Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Greg Parker

The problem with conspiracy

Recommended Posts

The biggest issue facing this community is in recognizing it jumped the shark a long time ago.

In the desperate scramble to "prove" a conspiracy anything and anyone has been accepted, if not feted in that quest.

Bogard is a case in point, almost certainly resulting in his death - but even that has become screwed up in the scramble for a conspiracy.

Let's look at the facts objectively.

Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina as saying she repeatedly asked Lee to buy a car.

Michael Paine testified that he bought a 1956 Olds for $200.00 in late Oct or early Nov and tried to impress upon Lee that car ownership was affordable.

Ruth Paine testified that Lee was under the false impression that he needed a car to take his test.

Bogard had no doubt the person he dealt with was Lee Oswald

Bogard's description of the driving skills of the person are on a par with Ruth's description of LHO's ability

So with all of that, we come up with a doppelganger? Give me a break.

Then we get the "hit list" with Bogard's name prominent.

Bogard, Albert – Dallas automobile salesman who said Oswald test drove a new car. He was badly beaten after giving testimony. Supposedly died by committing suicide with carbon monoxide poisoning.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/richard-charnin/the-mysterious-deaths-of-jfk-murder-witnesses/

Again, the objective facts tell a different story.

He had the government saying he was mistaken, or worse, lying, and he had would-be sleuths also claiming he was mistaken so they could claim he witnessed an imposter.

The upshot of being put under the microscope by your own government, media and loons in the general community just worsened his already evident stress because he was already suspected of insurance fraud in Louisiana http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10852&relPageId=17&search=%22albert_guy%20bogard%22

The files clearly show that Bogard slipped into depression as a result of all of this and part of that depression manifested as hypochondria. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57758&relPageId=83&search=dramamine It is very doubtful that he was bashed any more than that he had whiplash from a MVA. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57758&relPageId=83&search=dramamine

What is telling in his medical history was that he was being treated with Dramamine for an alleged traumatic injury to the middle ear.

What is known today is that abuse of Dramamine leads to depression. If someone is already depressed, as Bogard no doubt was, it should be no surprise he committed suicide because of the exacerbating effects of the drug.

http://www.drugsandpoisons.com/2007/01/dimenhydrinate.html

What CT's have done to Bogard, Odio, Yates and a lot of other people, events and evidence is a disgrace. "Wow" yes - this is what I believe. This is what the facts tell me.

I know I will be vilified for this alleged apostasy. I could care less. I will be accused yet again by Don of trying to downplay conspiracy. Suck it up buttercup. The case for conspiracy is HINDERED - not helped by all of YOUR paranoid, evidence-free claptrap. That's why it has to go.

I know ROKC will be villified. Bring it on. They are the greatest bunch of people I have had the pleasure of "knowing" on the net. We are fighters. We have goals. And we are going for them. What's everyone else doing?

The case for Oswald's innocence is found in the PM thread along with all the attendant and ancillary evidence.

The case for conspiracy is coming. Game, set & match. You can all please your selves after that.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth Paine & PARKER sitting in a tree K I S S I N G gaal

==================================================

cred·i·bil·i·ty

/ˌkredəˈbilədē/

noun

noun: credibility

the quality of being trusted and believed in.
"the government's loss of credibility"

synonyms: trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, integrity; More
reputation, status

"does he possess the moral credibility the party is looking for?"

•the quality of being convincing or believable.
"the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility"

synonyms: plausibility, believability, tenability, probability, feasibility, likelihood, credence; More
authority, cogency

"the whole tale lacks credibility"

•another term for street credibility.

====================================

credibility of CIA assets when the entire reputation/existence of CIA on the line >>>>>>>>>> ZERO gaal

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it.

Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived.

Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case.

You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case for conspiracy is coming. Game, set & match. You can all please your selves after that.

What??

The case for conspiracy is prima facie and has been with us from the beginning.

Anyone who is "scrambling" to "prove" conspiracy is someone who isn't in possession of the physical facts of the case.

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

2 shooters proven.

Many have concluded otherwise -- no one can factually argue otherwise.

No one.

The US gov't, the corporate media, and the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community have been suppressing/ignoring/dismissing the physical evidence since the night of the autopsy when the doctors weren't allowed to observe JFK's clothes.

CT/LN Pet Theorists despise the physical evidence in this case.

A relentless focus on the clothing evidence arouses dark & incredible passions in places like ROKC where folks like Lee Farley and Hasan Yusuf claim I deserve to have my head kicked in for this relentless focus.

It's a murder case -- physical evidence is always paramount in a murder case.

But not this one!

So Greg Parker is finally going to "answer" a question that was answered officially in the office of Arlen Specter almost 50 years ago.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

Gaeton Fonzi rolls in his grave...

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case for conspiracy is coming. Game, set & match. You can all please your selves after that.

What??

The case for conspiracy is prima facie and has been with us from the beginning.

I am talking about a case that can't be ignored or dismissed. Hard evidence of who was involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it.

Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived.

Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case.

You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

I'm talking about the conspiracy that actually occurred, rather than the nebulous all-encompassing one you imagine.

Comparing me to the WC just shows how bereft of insight you are.

You are the one who sides with the WC on Bogard, not me. I believe the guy. And the document that was found by Griggs was not testimony. It was from an early interview. She lied on a number of fronts to the WC, but if you are going to discount everything she ever said because of that, then she also must have lied early on when protesting her husband's innocence. Maybe she was just a compulsive xxxx - but I thought the usual take on Marina was that she lied to the WC because of threats made to her while she was under a form of "house arrest/protective custody". You want to paint her as a compulsive xxxx on everything now simply because it suits your agenda. The Paines also lied about some things. That doesn't mean they lied about everything, and there is no discernible reason for them to lie on the matters I raised. Again - you dismiss them on this simply on the grounds that it ruins your agenda.

You keep harping about Jack White. Suck it up buttercup. He gave three different stories - 2 to me and yet another to Armstrong. You want to harp about Marina changing her stories and making stuff up, yet give Jack White a free pass. Hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the one who sides with the WC on Bogard, not me. I believe the guy.

The Warren Commission believed that Bogard encountered an Oswald imposter? That's what I believe.

And the document that was found by Griggs was not testimony. It was from an early interview. She lied on a number of fronts to the WC, but if you are going to discount everything she ever said because of that, then she also must have lied early on when protesting her husband's innocence. Maybe she was just a compulsive xxxx - but I thought the usual take on Marina was that she lied to the WC because of threats made to her while she was under a form of "house arrest/protective custody". You want to paint her as a compulsive xxxx on everything now simply because it suits your agenda.

Marina's credibility will always be suspect with me, because her testimony was so damaging to Oswald. I can understand why she cooperated with the authorities, and I'm sure she was frightened. But that doesn't explain why, even after she finally went public with her belief that there was a conspiracy, she continued to maintain that she'd taken the obviously fake backyard photos.

The Paines also lied about some things. That doesn't mean they lied about everything, and there is no discernible reason for them to lie on the matters I raised. Again - you dismiss them on this simply on the grounds that it ruins your agenda.

No reason for them to lie? Maybe you're the only researcher out there who thinks that clear indications of Oswald being impersonated aren't strong evidence of conspirators framing their patsy in advance. And the Paines weren't interested in any evidence of conspiracy.

You keep harping about Jack White. Suck it up buttercup. He gave three different stories - 2 to me and yet another to Armstrong. You want to harp about Marina changing her stories and making stuff up, yet give Jack White a free pass. Hypocrite.

I can honestly say I've never been called "Buttercup" before. This is the second time you've used that one on me, but then again you are incapable of making your points without some kind of name-calling. And White didn't give three different stories. But that won't stop you from misrepresenting him at every opportunity. You've very fortunate that he doesn't appear to have any lawsuit-happy relatives that survived him, because your attacks on him border on slander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to "prove" there was a conspiracy. A few days studying the evidence will convince anyone without an agenda that there was a conspiracy. The authorities would have needed to prove Oswald did it beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming he was tried in an honest courtroom (which he probably wouldn't have been), and had competent legal representation (which probably wouldn't have been the case). To disinterested researchers, they inadvertently proved he couldn't have done it.

Every source you cited in order to build your Warren Commission-style theory that the real Oswald visited Bogard is tainted. So Ian Griggs found a document quoting Marina about Oswald buying a car? You can't be serious! Marina's testimony about anything regarding her husband is worthless. Do you also think that she held the bathroom door to keep him from shooting Nixon? Along with the Paines- these are the three sources used for virtually everything negative we "know" about Oswald. Quoting them is like quoting yet another intelligence agency asset about the Kennedys being gung ho about efforts to assassinate Castro, or how our Vietnam policy wouldn't have changed if he'd lived.

Yes, Greg, you're certainly making the case for conspiracy stronger by relying on Marina and the Paines, and once again attributing the testimony of a witness who bolstered it to some kind of mental or emotional illness. And no matter how you slice it, Bogard was found dead in his car in a cemetery, with a bunch of papers featuring stories about the JFK assassination in the trunk. That's suspicious and significant, especially when combined with all the other unnatural deaths connected to this case.

You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove, insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth, dismiss the separate encounters Yates, Bogard and Odio had with seeming Oswald impersonators as separate instances of mental illness, etc. Your theories are wilder than anything your dreaded "conspiracy theorists" have ever come up with.

"You accuse others of being irresponsible, yet you continue to accuse Jack White of chicanery that you can't possibly prove..."

Do you not ever read these posts Don? Did you not read the link PROVING that White back-tracked on his admission of knowing Kudlaty for over 50 years? Why do you refuse to do this? Covering your eyes and ears whilst screaming at Greg for highlighting the link where he admitted it is just bizarre behaviour (...and thus, perfectly par for the course here!)

Keep calling Greg out on this Don but please, whatever you do, don't ever check out if there's any truth in it. We wouldn't want to spoil your day...

insist that Oswald's tonsil issue was the result of a very, very improbable regrowth

Oh please Don, pay attention. Your boy Josephs has already admitted that regrowth occurs in 6% of tonsillectomies, (though he originally provided research that suggested it could even be as high as 15%). Again, do you not read these posts? Look, if it's as low as 1% it still provides a far more credible explanation than the ridiculous complexities you guys weave to make one Harvey and one Lee. You dismiss 6% odds as being "improbably" low, so low they aren't worth mentioning and those that do are COINTELPRO trolls and minions who can't see the real picture. No irony there then.

And you guys have the gall to talk about improbabilities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case for conspiracy is coming. Game, set & match. You can all please your selves after that.

What??

The case for conspiracy is prima facie and has been with us from the beginning.

I am talking about a case that can't be ignored or dismissed. Hard evidence of who was involved.

Thank you for the distinction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg - I don't want to feel annoyed by you, but it is starting to get to me. So in the interests of stopping that would you be willing to outline your version of what did or didn't happen on Nov 22 1963? Or, send me somewhere so I can understand what you believe at this point. You are good at tearing down other people's beliefs, and perhaps you have good points. But at last with Josephs or Jeffries I know what their starting pont is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the one who sides with the WC on Bogard, not me. I believe the guy.

The Warren Commission believed that Bogard encountered an Oswald imposter? That's what I believe.

And the document that was found by Griggs was not testimony. It was from an early interview. She lied on a number of fronts to the WC, but if you are going to discount everything she ever said because of that, then she also must have lied early on when protesting her husband's innocence. Maybe she was just a compulsive xxxx - but I thought the usual take on Marina was that she lied to the WC because of threats made to her while she was under a form of "house arrest/protective custody". You want to paint her as a compulsive xxxx on everything now simply because it suits your agenda.

Marina's credibility will always be suspect with me, because her testimony was so damaging to Oswald. I can understand why she cooperated with the authorities, and I'm sure she was frightened. But that doesn't explain why, even after she finally went public with her belief that there was a conspiracy, she continued to maintain that she'd taken the obviously fake backyard photos.

The Paines also lied about some things. That doesn't mean they lied about everything, and there is no discernible reason for them to lie on the matters I raised. Again - you dismiss them on this simply on the grounds that it ruins your agenda.

No reason for them to lie? Maybe you're the only researcher out there who thinks that clear indications of Oswald being impersonated aren't strong evidence of conspirators framing their patsy in advance. And the Paines weren't interested in any evidence of conspiracy.

You keep harping about Jack White. Suck it up buttercup. He gave three different stories - 2 to me and yet another to Armstrong. You want to harp about Marina changing her stories and making stuff up, yet give Jack White a free pass. Hypocrite.

I can honestly say I've never been called "Buttercup" before. This is the second time you've used that one on me, but then again you are incapable of making your points without some kind of name-calling. And White didn't give three different stories. But that won't stop you from misrepresenting him at every opportunity. You've very fortunate that he doesn't appear to have any lawsuit-happy relatives that survived him, because your attacks on him border on slander.

1. You side with the WC on Bogard to the extent that you don't believe he saw Oswald. I believe the guy.

2. Again, Marina lied. But unless she was a compulsive xxxx, she had no reason to lie about asking Lee to buy a car.

3. The Paines also lied. But unless they too were compulsive liars. there was no reason to lie on the issues I raised.

4. White didn't give 3 different stories? Excuse me. He damn well did - unless Armstrong is "mistaken" when he claimed White told him he didn't know Kudlaty at all. He certainly gave me 2 different stories. How the hell can you deny that when the evidence is right here on this forum in White's own words?

5. "Suck it up Buttercup" is just an expression used here - one I wasn't aware was not used elsewhere. Get over it.

6. Bring on the lawsuits.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

You are correct when you write:

"In the desperate scramble to "prove" a conspiracy anything and anyone has been accepted, if not feted in that quest."

I share your frustration. Many ask, "What's your evidence?" Some argue, "That's not evidence." Others say, "It's circumstantial evidence." Your lament is that there is no accepted way to determine which asserted facts should be considered. You argue certain asserted facts are hot air.

To this extent, you are right Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg - I don't want to feel annoyed by you, but it is starting to get to me. So in the interests of stopping that would you be willing to outline your version of what did or didn't happen on Nov 22 1963? Or, send me somewhere so I can understand what you believe at this point. You are good at tearing down other people's beliefs, and perhaps you have good points. But at last with Josephs or Jeffries I know what their starting pont is.

I am willing to -- and am in the process of doing it.

The bare bones without going into the evidence.

Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the soviet union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had "outed" himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September.

The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy.

There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won't go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina's wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local "subversive", they both would become scapegoats.

The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity - as well as all the necessary connections.

The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald's time in Misk and knew a lot about past communist cases.

You can tear it down now, but I don't know how you'll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up.

Also Paul... everything I have said here, I have said in the past. Maybe just not all in one post.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg - who, in your view, planned this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg - who, in your view, planned this?

Sorry Paul, but you are going to have to wait for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...