David Josephs Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Coming from the expert flogger... still can't figure out how they got 200 days - right GP? Wonder why Robert states his brother went to PS 44 in Manhattan as opposed to the one on Prospect by his apartment...?? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=37#entry305786 The poll's life cycle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Coming from the expert flogger... still can't figure out how they got 200 days - right GP? Wonder why Robert states his brother went to PS 44 in Manhattan as opposed to the one on Prospect by his apartment...?? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=37#entry305786 The poll's life cycle: Because Robert (and Marguerite testifying before the WC) were just as confused by their convoluted past as anyone else reading about it is. They moved so many times and Marguerite told so many self serving lies that their full chronology will probably never be known. And so far, by my count, we are winning the poll 9-3. Edited June 15, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Coming from the expert flogger... still can't figure out how they got 200 days - right GP? Wonder why Robert states his brother went to PS 44 in Manhattan as opposed to the one on Prospect by his apartment...?? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=37#entry305786 The poll's life cycle: Because Robert (and Marguerite testifying before the WC) were just as confused by their convoluted past as anyone else reading about it is. They moved so many times and Marguerite told so many self serving lies that their full chronology will probably never be known. And so far, by my count, we are winning the poll 9-3. So in a book where he is given the time to check facts - he gives the EXACT ADDRESS of PS 44 in Manhattan when he knows they were living in the Bronx? And then Carro, his PO, writes a report placing him in the 9th grade in Sept 1953. Only off by a year, I know, yet are you going to ascribe the same carelessness to the boy's PO whose reports are all pretty accurate if you take the time to read them. Maybe go over and see the articles and exhibits I posted at that link and let me know how every single record puts him in "X" - the Bronx, while his brother has him in Manhattan... and then states in 1959 that they must have moved back to Fort Worth to attend Stripling... when they instead were supposedly in New Orleans at BJHS. NONE of this is correct, and it appears that Jenner leads the charade... Jenner must know that 51-52 cannot possibly be Jr High School... he was finishing 6th grade as the records show. To reply to Robert about being 13 in 1952 and then to call it the 51-52 years (which ends in June 1952 when Ozzie was still 12) is either a simple mistake or a leading one... How can Robert make a statement like that when he knows they moved to NYC during the summer of 1952? Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then. Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School. Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school. In 1952, after traveling from Camp Pendleton, Calif., to Jacksonville, Fla. I did have a 10-day leave. They were in New York City at that time. Mr. JENNER. This was then some time in 1953, I take it? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir--1952. Mr. JENNER. 1952? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. This was---- Mr. JENNER. You mean your mother and Lee that is the period of time they were in New York City? Mr. OSWALD. That's correct. Mr. JENNER. Living there. Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER. Did you see them? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave. Mr. JENNER. Fix the time. Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family. Mr. JENNER. Where did you stay? Mr. OSWALD. At mother's apartment, with Lee, in the Bronx some place I do not recall the address. Tracy... why would Robert be trying to hide his visit to NYC in 1952 and lie about seeing his brother in 1953? Amazing circumstances and conflicts keep popping up during these 2 fateful years... but nothing to see here, move along... While also saying Ozzie was at Stripling in 7th grade at the same time Pic places him in NYC on double dates... Mr. PIC - At this same time in February 1953, I received orders to go aboard ship again, so from the time period February 1953, until September 1953, I was in and out of New York at sea. Mr. JENNER - Did you see either your mother or Lee during that period of time? Mr. PIC - I did not see Lee after the February visit, sir. I had seen her on several occasions Mr. PIC - So they moved out in about September 1952, maybe it was late September, early October, somewhere around there, so from about somewhere between September of 1952 and January 1953, my brother Robert came to New York on leave, and we were all invited up to the Bronx. Mr. JENNER - To visit whom? Mr. PIC - Sir? Mr. JENNER - To visit whom? Mr. PIC - To visit my mother and my brother. Mr. JENNER - Your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct. Mr. JENNER - Did your brother's wife accompany him? Mr. PIC - He wasn't married at that time, sir. Mr. JENNER - He wasn't married? Mr. PIC - I think this was, his leave was probably in October or November 1952, a matter of a month or two after they had moved out. We visited their apartment in the Bronx. Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, where did your brother stay? Mr. PIC - I think he stayed at the Soldier-Sailor-Airmen Club in New York. Mr. JENNER - In any event he did not stay with you. Mr. PIC - No, sir; he may have stayed with my mother also. I don't think so. Maybe for a night or two. We went out, my wife fixed him up with a date with one of her girl friends and we went out together a couple of times. So, we were invited up there for this Sunday dinner. So it was my mother, Lee, Robert, my wife, myself, and my son. Robert was already there when we arrived. When Lee seen me or my wife he left the room. For dinner he sat in the front room watching TV and didn't join us whatsoever. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir Amazing the number of things they are mistaken about for these records NOT to be indicative of two different kids... The kid who leaves the room is the same that used to run up to his big brother, collect stamps with him, and as Pic puts it: .... the strange knife incident is cited as the dividing line when these relationships all changed.... When Lee visited us in New York he came there a friendly, nice easy-to-like kid. Mr. JENNER - This is 1952 in the summer? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; he had the interest of boys at that age, the Museum of Natural History, sightseeing excursions and so forth. Until the incident where I talked to him we never had a bad word between us other than maybe joking or playing around. I tried to interest him in a hobby of building boats or collecting stamps again while he was-- Mr. JENNER - Had he been interested in those two hobbies? Mr. PIC - Yes; he and I, all three of us collected stamps. I played chess with Lee quite a bit and Robert, too. We all did this. Played monopoly together, the three of us Edited June 15, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) i stand with the truth. i stand with mr. armstrong. i say let the DNA speak for itself. Edited June 16, 2015 by Martin Blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 i stand with the truth. i stand with mr. armstrong. i say let the DNA speak for itself. That makes 9-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) That makes 9-4. I saw John Armstrong's first presentation of his Harvey/Lee theory at a Third Decade Conference in Fredonia, in 1996 (Peter Dale Scott was the keynote speaker). I was astonished at the sloppy way Armstrong handled evidence and gave his theory no credence whatsoever. I got to know John a little bit, and found him extremely likable, but I still think his theory is for the birds. So I guess that makes the vote 10-4. That's a big 10-4! Edited June 16, 2015 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Has anyone who was previously agnostic on H&L now been persuaded by the 'arguments' their supporters have put forward? My guess is...not one! 11 - 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 Even though polls deal in numbers and percentages, because of variations in sample size and other uncertainties, I think polls are more useful as a qualitative assessment of where people stand rather than some precise quantitative determination. Prayer Man is a topic I'm very interested in. I've seen two polls on Prayer Man in the past two years: one at Greg Parker's Reopen Kennedy Case forum and one at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination forum. Members at Greg's site lean heavily on the conspiracy side of things. His "Who is Prayer Man" poll had 30 out of 37 votes for Lee Oswald, or 81%. This tells me the arguments for PM being Oswald were persuasive and convincing. Duncan's membership looks to be along the lines of 50/50 LNs/CTs and yet his poll surprised me: out of 39 votes cast, 27, or 66%, said Prayer Man looks like Oswald. I wouldn't have thought it would be this high, given the vocal nature of those hostile to the idea. The important thing for me is that these two polls—from two completely different forums—show widespread support for notion that Prayer Man is Lee Oswald. So when Greg Parker started this poll on Harvey & Lee, I was curious to see how it would go. At this point in time, by a count of 11 to 4, it appears that 73% of the members here don't accept Armstrong's theory. The 73% number itself is not important; the relative magnitude says that a large majority of people don't buy into the theory for whatever reasons. As with the Prayer Man polls, this is telling. Randy, I'd be pretty certain that the vote here is running down what in politics would be called, party lines. I think that's the way it will continue. The simple truth is, while they may be hustling for converts, I'm not. I'm looking to nullify their hustling, if not to shut them down altogether. The H & L theory has all the same hallmarks as the Warren Commission. Started with a predetermined outcome Dissent within is not allowed Alternative explanations are not countenanced Witnesses were prepped Psyop techniques utilized through particular use of language to help prop up and sell their alternative universal realities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) The H & L theory has all the same hallmarks as the Warren Commission. Started with a predetermined outcome Dissent within is not allowed Alternative explanations are not countenanced Witnesses were prepped Psyop techniques utilized through particular use of language to help prop up and sell their alternative universal realities Hold on Greg, Let's not resort to defamation of character. John Armstrong is just guilty of some very sloppy and TENDENTIOUS research, as are hundreds of others. I don't know who all his followers are or what they may be up to, because I have generally ignored the Harvey/Lee controversy since 1996, and it may be that some of your characterizations are meant to apply to them and not to John himself. But I did get to know John Armstrong himself and I think I am old and experienced enoughto say that John is a person of good moral character and a helluva nice all-round guy. He believes what he says and writes even though, sadly, most of it is misguided. So by all means critique his theory, but please do not try to defame his character. Edited June 16, 2015 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 The H & L theory has all the same hallmarks as the Warren Commission. Started with a predetermined outcome Dissent within is not allowed Alternative explanations are not countenanced Witnesses were prepped Psyop techniques utilized through particular use of language to help prop up and sell their alternative universal realities Hold on Greg, Let's not resort to defamation of character. John Armstrong is just guilty of some very sloppy and TENDENTIOUS research, as are hundreds of others. I don't know who all his followers are or what they may be up to, because I have generally ignored the Harvey/Lee controversy since 1996, and it may be that some of your characterizations are meant to apply to them and not to John himself. But I did get to know John Armstrong himself and I think I am old and experienced enoughto say that John is a person of good moral character and a helluva nice all-round guy. He believes what he says and writes even though, sadly, most of it is misguided. So by all means critique his theory, but please do not try to defame his character. Manson was a nice guy who pleaded he himself killed no one, nor ordered any of his followers to - so I have no qualms about accepting what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Manson was a nice guy who pleaded he himself killed no one, nor ordered any of his followers to - so I have no qualms about accepting what you say. Why am I not surprised at ANOTHER meaningless response from the man DOWN UNDER! And a Bugliosi groupie, to boot! Edited June 16, 2015 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 Manson was a nice guy who pleaded he himself killed no one, nor ordered any of his followers to - so I have no qualms about accepting what you say. Why am I not surprised at ANOTHER meaningless response from the man DOWN UNDER! And a Bugliosi groupie, to boot! Jeese... can't even please you when I AGREE with you... Bugliosi groupie? Wow. That's low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Jeese... can't even please you when I AGREE with you... Bugliosi groupie? Wow. That's low. Comparing Charles Manson to John Armstrong... ??? You've lost me son. I think you owe John Armstrong a public apology. Edited June 16, 2015 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 Manson had charisma and a "truth" to tell. Not his fault that his followers misbehaved. Armstrong has charisma and a "truth" to tell. I have no doubt he doesn't order his followers to behave the way they do. Charlie could belt out a good tune. Meaningless when examined, but "catchy" nonetheless. Armstrong could deliver a good speech. Worthless when examined, but pleasing to some ears, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I have no doubt he doesn't order his followers to behave the way they do. So then give John a break and give the ad hominems a break. The Harvey/Lee theory is dead and gone, and ad hominems do nothing to help, except show your want of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now