Greg Parker Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 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. It died at birth. But it's not gone. The followers cling to the stinking remains and insist upon foisting them upon us all. Show me where I have used ad hom. Sounds like you're one of those who doesn't really understand what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Count me among those who think Harvey and Lee a distraction. I just don't buy it. While I could buy an impersonation starting in the late 50's, the whole multiple Marguerite thing is loopy, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I've looked at Jack White's photo studies--and I recall how his buddy Fetzer proved White had stretched out some of the photos, and that this had change Oswald's appearance. And I also have this thing called a photo album...that proves I have changed far more in appearance than Oswald or his mother. Edited June 17, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 12-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal. 12-5 Edited June 17, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal. 12-5 Citing fiction in defense of fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal. 12-5 Citing fiction in defense of fiction. So says the expert on fiction... 12-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal. 12-5 Citing fiction in defense of fiction. So says the expert on fiction... 12-6 12-5, I already counted you, Hargrove and Gaal in the beginning. My Count, let me know if anyone disputes anything: Pro-H&L Hargrove Josephs Gaal Blank Mitcham Against-H&L Parker Parnell Sorensen Graves Brancato Kamp Loney Kinaski Tidd Carroll Laverick Speer Can't Tell Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 The film "Twelve Angry Men" At the start, Eleven for conviction, one against. At the end, twelve for acquittal. 12-5 Citing fiction in defense of fiction. So says the expert on fiction... 12-6 No. Just someone who can tell the difference. "I just go over there [Ed Forum] now to watch fireworks... no use in posting anymore..." David Josephs, yesterday at the DeepFoo. Let's see what else you had to say from the safety the of nest Case in point... John wrote that Everyone involved in the leafletting at the ITM was intelligence... including the cameraman for that TV station... So rather than deal with the 95% of those involved who were intelligence, right down to Steele Jr, they mention that the cameramen in question was not intelligence ... See how WRONG John is and how much he SPECULATES !!! You and Brian Doyle wouldn't know how to lie straight in bed. NO one said the cameraman named by Armstrong was not "intelligence". All that was said was that he named the wrong cameraman as being there. That remains true regardless of your objections to your own straw man. The only allegation I've heard about Steele, Jr is that he was an informant. Informants are sources for intelligence. You seem to be elevating him above his station by suggesting he was some kind of intelligence agent. You go behind the locked door at DeepFoo and get applauded for your twisting of the facts. Doesn't matter. I will simply respond here at my own site. Cowardice is no virtue and isn't going to be rewarded with a free pass. You also whine about what you claim has gone unanswered - specifically the Alice sightings, despite the fact that I told you I would read up on it and get back to you about it. Meanwhile, you steadfastly ignore all requests to address things like my finding the names of the alleged father and uncle and showing that they were not related to each other, nor look anything like Oswald. Same with requests to address the issue of Bennierita Smirth's testimony which shows the small, studious kid who hung out with Voebel was not "Harvey" but a kid named Bobby Neumann. Once again - sheer cowardice. I am quite happy to debate you or anyone else on this. You and others have shown you have no stomach for facts or hard questions. You proved that by barring me from the the Foo despite my behavior being better than those attacking me. That followed on from the H & L FaceBook page which not only kicked me out for the sin of posting evidence contrary to the theory, they then became a hidden group. Cowardice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) Parker - who tries to convince us the Marines simply asked Oswald, "height, weight, vision, blood pressure, etc..." and just recorded what he said to arrive at 61" and 150 lbs.... who believes it was Radionics that influenced the Oxnard call where a crazy women rambles about JFK's assassination who wants us to believe that a 6% chance of tonsil regrowth in 5 year olds within the first 30 months after surgery explkains why the USMC records have Oswald suffering from tonsilitis and the Russian hospital records telling us that the man they saw had normal tonsils and adenoids who also claims that an article on riots in Ft Worth in 1956 and comments Oswald made proves he was not at Pfisterer's in 1958 who supplies 7 sources to debunk Oswald at Beauregard JHS in 1953-54 that are all asked only about the 54-55 school year who tries to convince us that from March 23, 1953 to Sept 14, 1953 includes 200 school days from which the records and FBI show his attendance. (there are 210 potential school days in that period which includes 55 days of summer, 10 days of winter break, 5 days of spring break, 17 days at the Youth House. who doesn;t realize that Robert Oswald puts him at PS44 in MANHATTAN at 77th and Columbus in 8th grade in 1954 while the boys PO Carro writes he enters 9th grade at PS44 on Propect in the Bronx The FBI records from NYC are a complete sham... one has to ask, for what possible reason would it be necessary to do the kind of background investigation which includes the taking off ALL his original Jr high school records only to be held and copied by the FBI. There are at least 3 different versions of the boy's "Permanent" record... see below Parnell - Jim covered it Sorensen - Parker minion (PM) Graves - witless parrot Brancato - sad to say Paul here... always thought he'd keep an open mind Kamp - PM Loney - PM Kinaski - who knows what Karl is ever thinking anyway Tidd - Jon is a surprise, he and I discussed many aspects yet I think he presents as a lawyer much better than he understands Carroll - Yup, Ray, who other than Paul Trejo offers more unfounded conclusions without corroboration than most anyone there.. Paul is really way out there Laverick - PM Speer - he has too much at stake with his work to allow for H&L.... We should add Lifton, Hoover, All the WC lawyers, and anyone with a vested interest that would be damaged by admitting, let alone investigating the H&L reality. When any of these boys or girls posts corroboration for a rebuttal, Hell will freeze... ok, rant over... More strawmen, more screwing with facts, more cowardice from you at the Foo. And if I'm not mistaken David, some of your comments about individuals violate this forum's rules: Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members:- Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may loose their posting privileges or indeed be banned. Edited June 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 If it matters, add me to the 'against h&l' list. I've seen no reason to say otherwise. (That doesn't mean I'm for, against or ambivalent about anything else the pro or anti people listed, or not listed, have to say about anything else.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 13-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 13-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 14-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Make it 15-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 16 - 6 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