Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Jim Hargrove

New Article by John Armstrong

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

You claim to have done the work...

show it.

Armstrong mostly just makes flat statements that are uncited. When he does provide a source, it is often to a WC or other document that is many pages long and references no specific page. Most people (including myself sometimes) are not going to take the time to see if he is providing a correct citation. But when he does provide specific citations, they are often do not say what he says they do. Two quick examples. On page 380 of H&L, Armstrong makes the following assertion:

L’Eandes (Landesberg) was seen at a meeting with Earl Perry and “Lee” Oswald, who had a camera. His source is the Village Voice, January 18, 1962. But when you check the article, there is no mention of Oswald, Earl Perry or a camera, only that L’Eandes was at the meeting and was attacked (page 9 at following):

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/3926/rec/14

Now a cited source is supposed to support your assertions and other that the fact that L’Eandes was at the meeting this does not do that. Armstrong apparently believes that “Lee” Oswald and Perry were there but it is merely an unsupported belief on his part. And unless the reader takes the time to check it out, they will not know this and assume, incorrectly, that Armstrong has done his due diligence and properly sourced his assertion. Instead, the source appears to be his own fertile mind.

Later in the same paragraph of his book, Armstrong asserts that when L’Eandes was attacked, “Lee” Oswald “took photographs of the fracas.” This time he provides no citation, but it is safe to assume it is the same Village Voice article. Once again, the assertion is unsupported.

Now I don’t have time to proofread Armstrong’s book to find all the errors and misrepresentations in his 1000-page tome. To do so would take 2000 pages at least as I have mentioned before. But I have provided a couple egregious examples of Armstrong essentially making something up and falsely attributing to a source. These should be enough to give anyone pause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Now I don’t have time to proofread Armstrong’s book to find all the errors and misrepresentations in his 1000-page tome.

But that's not what you posted Tracy...  ??

"And BTW, Lance is correct. Many of the sources are incorrect (in other words do not say what he claims) or nonexistent. I checked them myself."

you checked "them"...   

so what is it Tracy?  are you serious about this H&L hatchet job you seem to live for... or are you just half-assing it on the subjects that interest you... 

GORSKY... with FBI interview and other related documentation...
Ping Tung...  

try to focus Tracy...  the Marines have OSWALD in two places at the same time...  but you seem to avoid all that...
More records than you can shake a stick at... 
My guess is you never SAW a Marine Diary before this book...
My guess is most of the few pages you bothered to read exposed you to things you hadn't even thought of or considered before...

But it's in your personal interest to wage a war based on you finding a mis-sourced reference in a book with thousands of them?

Congrats Tracy...  you may have caught and posted someone else's mistake....  him not being mentioned in that one reference proves to you that the Dept of Defense's Diaries are not accurate? 

This is direct and incontrovertible evidence of the existence of two Oswalds....  there's so much more but you can't be bothered with tracking down more than one or two sources - you've got a life....  right?

 

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

So after 380 pages and you finally found a source offered that does not support his assertion that Oswald and others were where he says they were.....

Well done Tracy...   at 380 pages per error... you should find one or two more!
Really not the point though is it?

If  you paid attention when you read your little snippet, you'd know there exists two distinct sets of people who knew 2 different people both named Lee Oswald...   As hard as you'd like - you'll never be able to deal with the overwhelming evidence clearly showing the 2 different men...

But please...  keep trying.

:up

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

But that's not what you posted Tracy...  ??

"And BTW, Lance is correct. Many of the sources are incorrect (in other words do not say what he claims) or nonexistent. I checked them myself."

you checked "them"...   

so what is it Tracy?  are you serious about this H&L hatchet job you seem to live for... or are you just half-assing it on the subjects that interest you... 

GORSKY... with FBI interview and other related documentation...
Ping Tung...  

try to focus Tracy...  the Marines have OSWALD in two places at the same time...  but you seem to avoid all that...
More records than you can shake a stick at... 
My guess is you never SAW a Marine Diary before this book...
My guess is most of the few pages you bothered to read exposed you to things you hadn't even thought of or considered before...

But it's in your personal interest to wage a war based on you finding a mis-sourced reference in a book with thousands of them?

Congrats Tracy...  you may have caught and posted someone else's mistake....  him not being mentioned in that one reference proves to you that the Dept of Defense's Diaries are not accurate? 

This is direct and incontrovertible evidence of the existence of two Oswalds....  there's so much more but you can't be bothered with tracking down more than one or two sources - you've got a life....  right?

 

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

So after 380 pages and you finally found a source offered that does not support his assertion that Oswald and others were where he says they were.....

Well done Tracy...   at 380 pages per error... you should find one or two more!
Really not the point though is it?

If  you paid attention when you read your little snippet, you'd know there exists two distinct sets of people who knew 2 different people both named Lee Oswald...   As hard as you'd like - you'll never be able to deal with the overwhelming evidence clearly showing the 2 different men...

But please...  keep trying.

:up

 

David,

I am not a professional proofreader and I do the best I can. I certainly have not proofread the entire book or was that ever my desire. I stated that there are many errors in the book related to citations and you seemed doubtful. I provided two cases where Armstrong made something up out of whole cloth and you are very dismissive of these. This fact may be indicative of  your willingness to let Armstrong off the hook despite these very serious errors of logic or something else. I assure you if I had the time and inclination I could provide many more examples of his sloppy or non existent sourcing. I could also provide many examples of typos and the like.  Some of these have been confirmed and commented on by Jim Hargrove who is a professional writer and would know. But I will drop the matter since I have proven my original point-that Armstrong doesn't know what a correct citation is or doesn't care. I think it is the latter and he believes in the old adage of the end justifies the means. In this case, any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just started reading the free version of the Armstrong book. It seems like some people in this thread may have been among those attending the JFK class described in the opening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

David,

I am not a professional proofreader and I do the best I can. I certainly have not proofread the entire book or was that ever my desire. I stated that there are many errors in the book related to citations and you seemed doubtful. I provided two cases where Armstrong made something up out of whole cloth and you are very dismissive of these. This fact may be indicative of  your willingness to let Armstrong off the hook despite these very serious errors of logic or something else. I assure you if I had the time and inclination I could provide many more examples of his sloppy or non existent sourcing. I could also provide many examples of typos and the like.  Some of these have been confirmed and commented on by Jim Hargrove who is a professional writer and would know. But I will drop the matter since I have proven my original point-that Armstrong doesn't know what a correct citation is or doesn't care. I think it is the latter and he believes in the old adage of the end justifies the means. In this case, any means.

You know Tracy... for someone who has done so little themselves you sure give the impression you have a large enough pair AND THE RIGHT to go after the work of others.

Yet you do so little to persuade or convince...   the 2 or 3 minions who'd buy anything you post as long as it was contrary to Armstrong will forever agree with whatever you post...

The legions of those convinced by your work that John is somehow wrong about H&L can be counted on a single hand....

Yet for years and years the concept and evidence for the two Oswalds has been explored, researched and verified.

That you find a mistake, or 10, or 100 will not change that fact....

... it just burns and tugs at you - every day - right Tracy?  

So you dedicate an entire blog and a good portion of every single day to this pursuit....  and simply cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that in the 1000 pages and thousands of supporting documents there is a very compelling and real case for there being two men....

Is it pride?  Visions of self-worth?  What is it that leads you to attack yet never to support?  You find NOTHING in the minimal amount you've investigated to support the theory....

If that's truly the case then cherry-picker is your next vocation... for you surely have not read even 1/10th of the work...

Then again, if John's right, your buddy Parker is wrong....  and we can't have or support a world where that's possible...

Thanks again for helping us all understand more fully your ability to condone and condemn that which you barely read...

:up

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Just started reading the free version of the Armstrong book. It seems like some people in this thread may have been among those attending the JFK class described in the opening.


Are these the people you had in mind?

When I walked into [Jim [Marrs'] classroom there were some thirty "students" of all ages and backgrounds. Jim and his friend, Jack White, discussed the assassination while students and guests were invited to give presentations. I soon noticed two middle-aged men sitting at the back of the classroom and became annoyed when they began talking loudly, mocked nearly every speaker, and were very disruptive. These two men were self- proclaimed "experts" in the Kennedy assassination and questioned and criticized most of the speakers. Week after week they argued continuously with Jim Marrs, Jack White, guest speakers, and students.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Are these the people you had in mind?

When I walked into [Jim [Marrs'] classroom there were some thirty "students" of all ages and backgrounds. Jim and his friend, Jack White, discussed the assassination while students and guests were invited to give presentations. I soon noticed two middle-aged men sitting at the back of the classroom and became annoyed when they began talking loudly, mocked nearly every speaker, and were very disruptive. These two men were self- proclaimed "experts" in the Kennedy assassination and questioned and criticized most of the speakers. Week after week they argued continuously with Jim Marrs, Jack White, guest speakers, and students.

 

Sandy... I do believe this was the more apropos line for this situation:

"He hasn't done anything constructive in the JFK assassination in years-all he does is sit around and criticize and nit-pick other people's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Are these the people you had in mind?

When I walked into [Jim [Marrs'] classroom there were some thirty "students" of all ages and backgrounds. Jim and his friend, Jack White, discussed the assassination while students and guests were invited to give presentations. I soon noticed two middle-aged men sitting at the back of the classroom and became annoyed when they began talking loudly, mocked nearly every speaker, and were very disruptive. These two men were self- proclaimed "experts" in the Kennedy assassination and questioned and criticized most of the speakers. Week after week they argued continuously with Jim Marrs, Jack White, guest speakers, and students.

 

Sandy... I do believe this was the more apropos line for this situation:

"He hasn't done anything constructive in the JFK assassination in years-all he does is sit around and criticize and nit-pick other people's work.


Indeed you are right, David. Not to mention this:

I concluded that this man was not a JFK "expert, "but rather a cynical and narrow-minded individual who thought he knew all the
answers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get this out in the open?  

The two people were the late Gary Mack and Dave Perry.

Mack of course that that mid life conversion, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, and Perry was Gus Russo's old buddy who transferred to Texas just in time to help Posner on his book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was he using the name MACK at that point?

----

Another example that Tracy et al don't like to consider....

The FBI offers this report WCD131... p2, claiming that while we know where he went, we aren't going to tell you who went with him...  directly from Military records... hmmmm

except the Marine Unit diaries tell us exactly who and when and where...

Now why would they claim the records did not show who went to Keeler... when the diary shows BANDONI, BREHNTON, CAMARATA, POWERS and Lee Oswald??

 

 

Because another Marine named Lee Oswald was with ALLEN FELDE and had different travel plans.  Notice too that POWERS chimes in - you know, one of the men the FBI couldn't find from this portion of his service...

The FBI does not want you to know about the men who traveled with, bunked with and served with Oswald... for as ELY found out... there are scores of Marines who do not have the same recollection or the same locations as the one the FBI and the WCR want you to follow....

But you keep swinging away... maybe you'll connect with something, someday...

:up

 

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

The legions of those convinced by your work that John is somehow wrong about H&L can be counted on a single hand....

Wrong again David. We did an informal poll right here at EF and H&L lost by a good margin.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Yet for years and years the concept and evidence for the two Oswalds has been explored, researched and verified.

Verified by whom- H&L people? I know of no credible independent source that believes Armstrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can we get this out in the open?


I have absolutely no respect for people who are like the two in Marrs' class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Thank you Paul and Tracy I  really do liken this Hardly Lee story to the OJ case. Despite all the evidence proving his guilt the jury was either too biased, blind or worst to comprehend the merits of the case.

And the biggest  thing of all that's  missing from the Hardly Lee garbage is a good  healthy dose of plausibility  and common sense. When you  throw  those two out with the bath water all bets are off LOL.

Paul interesting about  the PROBE article. Do you  have  the  link to it?

Michael,

First, about Probe.  It's not online -- it's still being sold as a 'back issue' deal by DiEugenio et al.

As for OJ Simpson, I still maintain his innocence of the actual murder, though I remain convinced that OJ always knew who did it.  (The glove didn't fit -- they had to acquit.)

There is a real link to the JFK Assassination case, however, since bias against Lee Harvey Oswald was so universal, it even infected Walter Cronkite.

The same applied to OJ.  Too emotional; no true objectivity.

This all proves to me that Capital cases are too emotional to be tried by human beings.  Modify the Death Penalty so that only Absolute Certainty can Convict!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I know of no credible independent source that believes Armstrong.


Sure you do Tracy. You know me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sandy Larsen said:


I have absolutely no respect for people who are like the two in Marrs' class.

What did they do that was wrong in your opinion? They simply informed Armstrong that other evidence showed his theory was incorrect. 

 

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:


Sure you do Tracy. You know me.

 

I said independent-take it to an investigative journalist and let me know what they say.

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

×