", (that is - not big), is, staggeringly, used as evidence that 'Harvey' had a "full set" and thus couldn't possibly be the same person. "Not enlarged" = "Full set" in the H&L world. It's a house of mirrors... And for good measure we'll throw in another totally unrelated issue about heights to confuse the issue further... If Harvey and Lee supporters were a blues musician it would definitely be...Muddy Waters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) From Harvey and Lee: Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January 17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02 Is what I've highlighted above a true statement or not? Just a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is required. No Greg... given that there is a possibility that the tonsils can grow back, there is a chance that Lee Oswald's did just that enough to cause him the pain we see treated in the USMC record. I don't speak for John, I speak with him. Does the chance that they did grow back negate the one and only thing which suggests the existence of the two men? do we agree that this is not the only conflict in who-what-where-when-how stated within the USMC/FBI/CIA/etc records and it was these same USMC Discharge documents which state he was 71" and 150 lbs in Sept 1959.... is that not official enough? do we agree the man ruby killed was not 71" nor 150 lbs - or do I need to post the autopsy too... See, you posted the first half argument already - the photo of the marine getting bigger after basic... Ozzie gets bigger in the marines and from 17 to 20 as any man would... but the getting smaller part over the next few years, you don't seem to say much about that Greg. Your argument is that there is no official measurement of Oswald at 71"... I posted the image. What else ? =========== You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it. Will your response to the height issue will be based on a better probability of occurring then tonsil regrowth? "You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it." Greg - why do you go back and ask me again about this passage when I replied and asked you how to reconcile the height reduction after the USMC measured him at 71"... to his death height of 68"-69" How did he get shorter in those 4 years? What the hell is this??? Are you inventing conversations now? Edited May 19, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Hey there Greg... On page 455 of CE985 is the translation for Oswald's visit to a Russian Hospital. It includes the words: "tonsils not enlarged". If what you claim is true, and the small amount of tissue that was left allowed a tiny version of the tonsils to regrow (we both read the same articles that said they don't grow back anywhere near the size of the originals) wouldn't the observation be "tonsils undersized" or "small regrowth tonsils"... they were checking for the normal enlargment that may occur... So LEE has them removed yet HARVEY in Russia has a full set... and dies at least 2 inches shorter than the man the USMC measured in Sept 1959... Do tell..... Again, more duplicity. It just goes on and on. A report that states the tonsils were "not enlarged", (that is - not big), is, staggeringly, used as evidence that 'Harvey' had a "full set" and thus couldn't possibly be the same person. "Not enlarged" = "Full set" in the H&L world. It's a house of mirrors... And for good measure we'll throw in another totally unrelated issue about heights to confuse the issue further... If Harvey and Lee supporters were a blues musician it would definitely be...Muddy Waters! Nailed Bernie. He is using a translation of unknown accuracy. He is then making medical assumptions and drawing conclusions based on the translation and those assumptions. As I have explained before, my informtion is that the USMC does not measure people on the way out. I have asked more than once for this to be corrected if it is wrong. Instead, we just just the wound up parrot on repeat settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Posted 16 May 2015 - 05:19 AM Steven Gaal, on 15 May 2015 - : Steven Gaal, on 15 May 2015 - Your citations are not direct rebuttal to the quote I supplied from RP's testimony. They are meaningless for that reason.// PARKER ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Like sworn statements from DMV people that there was a LHO drivers license (not made out of any possible self-interest) . vs SPOOKY RUTH PAINE TO EACH HIS OWN (GAAL) -------------------------------------- What on earth are talking about? This has NOTHING TO DO with whether he had a license or not. It is about her saying that Lee was under the wrong impression that he needed a car to take the test. There is NO direct rebuttal to that. Either you have some serious comprehension issues, or you deliberately clouding the issues.//PARKER ============================================================= If he has a drivers license ,then no need to take a test........GAAL ======================== Moronic. They said it was all stained brown and dirty like it had sat in someone's wallet for a while. That sounds a lot like his application to me...// PARKER ===================================================================================== The DMV people made sworn statements it (LHO's) was a License and not an application. The DMV people know the difference. (GAAL) =============================================================== ################################################################################ Why am I not surprised you're supporting another fraudster? But I am not going to drawn into a debate about alternative medicine. The topic here is "Harvey & Lee". Stay on topic or stay out of the way. If you keep trying to change the debate, I will report it.// Parker ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) How quickly we forget Mr. Parker. YOU brought up the topic of alternative medicine on this thread yourself. Please report yourself....old man....... and BTW Parker in calling my post moronic is a violation of post rules .....I should report it (GAAL) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh yes and your post had this below which is in support of my position and not yours...THANK YOU> (do you read what you paste/post ?? hum.....?) ---- In 1974, after protest and lobbying by influential and prominent DOs, the California Supreme Court ruled in Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California v. California Medical Association, that licensing of DOs in that state must be resumed.[3] Calling your post "moronic" is not a violation. How does that last bit support you? It supports exactly what I said. That money and influence (lobbying) got osteopaths what they wanted: the title of "doctor". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 James R Gordon IMHO Parkers use of the word Moronic is a violation of forum rules. (GAAL) Posted 13 October 2014 - 11:11 AM Terms of Forum Use General Posting Behaviour:- ================================ No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions. Members would be ill advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable. No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions. -------------------------------------- Calling your post "moronic" is not a violation.// Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 James R Gordon IMHO Parkers use of the word Moronic is a violation of forum rules. (GAAL) Posted 13 October 2014 - 11:11 AM Terms of Forum Use General Posting Behaviour:- ================================ No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions. Members would be ill advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable. No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions. -------------------------------------- Calling your post "moronic" is not a violation.// Parker Tip: use the "report" button. moronicadjective So senseless as to be laughable: It was the perfect description of what you wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) James R Gordon IMHO Parkers use of the word Moronic is a violation of forum rules. (GAAL) Posted 13 October 2014 - 11:11 AM Terms of Forum Use General Posting Behaviour:- ================================ No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions. Members would be ill advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable. No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions. -------------------------------------- Calling your post "moronic" is not a violation.// Parker moronicadjective So senseless as to be laughable: It was the perfect description of what you wrote. And you still owe me an apology for claiming I misrepresented my background. Man up and show where I did or apologize. Or just whine to the owners about an accurate descrption of your post as yet another attempt to divert from the depths to which you and those who stand by this theory sink. I guess it's a no-brainer as to what you will do. Edited May 19, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I didn't see your response Greg... In the Russian hospital Oswald was taken to, he is shown to have "tonsils not enlarged". Even if the operation did not remove all the tonsil tissue, IF they regrow they do not come close in size to the originals - or will you be arguing that too? Seems to me they are saying his tonsils were normal yet you claim they grew back enough as to be the cause of all sorts of problems. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0308a.htm is the first page of a number addressing the Cold/Sore Throat/Tonsillitis. So let's keep arguing about a 1945 operation to remove tonsils which you say 1) was not done by a real doctor and 2) slightly grow back yet the man in Russia appears to have normal tonsils, the USMC record has this man treated for tonsillitis Talk about "moronic - adjective: So senseless as to be laughable:" Did tonsillitis cause him to shrink those 2 inches as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Steven Gaal, on 15 May 2015 - 8:51 PM, said: Your citations are not direct rebuttal to the quote I supplied from RP's testimony. They are meaningless for that reason.// PARKER ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Like sworn statements from DMV people that there was a LHO drivers license (not made out of any possible self-interest) . vs SPOOKY RUTH PAINE TO EACH HIS OWN What on earth are talking about? This has NOTHING TO DO with whether he had a license or not. It is about her saying that Lee was under the wrong impression that he needed a car to take the test. There is NO direct rebuttal to that. Either you have some serious comprehension issues, or you deliberately clouding the issues.//PARKER ============================================================= If he has a drivers license ,then no need to take a test........GAAL Moronic. They said it was all stained brown and dirty like it had sat in someone's wallet for a while. That sounds a lot like his application to me... So.... the people at the driver's license facility couldn't tell the difference between a driver's license and an application??? Are you serious? (Shout out to Albert D.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 "There was a period of time when the method used to remove the tonsils made it more likely for them to grow back. This method, which involved leaving the outer portion of the tonsils intact in order to reduce pain and decrease the risk of bleeding, is no longer used." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tonsilsandadenoids.html Thanks Mark.... Do you know when "no longer used" began? Do you know how much of the tonsil grows back? "Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size" http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f/Can-Your-Tonsils-Grow-Back-After-A-Tonsillectomy.htm Were you aware of this study with REAL stats... seems regrow occurs in the first 2.5 years after removal... did Oswald's history show signs of regrowth and Tonsilitis between age 7 and 16? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388693 OBJECTIVE:We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). METHODS:Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors. RESULTS:All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy. CONCLUSION:Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Had-My-Tonsils-Removed-And-They-Grew-Back/995794 Lots of examples here, and yes, some DO regrow to full size. And by the many readers' comments of personal experience it seems to happen within months of the surgical procedure to remove them. Tonsils do grow back. There are simply 100's of people on the net who are asking this question with reference to their own experience, many of which are once again suffering with tonsillitis and needing further surgery. Having two surgical operations for the same ailment is not in any way suspicious or indicative of a carefully laid out cold war intelligence plot to combine the lives of two adolescents (who, fortuitously for the planners, also grew to have almost identical facial features), in order to use one of them as a patsy in the undefined future for a plot that hadn't at that stage even been planned. When you strip away this hysterical paranoia and remove the tin-foil-hat melodrama you're left with what are, in all likelihood, much better explanations for these seeming anomalies. His tonsils grew back; like many other people's do. (That is if they were ever removed in the first place. Either way...) Bare this in mind, if it is fully accepted that tonsils can and do grow back, (sometimes to their original size), it would be a crushing blow to Armstrong's theory and so its adherents will fight this tooth and nail. Do any of these supporters have the decency to show a little humility from time to time and accept that maybe there are simpler explanations for a lot of the evidence you use to arrive at your conclusions. I asked this earlier and characteristically I didn't receive a reply. Is there anything in the H&L book that you now believe, with the benefit of 25 years extra research, may have an innocent explanation and doesn't necessarily fit into the H&L narrative? Did Armstrong get anything wrong? If so, what? Edited May 19, 2015 by Bernie Laverick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts