Sandy Larsen Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 Clearly McBride originally thought that Oswald was with him in '57. And clearly when Lifton showed McBride proof -- a Marines document -- that Oswald couldn't have been with him, McBride had no choice than to change his recollection. The same thing happened with some of the Parkland doctors who said the gaping wound was on the back of JFK's head. When shown proof --the BOH photo -- that they must be wrong, they had no choice than change their recollection. But not all the Parkland doctors bought what they saw in the photo. They realized there was a third possibility... that the photo had been faked. Same thing with McBride. After Lifton's brow-beating, McBride put more thought into the timing and realized he had been right from the beginning. He realized that there was a third possibility... that there were two Oswalds. One with him in '57 and the other in the Marines in '57. Kudos to the principled Parkland doctors and McBride for sticking to their guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 Mr. Parnell, as usual, wants to claim the H&L evidence is debunked elsewhere and does not want to discuss it here, on the JFK Assassination Debate forum, because he knows how lame the arguments against it are. For example, one of the people confirming Palmer McBride's recollection that "Lee Harvey Oswald" worked for Pfisterer Dental Lab after Sputnik 1 was launched by the Soviets (in October 1957) was Linda Faircloth, the general manager and president of Pfisterer, who was interviewed by John Armstrong in 1995. Here is her interview: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 Ms. Faircloth's recollection of how the FBI descended on Pfisterer's the first day after the assassination and confiscated all the employment records of "Lee Harvey Oswald" is a familiar one in this sordid affair. From Harvey and Lee: The day after the assassination (Saturday morning) the FBI visited the Pfisterer Dental Lab and interviewed the four partners who owned the company. Each of the partners was taken to a different area and questioned individually. Each of the owners were warned not to discuss the case with anyone or among themselves. All payroll and other records pertaining to Oswald were taken by the FBI agents and never returned (there were no Pfisterer records published in the Warren Volumes, none in the National Archives, and the FBI claims to have no Pfisterer records in their files). After the origi- nal payroll records disappeared it was impossible for anyone to accurately determine the dates of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" employment at Pfisterer's. If Oswald did work at Pfisterer's in 1955, he could have worked there prior to his employment at Dolly Shoe (March 12, 1955), or anytime after he was fired from Dolly Shoe (April 12, 1955). [H&L p. 117] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) Thanks for presenting actual evidence, Jim, as opposed to the opinions and polls we see from the other side. Edited December 23, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Lawson Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 On 12/5/2017 at 5:53 PM, Michael Clark said: There is another link [to a PDF version of the John Armstrong "Harvey and Lee" book] that requires no key for the download. I'll post it here when I find it. Michael, did you ever post the above-referenced file link? If so, would you mind repeating it, please? Thanks! ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 54 minutes ago, Mark Lawson said: Michael, did you ever post the above-referenced file link? If so, would you mind repeating it, please? Thanks! ML Hi Mark, I don’t know that I have that link. I will look. In the meantime let’s ask Jim. On 12/23/2017 at 7:40 AM, Jim Hargrove said: ....::.. Hi Jim, do you know where Mark can download H&L? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Mark Lawson said: Michael, did you ever post the above-referenced file link? If so, would you mind repeating it, please? Thanks! ML Hi Mark, This link will work for you, I think. https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Lawson Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: This link will work for you, I think. https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee.pdf Yes it did - and I thank you very much. I have read the entire contents of the http://harveyandlee.net/ Web site, but having this same (or more) information searchable within one PDF file will be most useful. In the meantime, since I came to this late-2017 message thread in search of specific John Armstrong-related information, might this be as good a place as any to continue discussion of his (and others') "two Oswalds" theory? I am obviously new to the forum, and will post biographical information soon, but for now would appreciate receiving any pointers that forum members would be willing to offer. Best, ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, Mark Lawson said: Yes it did - and I thank you very much. I have read the entire contents of the http://harveyandlee.net/ Web site, but having this same (or more) information searchable within one PDF file will be most useful. In the meantime, since I came to this late-2017 message thread in search of specific John Armstrong-related information, might this be as good a place as any to continue discussion of his (and others') "two Oswalds" theory? I am obviously new to the forum, and will post biographical information soon, but for now would appreciate receiving any pointers that forum members would be willing to offer. Best, ML I would normally, with regard to most topics, say yes, this is as good as any. Yet, with H&L there are groups of adherents and those who are vociferously opposed. I would go ahead and start a new thread. Perhaps there will be some measure of restraint for the questions from a new member. Also, it will not be as easy to divert away from your fresh inquiry by digging into the the older posts on this thread. Start a new thread, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Lawson Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: ... with H&L there are groups of adherents and those who are vociferously opposed.... Ah yes! Having read read all 19 pages of this thread, I understand precisely. Stay tuned.... ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 6, 2018 Author Share Posted August 6, 2018 Hi, Mark, In my opinion, none of our opinions matter. They just don't. All that matters is the evidence! John is continuing to post documented write-ups which include the evidence. His most recent essay, just two or three days old, is here: https://harveyandlee.net/Merging_2_Lives/H&L_Merged.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 15 hours ago, Mark Lawson said: I am obviously new to the forum, and will post biographical information soon, but for now would appreciate receiving any pointers that forum members would be willing to offer. You are obviously receptive to the Armstrong information. My advice would be to look at the other side of things while you are studying the Armstrong theory. There are several extensive threads right here at EF if you do a search. I would also recommend my own site (click on sitemap) as well as Greg Parker's and Jeremy Bojczuk's: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 6, 2018 Author Share Posted August 6, 2018 Jefferson's Morley's take-down of Mr. Parnell's latest effort is here: http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 22 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Jefferson's Morley's take-down of Mr. Parnell's latest effort is here: http://jfkfacts.org/two-different-views-antonio-veciana/ Hi Mark, welcome aboard. Multiple take downs of the H&L theory can be read here. I suggest you wade through both sides, speak next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Lawson Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Hi, Mark, In my opinion, none of our opinions matter. They just don't. All that matters is the evidence! John is continuing to post documented write-ups which include the evidence. His most recent essay, just two or three days old, is here: https://harveyandlee.net/Merging_2_Lives/H&L_Merged.html Jim, thank you for the above article link. Because of various "place-holder" (non-active) links on John's Web site, I was beginning to wonder whether he is still among the living. I did send a July 16th e-mail message to the "Jim Hargrove" address listed as the contact point for the John Armstrong Web site, but did not receive a reply. Am I correct in assuming that you are one and the same Jim Hargrove? If so, I have some suggestions and dead-link issues that I would like to discuss with you off-line. Meanwhile, Michael Clark wrote: "Start a new thread, IMO." Since by now we are nearly 55 years beyond the subject event, this "John Armstrong" message thread is new enough that I will stick with it for the moment. Regarding your above "opinion versus evidence" statement, I well understand what you are saying, but I am here in this forum to learn your and other members' reasoned *opinions* - as formed on the basis of the available *evidence*. There *are* a few established historical *facts* regarding the JFK assassination, but way too much evidence is still missing - and a considerable amount of it has been deliberately destroyed by various culpable parties. So, please continue to offer you reasoned opinions, based on the available evidence - with the assumption being that if and when the evidence changes, our opinions should be changed along with it. Thanks again, ML 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