Question for Greg Parker on John Armstrong

[John Simkin]

I have been asked by Chris Lightbown to post this:

Question for Greg Parker

Greg, I’ve noticed that on a couple of occasions where your posts have necessitated references to John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, you’ve expressed marked caution about the accuracy of Mr Armstrong’s work.

Could you please elaborate your concerns? This is a friendly request. You are a highly respected researcher and as some forum readers have invested considerable time and interest in Harvey and Lee, expressions of doubt by somebody like yourself are not to be taken lightly.

To date, most of the reaction to John Armstrong’s work has consisted of wholehearted dismissal by LN believers and – with the exception of some conspiracy believers – a quite astounding silence, given the monumental amount of research that underlies Harvey and Lee and the book's implications. A reasoned analysis of any of John Armstrong’s work would be most welcome. Thank you.

[Greg Parker]

I have been asked by Chris Lightbown to post this:

Question for Greg Parker

Greg, I’ve noticed that on a couple of occasions where your posts have necessitated references to John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, you’ve expressed marked caution about the accuracy of Mr Armstrong’s work.

Could you please elaborate your concerns? This is a friendly request. You are a highly respected researcher and as some forum readers have invested considerable time and interest in Harvey and Lee, expressions of doubt by somebody like yourself are not to be taken lightly.

To date, most of the reaction to John Armstrong’s work has consisted of wholehearted dismissal by LN believers and – with the exception of some conspiracy believers – a quite astounding silence, given the monumental amount of research that underlies Harvey and Lee and the book's implications. A reasoned analysis of any of John Armstrong’s work would be most welcome. Thank you.

Chris,

I have sent a reply through John Simkin. If anything needs clarifying, please contact me direct via email.

Thanks for the kind words above also.

[Kathleen Collins]

I have been asked by Chris Lightbown to post this:

Question for Greg Parker

Greg, I’ve noticed that on a couple of occasions where your posts have necessitated references to John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, you’ve expressed marked caution about the accuracy of Mr Armstrong’s work.

Could you please elaborate your concerns? This is a friendly request. You are a highly respected researcher and as some forum readers have invested considerable time and interest in Harvey and Lee, expressions of doubt by somebody like yourself are not to be taken lightly.

To date, most of the reaction to John Armstrong’s work has consisted of wholehearted dismissal by LN believers and – with the exception of some conspiracy believers – a quite astounding silence, given the monumental amount of research that underlies Harvey and Lee and the book's implications. A reasoned analysis of any of John Armstrong’s work would be most welcome. Thank you.

Chris,

I have sent a reply through John Simkin. If anything needs clarifying, please contact me direct via email.

Thanks for the kind words above also.

What's the big secret? I am a Harvey and Lee believer. Greg Parker was the only researcher to finally put to rest the the "Oxnard Call," which Penn Jones wrongly said was made by actress Karyn Kupcinet, and other inconsistencies.

I would like to know what Greg thinks of Harvey and Lee for the above reason and because I would like John Armstrong to finally publish his findings re Donald O. Norton, the alleged "Lee Oswald."

Kathy C

[Greg Parker]

I have been asked by Chris Lightbown to post this:

Question for Greg Parker

Greg, I’ve noticed that on a couple of occasions where your posts have necessitated references to John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, you’ve expressed marked caution about the accuracy of Mr Armstrong’s work.

Could you please elaborate your concerns? This is a friendly request. You are a highly respected researcher and as some forum readers have invested considerable time and interest in Harvey and Lee, expressions of doubt by somebody like yourself are not to be taken lightly.

To date, most of the reaction to John Armstrong’s work has consisted of wholehearted dismissal by LN believers and – with the exception of some conspiracy believers – a quite astounding silence, given the monumental amount of research that underlies Harvey and Lee and the book's implications. A reasoned analysis of any of John Armstrong’s work would be most welcome. Thank you.

Chris,

I have sent a reply through John Simkin. If anything needs clarifying, please contact me direct via email.

Thanks for the kind words above also.

What's the big secret? I am a Harvey and Lee believer. Greg Parker was the only researcher to finally put to rest the the "Oxnard Call," which Penn Jones wrongly said was made by actress Karyn Kupcinet, and other inconsistencies.

I would like to know what Greg thinks of Harvey and Lee for the above reason and because I would like John Armstrong to finally publish his findings re Donald O. Norton, the alleged "Lee Oswald."

Kathy C

Hi Kathy. There is no big secret. I just have no wish to go through all this again on a public forum. I'm too busy for the type of sh*tstorm that has flared in the past - and in the end, no one's mind is changed. I know you're a supporter of the theory, and that's fine with me. Armstrong did find a lot of new and useful evidence.