W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: And while you're at it, David, tell them about Operation Northwoods and see if they believe that "utter nonsense" too. LOL Whatever points you or Josephs want to make about Operation Northwoods may or may not be correct. But it has nothing to do with 2 Oswalds. Many people think very highly of articles David Josephs has written. He (and you Sandy) would be better served by abandoning the H&L fantasy, and that is what it is, and he might be taken more seriously. There were not 2 Oswalds and that is a provable fact. If you think otherwise, stop talking and take it to the media. And don't tell me you can't find one person in the media that is not "in on the plot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 30 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye. Well if that's the case (and it very well may be), then how was it possible for the examiner to see that "imperceptible" scar in Oswald's decomposed skin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Well if that's the case (and it very well may be), then how was it possible for the examiner to see that "imperceptible" scar in Oswald's decomposed skin? As I understand it, there is an incision to gain access and then part of the bone is taken out. This leaves a more or less circular defect and that is what was discovered at the exhumation. The scar itself had rotted away. The fact that Rose didn't find the scar or defect at the original autopsy is less surprising given the above information. You can see the defect here, although the photo isn't that great. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/paul-groody.html Edited September 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Tracy - if you go way up you'll read Joseph's reply to me about when I asked "Do you really truly believe everything?" Based on his reply - that he doesn't trust any word from anyone from officialdom - and only trusts the alternative or opposing views like Howard Zinn's alternative view of history - then you're not going to convince him of anything. When I read his reply, I thought to myself - I rest my case. I knew there had to be something odd about his way of thinking and his reply confirmed what I'd always thought. To his way of thinking - no medical doctor with 50 plaques on his wall is going to be good enough for him. It's just going to be more of the same, more "No, no. They're wrong. They're lying" and it's not because these doctors are genuine medical people and could make a mistake. It's simply because in someone like his mind, the "official" report or statement is a lie, that no one in authority tells the truth. That's the simple analysis of it if you read what he wrote. My hunch, too, is Sandy Larsen thinks the same way though don't expect neither of them to ever have the ability or balls to admit that that's how they think. As for Jim Hargrove he pretty much tipped his hand when he put the HL package photo on here. He keeps peddling this xxxx for millionaire (cough) John Armstrong hoping suckers buy it. So it's pretty much a lost cause with his people. Edited September 21, 2017 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: If you think otherwise, stop talking and take it to the media. Oh yeah, right Tracy. I'll take H&L to the media and also the true story of Oswald being the patsy for the CIA planned coup d'etat. I'm sure both will be published and not ridiculed by the MSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Sandy - Tracy offers no answers. His only hope is to plant reasonable doubt and pray it spreads. There are hundreds of point of evidence which prove the existence of the two men. Just as there are hundreds if not thousand of points of evidence proving Oswald innocent of both crimes he was accused of... As you so back-handedly mention, I've written quite a bit that is published and much more in the forums... I spent 2 years with Armstrong going thru each footnote and source in his book.... some are speculative... the overwhelming majority is not. YOU did not sit with these people and interview them... did you? YOU did not spend 10 years at the Archives acquiring documents not offered anywhere else - did you? What YOU are doing is trying to climb on his shoulders and kick him in the face in the process because you entirely too preoccupied with rebuttal to offer anything original or new. On 9/21/2017 at 4:04 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said: WHO???? would be better served by abandoning the H&L fantasy, and that is what it is, and he might be taken more seriously Take a bit of your own medical Tracy. Showing you can't add to 123, 200 or 210 helps your cause... how? shows you should be taken seriously... why? simply because you take a contrary position on something you barely cover 10% of? Cherry-picking a few items and hoping they extend to every item is wishful thinking but not helping your credibility much. Reading reports about Oswald's time in Ping Tung and then claiming he never went doesn't change the FACTS... he went while Lee Oswald was treated for STD... I am truly not concerned about the level of seriousness others see in me... Read what I write, see how I present it and support it and make your own decisions.... There remains one simple fact... the 5'11" 150-165lb Lee Oswald was not the same person as the 5'9" 135lb Harvey Oswald killed by Ruby. Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Tracy - if you go way up you'll read Joseph's reply to me about when I asked "Do you really truly believe everything?" Based on his reply - that he doesn't trust any word from anyone from officialdom - and only trusts the alternative or opposing views like Howard Zinn's alternative view of history - then you're not going to convince him of anything. Hi Michael, They claim not to trust official sources but Armstrong and Hargrove have no problem doing so when it supports the H&L theory. In the book, there are dozens of assertions that when you check the endnotes lead to an FBI report, an HSCA report and so on. So it depends on what the report says I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: As I understand it, there is an incision to gain access and then part of the bone is taken out. That's a good point. And is one of the reasons I believe the examiner was instructed to lie in his report. For national security reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Another David Josephs "data dump" that we have all seen 25 times in this thread alone. One of the items, the Bronx Zoo photo, has been debunked here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Nonsense. The doctors who did the Norton Report were some of the top experts in the country. They mentioned anomalies and stated that charting errors are not uncommon in the military. So you can believe the experts or "Doctor" Josephs. But why listen to me. Take the Norton Report to a forensic pathologist and see if they think somethin funny is going on. Or take the report to an investigative journalist. BTW, the report was published in the Journal of Forensic Science and not one person that read it ever came forward to disagree with the findings. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm Trolling Tracy, As David and Sandy have indicated your rebuttal is weak, and you lose even more credibility by reiterating your buzz words of "Nonsense" or "Take it to the Media." LOL P.S. This thread is now listed as "Hot" on the forum. And the reason it is hot is not due to your snapped remarks. And, by the way, who cares about your blog? Edited September 21, 2017 by James Norwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: That's a good point. And is one of the reasons I believe the examiner was instructed to lie in his report. For national security reason. You can say that and that is all you can say. But why not do what I suggested? Take the report to a forensic pathologist and see if they think anything is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: When I read his reply, I thought to myself - I rest my case. I knew there had to be something odd about his way of thinking and his reply confirmed what I'd always thought. Michael.... You can stop the childish tactic of third person discussion... I'm right here and you can speak to me directly... It's intellectual wannabe's like yourself who believe they can sum up my or anyone's POV from the comfort of your home screen... I quoted Zinn as he helps identify the sheep like you. Those patriotic zealots who think the USA is the home of the free and the brave.... and our foreign policy is for the benefit of the rest of the world If you'd like to whistle thru life believing all is as it seems... and there are no conspiracies... and the rich, powerful Military Industrial Complex is on YOUR side.... what are you doing on a conspiracy forum discussing the JFK case 50+ years after the fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Just now, James Norwood said: Trolling Tracy, As David and Sandy have indicated your rebuttal is weak, and you lose even more credibility by reiterating your buzz words or "Nonsense" or "Take it to the Media." LOL And your argument is strengthened by using the term "trolling Tracy?" The rebuttal is not weak. The forensic doctors understood that the charts did not perfectly match but offered an explanation as I have posted. The problem is, H&L supporters will not accept any alternative explanations. To do so would mean they would have to give up on the theory and face reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: My hunch, too, is Sandy Larsen thinks the same way though don't expect neither of them to ever have the ability or balls to admit that that's how they think. As for Jim Hargrove he pretty much tipped his hand when he put the HL package photo on here. He keeps peddling this xxxx for millionaire (cough) John Armstrong hoping suckers buy it. Michael, I have reported your post to the forum administrator, as it is in violation of the agreed-upon forum guidelines. The rule is explicit about avoiding casting personal aspersions on fellow members. While the discussions may get intense, the goal is to discuss ideas, not attack others personally. Clean it up! P.S. Please add my name to the list of advocates of the work of John Armstrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: 11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: That's a good point. And is one of the reasons I believe the examiner was instructed to lie in his report. For national security reason. You can say that and that is all you can say. But why not do what I suggested? Take the report to a forensic pathologist and see if they think anything is funny. If a lie was put in the report, how will a forensic pathologist know any better? 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