The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

[Greg Parker]

Greg, it seems, feels as if addressing me is no longer in his best interest as he does not have any answers beyond Aspergers and MISTAKES... so I'll ask you...

The mistakes, David are mainly yours.

Believing McBride & misunderstanding the Beauregard records are but two examples.

No. It has nothing to do with what you claim above. As I've said, your work in other areas is noteworthy. On this subject however, you fly into fantasy with occasional stopovers in hysteria and morosity, and there is no reaching you.

I did predict you would proclaim victory. You didn't disappoint. And you are welcome to it. But it is a victory of blind faith borne of ignorance over reason and common sense.

[Greg Parker]

Is anyone still claiming I owe any apologies?

[Greg Parker]

Alford and that alleged historian who first wrote about her, for starters. But it might be easier and quicker if you would list the witnesses to his alleged affairs that you do not believe.

What do you think of this theory, John?

http://reopenkennedy...tion-of-jfk#930

Edited September 15, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Don Jeffries]

Is anyone still claiming I owe any apologies?

Greg,

You've made it clear that you will not apologize even if every member of this forum asked you to. But you're hardly alone here; I would venture that most of the regular posters on this forum would be just as unwilling to do so. That's a characteristic of the personality type that has always dominated the research community.

Again, I would ask why you're expending such energy on what is essentially an irrelevant point; you agree with David Lifton and the dispute revolves exclusively around who produced the same information first. Many previous feuds among researchers concerned the same sort of "I should get the credit" mentality. I like civility and decorum. I think points can be made without resorting to nastiness. I guess I'm hopelessly naive.

But then again, I'm just a super senstive guy. So what do I know?

[Greg Parker]

Is anyone still claiming I owe any apologies?

Greg,

You've made it clear that you will not apologize even if every member of this forum asked you to. But you're hardly alone here; I would venture that most of the regular posters on this forum would be just as unwilling to do so. That's a characteristic of the personality type that has always dominated the research community.

Again, I would ask why you're expending such energy on what is essentially an irrelevant point; you agree with David Lifton and the dispute revolves exclusively around who produced the same information first. Many previous feuds among researchers concerned the same sort of "I should get the credit" mentality. I like civility and decorum. I think points can be made without resorting to nastiness. I guess I'm hopelessly naive.

But then again, I'm just a super senstive guy. So what do I know?

What do you know, Don? Certainly not how to read. I do recall the problems you had in understand this, no matter how many times and ways I tried to explain it:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

And now you're again mischaraterizing my posts. This isn't about "who gets credit". It's about LYING in order to get credit. If David had indeed got there first, I'd congratulate him, and think no more of it - and I don't give a rats if you believe that or not.

I do get sick of having to explain the same thing over and over again to you, Don.

As to the specifics of your post, it is me that is baffled this time.

Are you saying, even if he did lie, I shouldn't accuse him of it?

Or are you saying the majority here believe I owe an apology and the majority opinion is always correct?

Are you saying yours is the majority opinion?

All of the above?

I'm not aware of any instances btw, where civility and decorum won any battles for how history is written. If gaining the facts of this history could be done with those things, that'd be great. But the path is blocked by liars, trolls and agenda-driven assorted other nasties who aren't going to move just because you say "please" when you ask them.

If this is just a gentlemen's discussion group meeting in the parlor over a nice cup of tea, you might have a point. You'd also have an apology.

[Mike Rago]

Speaking of saying "Please". Would you Please post a link to the strong research you presented in the 2003 Pittsburgh Conference which shows that Jack Ruby was a conduit for funding for WMD research?

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

You seem to be having some trouble reading yourself. I never said my opinion on this reflects the opinion of the majority here. In fact, it probably does not. As I noted, the inability to apologize and/or admit error is a characteristic many regular posters on these forums seem to share.

I don't really care whether David Lifton discovered something before you did. If he is attempting to claim credit where it isn't due, that wouldn;t be the first time a JFK assassination researcher did that. I don't understand why this is so important to you. Either way, this petty feud is pointless and detracts from what could otherwise be an intriguing debate about this subject.

I won't bring this up again. I just end up sounding like I'm lecturing.

[Greg Parker]

Speaking of saying "Please". Would you Please post a link to the strong research you presented in the 2003 Pittsburgh Conference which shows that Jack Ruby was a conduit for funding for WMD research?

It's not online anywhere. But the Ruby material from that conference is incorporated into the Ruby Timeline I pointed you to.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

You seem to be having some trouble reading yourself.

Didn't I say I was baffled by the point you were trying to make?

I never said my opinion on this reflects the opinion of the majority here.

I was ASKING if that is what you meant.

In fact, it probably does not. As I noted, the inability to apologize and/or admit error is a characteristic many regular posters on these forums seem to share.

There you go again -- insinuating that I actually have something to apologize for because I have been in error in my accusation. You are wrong. Mr Lifton has a history of deceptive words and behaviors. Here, he changed his story numerous times which is an acknowledged sign of deception/ Moreover, he admits he never mentioned this material that helps bury his nemesis, and eventually lost it (the dog ate my homework!). I resent being told I owe an apology, when Blind Freddy should be able to see that I do not.

You know, I never said it, but I figured I was probably the first to theorize that Oswald had Asperger's. Turns out I wasn't. Allen Lowe beat me to that. I believe Allen - he's given me no reason to doubt him, and I'd like to think we've become friends. The idea you're trying so hard to push, that this is some petty jealousy, is obnoxious. Liars should be exposed, and those lies need to be remembered when evaluating anything they have to say on the case.

If anyone is owed an apology, it is me for being told I owed an apology without even a cursory consideration or examination of the whole thread. Lifton lied and I called it correctly.

I don't really care whether David Lifton discovered something before you did. If he is attempting to claim credit where it isn't due, that wouldn;t be the first time a JFK assassination researcher did that. I don't understand why this is so important to you. Either way, this petty feud is pointless and detracts from what could otherwise be an intriguing debate about this subject.

I won't bring this up again. I just end up sounding like I'm lecturing.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Greg Parker

[David Lifton]

Is anyone still claiming I owe any apologies?

Greg,

You've made it clear that you will not apologize even if every member of this forum asked you to. But you're hardly alone here; I would venture that most of the regular posters on this forum would be just as unwilling to do so. That's a characteristic of the personality type that has always dominated the research community.

Again, I would ask why you're expending such energy on what is essentially an irrelevant point; you agree with David Lifton and the dispute revolves exclusively around who produced the same information first. Many previous feuds among researchers concerned the same sort of "I should get the credit" mentality. I like civility and decorum. I think points can be made without resorting to nastiness. I guess I'm hopelessly naive.

But then again, I'm just a super senstive guy. So what do I know?

What do you know, Don? Certainly not how to read. I do recall the problems you had in understand this, no matter how many times and ways I tried to explain it:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

And now you're again mischaraterizing my posts. This isn't about "who gets credit". It's about LYING in order to get credit. If David had indeed got there first, I'd congratulate him, and think no more of it - and I don't give a rats if you believe that or not.

I do get sick of having to explain the same thing over and over again to you, Don.

As to the specifics of your post, it is me that is baffled this time.

Are you saying, even if he did lie, I shouldn't accuse him of it?

Or are you saying the majority here believe I owe an apology and the majority opinion is always correct?

Are you saying yours is the majority opinion?

All of the above?

I'm not aware of any instances btw, where civility and decorum won any battles for how history is written. If gaining the facts of this history could be done with those things, that'd be great. But the path is blocked by liars, trolls and agenda-driven assorted other nasties who aren't going to move just because you say "please" when you ask them.

If this is just a gentlemen's discussion group meeting in the parlor over a nice cup of tea, you might have a point. You'd also have an apology.

TO GREG PARKER

(and to anyone else who might be interested in following this thread, which happens to contain. . ):

(1) much useful information about Palmer McBride's incorrect statement on 11/23/63 [that he knew Oswald in 1957 or 1958];

(2) quotes from my 10/2/94 filmed interview with McBride (in which he admitted this original statement was incorrect); . . . and

(3) all of that interlaced (unfortunately) with Parker's absurd accusations that I lied about when I discovered certain information, and did so in order to falsely lay claim to some of his original research).

Where to begin? Suppose we start here. . . :

Here's Greg Parker, in his recent post #186 on this thread, just one day ago:

If anyone is owed an apology, it is me for being told [that] I owed an apology without even a cursory consideration or examination of the whole thread. Lifton lied and I called it correctly.

What an arrogant, false, and asinine statement.

No, Greg Parker, I did not lie. And yes, Greg Parker, I learned of the Fort Worth news stories (indicating racial tensions and violence in FW, which are apparently what is being referred to in McBride's original 11/23/63 statement, in which he describes all that as being conveyed in a letter he received from Oswald) because of research done by Debra Conway at the Fort Worth Public Library some 17 or 18 years ago. Your inferences and conclusions--largely based on your inability to comprehend why, back in 1994, I requested someone to examine news stories for the period in question--are completely false. You just don't "get it." As I said in a prior post: grow up. As President Obama said of Romney just the other day, he has a tendency to "shoot first and aim afterwards." I think that applies to you in this situation. So certain were you that you had unique insights to the McBride situation (which governed your own newspaper searches, via Google, circa 2011) that you apparently couldn't conceive of the kind of research and analysis in which I was engaged, back in 1994, when I first interviewed McBride, on camera, and then engaged in certain library research afterwards.

As a consequence, this discussion about the very serious matter of whether Palmer McBride's original 11/23/63 statement to the FBI is or is not correct (a statement in which McBride which incorrectly states that he knew Oswald in 1957 and 1958) is being obscured and diluted because of a totally peripheral matter: your apparent inability to realize that I did certain research which addressed this matter almost two decades ago, and --for whatever reason--you are apparently obsessed with the notion that I made up a story about some of that and did so in order to "steal" your own research.

Nonsense. Complete and utter rubbish.

For someone who (finally) got involved in the JFK case in the year 2000, you really have a nerve behaving as if you're some kind of "first responder" when I first became involved 35 years before you came on the scene, and had a critically important filmed interview with Palmer McBride on October 2, 1994, some six years before you read Anthony Summers' book CONSPIRACY, which (around the year 2000, and by your own admission) finally resulted in your getting interested in the JFK case.

What the heck is wrong with you? Don't you understand that there is "history" before you arrived on the scene? (Apparently you do not.)

A BRIEF GUIDE TO WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING ON THIS THREAD

For those interested in following any of this--and particularly to those interested in what Palmer McBride said in his original 11/23/63 statement to the FBI, versus what he told me in my filmed interview with him on October 2, 1994--please see my posts # 124 and # 128 on this thread. There I quoted generous excerpts of my October 2, 1994 interview with Palmer McBride, in which he readily admitted that he knew Oswald in 1956—and not in 1957 or 1958, as his original 11/23/63 statement (CE 1386) mistakenly claimed.

As to my statements about how I first learned about the Fort Worth racial incidents, see my post # 137 (dated 9 September 2012). That post also includes my 9/4/98 multi-page fax to the ARRB urging that this matter of when Oswald worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories be clarified, once and for all, by obtaining the relevant income tax records. Specifically, I strongly urged that the McBride and Oswald tax records be located and made JFK Assassination Records. (The Oswald tax records were in fact located and are now part of the JFK Records Collection). And, as far as I was concerned, those IRS tax records established, without question, that Oswald worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories in 1956, and not in 1957 or 1958, as Palmer McBride had incorrectly recollected, in his original statement to the FBI of 11/23/63.

As to the Fort Worth news stories published in September, 1956 (which corroborate the year 1956, inasmuch as McBride recollected that Oswald wrote him a letter, mentioning such incidents, shortly after leaving New Orleans (6/30/56) and, along with his mother, moving to Fort Worth): in Parker’s post # 138, he curses at me, declares me a xxxx, and threatens: “If you publish this as your work, you will be exposed as the xxxx and thief you are. Your choice.”

Really: this is the way Greg Parker deals with information that conflicts with his view of himself, and the world.

The fact is that those news stories were discovered by Debra Conway when she went to the Fort Worth Public Library in November, 1994, when--at my request--she was perusing the FW Star-Telegram for the summer of 1956, attempting to ascertain if and when Oswald's favorite TV program, I Led 3 Lives, was broadcast. (That's why she was there, and not because of anything having to do with Palmer McBride.) However, at that time, these stories turned up, and it was noted--as I recall, by Debra--that they "corroborated" McBride's statement (CE 1386) because in that statement, he (McBride) mentioned receiving a letter from Oswald, which mentioned such incidents (or similar incidents).

In my post # 139 on this thread (dated 10 September 2012), I told Parker he was “behaving like an adolescent who is more concerned with who discovered the “Fort Worth news stories first” than with the truth, and went on to explain why his argument lacked merit. I also chastised Parker for his deplorable arrogance in refusing to believe that I had someone go through the Fort Worth Star-Telegram microfilms for the summer of 1956, way back in 1995 (as it turns out, I now believe it was November, 1994).

QUOTING (from my post #139):

I indeed had a researcher go through the Fort Worth Star Telegram, on microfilm, for the period July 1, 1956 through October 24, 1956 (the brief period that LHO lived in Ft Worth, with his mother, after the 2-1/2 years in New Orleans). That person mailed me a number of news clips, and one of them concerned the civil rights demonstrations, and that person noted the correlation between those stories and what Palmer McBride had said about someone at Pfisterer receiving a letter from Oswald about that. Did that register in my mind? Yes. Did I place a whole lot of emphasis on it? No.

Furthermore, where do you come up with the nutty notion that if I knew this or that, I would have included it in this or that communication to the ARRB? [in fact, I had several discussions with Jeremy Gunn and/or Doug Horne about getting the Oswald (and McBride) tax records, and wrote ARRB General Counsel Denk a multi-page fax in September, 1998.] I have all kinds of data that I have not yet made public. So what?

In Post #142, moderator Don Jeffries admonished Parker for calling me a xxxx. In Post #143, Parker replies that yes, he knows its against the rules, but what else can he do? Again maintaining that only he knew the truth, he adopted this Mickey Spillane (“I, the Jury”) style (or perhaps a better example would be Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry) and tells Don: “If you want this place populated solely by liars, their sycophants, and assorted snake oil salesmen, please enforce your "rules". You're certainly helping to drag in that direction.”

THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO ASSISTED ME IN NOVEMBER 1994

In post #144, and after some email communication with the person who had assisted me, I revealed that the person who had done the Fort Worth newspaper research for me was Debra Conway. I had stated that I believed the year “was 1995,” and she thought that was about right. (FYI: I have since found a document indicating it was November, 1994, which would place it as being within a month after my October 2, 1994 interview with McBride on camera).

In that same post (#144), I said that I had reviewed Parker's bio and noted that “You're apparently a ninth grade drop-out with a highly over-inflated view of himself. (No, your bio doesn't say the second fact; that's just my inference). Maybe you don't understand, but in the real world, one is supposed to offer evidence for your allegations. The fact that you found some out of town news articles, using Google, post-2004, does not mean that this information wasn't discovered, by this researcher (Debra), back in 1995 [actually, Nov., 1994—DSL], at the Fort Worth Public Library. In fact, that's exactly what happened.”

PARKER’S REPEATED (AND FALSE) ACCUSATIONS (continued. . .)

Parker then responded in post #148 (11 September 2012) –and still pursuing the notion that I made up a story so that I could steal his research—that he just can’t believe that if I was aware of that information so many years earlier, I would not have mentioned it in my fax of September, 1998, to the ARRB. He then set forth a theory that it was all psychological with me, and that I had made up the story: “YOUR ego could not handle the fact that you had not found those stories in all those years of debates about McBride, so you invented your little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth library and discovering them back in the day. (my emphasis added).

This is the sheerest nonsense. But its a fact that in my September, 1998 fax to the ARRB, I didn’t cite those news stories as “rebuttal evidence” (my phrase) to Armstrong's hypothesis, because that wasn’t the purpose of the fax. The purpose was not to play "gotcha" or to engage in a debate about Armstrong’s hypothesis, but to get the ARRB to do their job. Their mandate was "to clarify the record," and here was an excellent example where the record--such as it was--was in need of clarification.

Furthermore (and this is very important): Armstrong had not yet made his argument that the tax records were fabricated, and (as far as I recall) did not do so until after November 1998 (or even later) when the ARRB released those records (!). So why would I cite such stories (even if, in 1998, I remembered them--which I doubt).

Then John Simkin --on 11 September 2012 (post #151)—criticized Parker’s behavior in calling me a xxxx –and observed that his (Parker’s) behavior “only damages your own reputation.” Responding in post #152, Parker says “the issue is dropped”.

Meanwhile, I had decided to respond to Parker's absurd charges, and his silly and superficial analysis. Consequently, on 11 September 2012 (post #155 on this thread), I responded –in a general way—to Parker’s accusations against me, stating, at the outset:

“Greg Parker: your statements (about what I found, and when) are false, and complete nonsense. And no, I did not "invent" a "little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth Library". That's false, and quite disrespectful of the person who actually went there, and did the work.”

I then revealed that the person who did the work back then was Debora Conway, the founder of JFK Lancer (this was just prior to her founding that organization).

Continuing my quote:

“So it was Debra Conway who--back in 1995 (yes, 1995, that's seventeen years ago)-- was at the Fort Worth Library going through various records; and it was she who found the news stories, and it was she who made the link between those news stories and the McBride statement.” (In fact, as I noted above, and based on another document I found, I now believe it was November, 1994, when Debra went to the Fort Worth Public Library).

Continuing, I wrote: “So, Greg Parker, your statements and accusations are false. I did not "invent" any of this; and you're completely wrong. Moreover, in a recent email, Debra recalls doing this work in the Fort Worth Public Library and confirms that the year was 1995.” (As noted, I now believe it was November, 1994).

Of course nothing will satisfy Greg Parker. Apparently annoyed—or perhaps even enraged—that I was able to produce the name of the person who assisted me, Parker, now thoroughly peeved, later wrote:

From the deep recesses, he finally manages to dredge up a name for his paid for gofer. None other than Debra Conway. How many people here, I wonder, would not be able to recall Debra helping them out in a fairly substantial manner 17 years ago?

To which I respond: first of all, I don’t see the justification for the insulting tone. Second: When someone has about 60 Gigabytes of data stored on one’s computer, dozens of five-drawer filing cabinets, and seventeen years have passed. . . I can assure Parker that sometime “instant retrieval” is not all that easy.

But now, returning to the main point. . .

ADDRESSING THE PALMER McBRIDE SITUATION (AND THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER WITNESS)

In this post--#155, dated 11 September 2012-I wrote a comprehensive recapitulation of how I came to speak with Palmer McBride in the first place (September, 1994); and why I made the decision to interview him on camera (10/2/94). I also described another witness I learned of (and interviewed) in 1990, who I called “John Doe.” This person knew Oswald reasonably well, because he was the “best friend” of Eddie Voebel who, as described in the Warren Report, was Oswald’s “best friend” during the period he was at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans (that period being approximately Jan 1954 through June, 1955).

I then wrote the following “Summary” --which is useful to understanding what Palmer McBride originally said (about when he knew Oswald) and why his original statement is incorrect:

SUMMARIZING. . . :

I'm writing the above to point out that (a) my interest in Palmer McBride and his erroneous account (as to date) goes way back, to the early 1990s (at least); and (b ) that I was a close student of what he had to say (even though I believed--and still do--that he had the date wrong).

The Palmer McBride 11/23/63 statement, with its incorrect date, offers an excellent example of a "loose end" that ought to have been further investigated, and cleared up, at the time of the original FBI investigation, and certainly by the time of the Warren Commission investigation. It was a serious error not to have done so. [because] that left the door wide open for the kind of "two Oswald" hypothesis that then germinated.

I was very sorry to see John Armstrong go off on what appeared to me (then) to be a "witness recruitment program," attempting to persuade a host of people that they didn't know Oswald when they said they did, but rather at a later time--all in the pursuit of this "double Oswald" hypothesis, which I believe is completely incorrect. Then, after all this effort, he published this whole hypothesis in his book, Harvey and Lee, in 2003.

I'm very glad that I spoke with Palmer McBride in September, 1994, filmed him in October 1994 (all of this, nine years prior to Armstrong's date of publication); and filmed the other witness--who knew Oswald during the ninth grade at Beauregard Junior High School and over the summer of 1955, and into very early fall 1955 (when LHO attended Warren Easton High School, for just a few weeks).

Finally, when the ARRB opened up for business (summer of 1995) I spoke with Jeremy Gunn (and probably others) about the importance of obtaining the tax records of McBride and Oswald to establish a documentary record of when both Oswald and McBride worked at Pfisterer; and then, in September, 1998, and as a matter of record, and with less than a month left in the ARRB's life, I sent the fax that I did, my final plea that they should do something about all this before they closed shop (9/30/98).

Perhaps, with this as context, anyone reading this will understand that of course (in 1995) I was interested in the Fort Worth newspapers--in the period 7/1/56 (when LHO and his mom left New Orleans and moved to Fort Worth) through 10/24/56 (when he enlisted in the Marines).

In short: you were not the only person, Greg Parker, who was interested in these matters--and from your own bio on the London Forum, it is rather obvious that I was deeply involved in the JFK case, and in studying Oswald's biography, years before you ever got interested in the Kennedy assassination.

Again: See Posts #124 and #128 on this thread for excerpts of my 10/2/94 filmed interview with Palmer McBride. These excerpts establish that Palmer McBride told me that he knew Oswald in the late Spring of 1956, and not years later.

EVENTS ON THIS THREAD SINCE SEPTEMBER 9, 2012

The next day—9 September 2012—John Simkin wrote a post (#158) addressing the propriety of writing about JFK’s sexual affairs in which he stated: “Also, after his post about his researcher, Debra Conway, you owe David [Lifton] an apology.”

On the same day, and responding to John Simkin’s post, and referring to me, Parker wrote (his post #159):

“With due respect John, I owe him precisely nothing. If you had studied the thread, you might understand that.

In post #161, Parker then wrote a long, nasty, and accusatory post attempting to show that of course I must be lying, in claiming that I had any interest in the (summer of 1956) Fort Worth newspaper coverage, other than to find stories of the Fort Worth “riots” –which constitute the precious “independent discovery” that he recently made via Google. In other words, he continued to pursue the false notion that I was lying, and doing so to conceal the theft of his research.

why would you search the newspapers simply because Marguerite and Lee were living there? Did David expect to find stories on them in the social pages? It’s a crock. The ONLY sane reason to do the search was the one I had. . .

The Problem With Greg Parker and his "reasoning"

Parker simply couldn’t understand that I had a different—previously unmentioned—reason for wanting to see that newspaper coverage (and that it was only in perusing the newspapers for that “other” reason, that the Fort Worth “racial” stories were found).

That “other” reason was very simple: I was curious as to when Oswald’s favorite TV show (I Led 3 Lives) was aired, and whether it was broadcast that summer (but I had not yet mentioned that, and was now in the position of watching Parker stick his foot in his mouth, as he pushed this line of "reasoning" along with his ludicrously oversimplified "analysis").

Meanwhile, in Post #162 (that same day), David Josephs chimed in with this observation: “Greg, why does each and every post appear as if you're in a corner and fighting tooth and nail to get out of it?”

And in post #163, Don Jeffries (on 13 Sept 2012) wrote: “Like David (referring to me), I'm at a loss to understand your hostility towards DSL.”

9/13/12: DSL COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

(and Greg Parker’s stubborn failure to understand why I did the work I did in 1994)

Finally, on 13 September 2012 (post # 164), I reviewed the entire situation, now spelling out—for the first time, and in detail—exactly why I had been interested in the Fort Worth press coverage for the summer of 1956, and that that it had nothing to do with the Armstrong statement, or the stories about racial incidents.

QUOTING FROM MY POST:

Your major point seems to be: Why would David Lifton (that’s me) ask anyone—Debra Conway or anyone else—to look at the microfilm records of the Fort Worth newspapers, for the summer of 1956? That makes no sense, you say, and so you conclude this is all a made up story. A complete fiction. Here, let me quote your words back to you:

(Quoting Parker here. . . ): His new version ["his" being me-- DSL] is that the search was conducted simply because Lee and Marguerite were living there, and the finding of the stories on civil unrest was peripheral only. But why would you search the newspapers simply because Marguerite and Lee were living there? Did David expect to find stories on them in the social pages? It’s a crock. The ONLY sane reason to do the search was the one I had – that being the same as the one he INITIALLY said he had, but quickly disavowed. That reason was to find confirmation that Oswald wrote his letter in 1956. (End. . Parker Quote)

Just focus on your key sentence: “the only sane reason to do the search as the one I had.”

In the "Greg Parker centered" universe, Greg’s thoughts and ideas are always a “first cause.” Here, let’s focus (still again) on the key quote:

(Again, quoting Parker): But why would you search the newspapers simply because Marguerite and Lee were living there? Did David expect to find stories on them in the social pages? It’s a crock. The ONLY sane reason to do the search was the one I had. . .

Well, Greg Parker, you’re just flat out incorrect; and no, I’m not lying, not at all. And in fact I had a perfectly legitimate reason for searching those newspapers.

I then set forth my reason—that I was curious about when that TV show aired. QUOTING from my post:

Oswald lived in Fort Worth, between July 1, 1956,and October 24, 1956, when he enlisted in the Marines. But secondly (and more important to me at the time): Because I wanted to find out if Oswald’s favorite TV show, I Led 3 Lives, was broadcast in the Fort Worth area that summer.

My post then continued:

That’s right—its as simple as that: finding out the details as to when a particular TV show aired. That’s the answer to your silly question. I already knew, from another source (Sponsor magazine, available at the UCLA Library) that the show was likely broadcast in Fort Worth that summer—but I didn’t have the specific data for Fort Worth. To obtain that data, it would be necessary to look at the equivalent of the TV guide, or the Sunday magazine for the area, which usually contains television listings.

Consequently: I asked Debra if she would please take the time and do me the favor of doing just that, and she graciously assisted me.

It was in connection with that effort (i.e., verifying that that particular TV show was broadcast in Fort Worth, that summer) that Debra went through some two months of microfilm, and, in the course of that, discovered the Fort Worth news stories about the racial incident.

So that’s the answer to your accusatory question, and the rhetoric you have loaded on board with it.

OK? Do you now “get it”? Do you now understand?

Repetition never hurts, a teacher tells me, so here, let’s now return to your foolish argument, delivered in your haughty "I'm so superior/I know it all" tone, to make sure you understand. Here’s your angry challenge, to me:

[Quoting Parker, using a marroon colored font] But firstly I again ask what the point was of going through the newspapers for the period Oswald was there, if not to find confirmation of him being there when the record says he was. I mean, did Lifton and his researcher expect to find stories about Marguerite or Oswald? Of course not! The ONLY reason to conduct such a search was to find something that would confirm Oswald's letter was written in 1956 and not 1958.

AND [again quoting Parker}:

The ONLY logical reason to look in those papers was the reason I did. . .

And. . . [again quoting Parker]:

YOUR ego [referring to me—DSL] could not handle the fact that you had not found those stories in all those years of debates about McBride, so you invented your little story about dispatching some researcher to the Ft Worth library and discovering them back in the day. (underling added-dsl)

These statements--all of them false--are the words of an apparently psychologically wounded Greg Parker, crying out in anger, because—he now finds—something he thought only he did, and only he knew about—was not so. Perhaps by now, Greg Parker, you will finally “get it”: perhaps now you will realize that your analysis of what I did, and why I did it, is faulty, and, consequently, your conclusions are entirely wrong.

GREG PARKER’S HISTORY (as a JFK researcher)

I then reviewed Parker’s entire history of his involvement in the JFK case, using information from his own website.

Parker is about 54 today, and did not get involved in any JFK research until the year 2000—nine years after the release of Stone’s movie JFK (12/91). The problem, I noted, is that Parker behaves as if he is some kind of “first responder” and that there was no “history” before he came on the scene.

Of course, he is wrong.

But with that attitude, no wonder he is all upset that he found stories of the (September, 1956) Fort Worth racial “riots” or civil unrest, very recently (circa 2011), and has difficulty understanding that some 17 or 18 years ago—circa 1995 (more precisely, November 1994)—someone assisting me, and operating the “old fashioned way” (using microfilms at the Fort Worth Public Library) found such news stories.

But that’s Parker’s problem, and certainly does not constitute any rational basis for his making wild and unfounded accusations that I "made up a story" and was "stealing" his work.

And there is one other aspect to all this. . .

THE TAX RECORDS VERSUS THE (September 1956) FORT WORTH NEWS STORIES

The fact is that I did not give those dispatches the emphasis that Parker (today) does, because of when I learned of them. When I learned of them, it never occurred to me that they could be used to “rebut” Armstrong’s foolish argument that the tax records had been falsified, because the tax records were not unearthed (by the ARRB) and made public until late 1998, several months after the date (9/30/98) when the ARRB closed shop.

Furthermore, I had other fish to fry. And to me all of this was "old business." I had interviewed Palmer McBride—on camera—on October 2, 1994 (and anyone can read my post # 121 and 124 to see excerpts of those interviews) and I already had him, on camera, telling me he knew Oswlad in 1956, not in 1957 or 1958 as he mistakenly said in his original statement of 11/23/63 (per WC exhibit 1386).

So that was the end of the matter, as far as I was concerned, and the notion that this issue of McBride supposedly knowing Oswald in 1957 or 1958 would have “new life breathed into it” because of John Armstrong’s ridiculous assertions (circa 1998, and later) that all the tax records have been falsified is, today, totally bizarre, and was –back then—impossible to predict.

PARKER’S LEGITIMATE WORK vs HIS FALSE ACCUSATIONS

Anyway, Greg Parker can take credit for his well done Google searches (2011) and his adept use of the data in rebutting the Palmer McBride statement of 11/23/63, but he can stew in his own juices as far as his false accusations against me are concerned.

Again, for anyone wishing to read a good summary of my own involvement in the matter of Palmer McBride, and a reasonably comprehensive “history” of Greg Parker’s involvement in JFK research (which explains, I think, where these arrogant “I was here first” attitude comes from), just read my post # 164 (dated 9/13/2012) on this thread.

Also, and more pertinent, if you wish to see a word-for-word accurate transcript of what Palmer McBride told me during our 10/2/94 filmed interview, see post #124 and #128 on this thread. That should settle the matter, once and for all, about when Palmer McBride knew Oswald; moreover, my 10/2/94 filmed interview opens the door wide to another question: just how and why Armstrong was able to get Palmer McBride to change his story, some years later, and go back to his original statement, which is quite obviously incorrect.

DSL

9/15/12; 5:40 PM PDT

Revised, 9/16/12, 12:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 17, 2012 by David Lifton

[Bernie Laverick]

My post then continued:

That’s right—its as simple as that: finding out the details as to when a particular TV show aired. That’s the answer to your silly question. I already knew, from another source (Sponsor magazine, available at the UCLA Library) that the show was likely broadcast in Fort Worth that summer—but I didn’t have the specific data for Fort Worth. To obtain that data, it would be necessary to look at the equivalent of the TV guide, or the Sunday magazine for the area, which usually contains television listings.

Consequently: I asked Debra if she would please take the time and do me the favor of doing just that, and she graciously assisted me.

It was in connection with that effort (i.e., verifying that that particular TV show was broadcast in Fort Worth, that summer) that Debra went through some two months of microfilm, and, in the course of that, discovered the Fort Worth news stories about the racial incident.

So that’s the answer to your accusatory question, and the rhetoric you have loaded on board with it.

OK? Do you now “get it”? Do you now understand?

I think you've totally missed the point David. I didn't think the problem relates to why you would want to check a Fort Worth newspaper but more to what you subsequently did (or didn't) do with that information once it was found. Quick question, have you ever posted any of this story on any website or forum other than the post after Greg on this thread? If so we will both look like idiots. I can't understand why you don't just refer us to it and this nonsense will be over with your credibility raised and Greg's diminished.

[Greg Parker]

THE TAX RECORDS VERSUS THE (September 1956) FORT WORTH NEWS STORIES

The fact is that I did not give those dispatches the emphasis that Parker (today) does, because of when I learned of them. When I learned of them, it never occurred to me that they could be used to “rebut” Armstrong’s foolish argument that the tax records had been falsified,because the tax records were not unearthed (by the ARRB) and made public until late 1998, several months after the date (9/30/98) when the ARRB closed shop.

Furthermore, I had other fish to fry. And to me all of this was "old business." I had interviewed Palmer McBride—on camera—on October 2, 1994 (and anyone can read my post # 121 and 124 to see excerpts of those interviews) and I already had him, on camera, telling me he knew Oswlad in 1956, not in 1957 or 1958 as he mistakenly said in his original statement of 11/23/63 (per WC exhibit 1386).

So that was the end of the matter, as far as I was concerned, and the notion that this issue of McBride supposedly knowing Oswald in 1957 or 1958 would have “new life breathed into it” because of John Armstrong’s ridiculous assertions (circa 1998, and later) that all the tax records have been falsified is, today, totally bizarre, and was –back then—impossible to predict.

You should have scrubbed your usernet history.

But they did not. So now, along comes John Armstrong with the silly and

foolish interpretation---backed by two erroneious letters from the Memphis

IRS office---that McBride was right after all, that all Oswald's teenage

employment records were falsified, etc etc ad nauseum.

What utter nonsense.

First of all, a number of researchers, myself included, have written to the

IRS, urging that the ARRB, as part of its efforts, look into this whole IRS

area, and whether those letters sent to Armstrong are in fact valid; or are,

as has been previously posted, simply in error---the result of the IRS having

switched to a new computerized record keeping system back in 1964. Common

sense dictates the latter is the case. But let's see.

DSL dated Sept 19, 1998

https://groups.googl...f20fcc8ba3fc32b

No mention whatsoever of Ft Worth News stories. And clearly, your post Sept 30 date for when the tax records became available is out.

---------------------------------------------------------

W-2 forms are tax forms. On which wage income is reported. This has nothing

to do with the "Welfare" department.

Certain W-2 forms were found amongst LHO's effects after the assassination

and documented that he worked at certain establishments in the 55/56 period.

Confronted by the statement of Palmer McBride, at teenage acquaintance of LHO

who worked at Pfisterer Dental Labs in the Spring of 1956 (but who mistakenly

recollected, in his FBI statement of 11/23/63, that he didn't meet LHO until

57/58), Armstrong then theorized---or rather fantasized, I think is a better

word---that there were "two Oswalds", one in New Orleanas and another in

Japan (which is where Oswald was after Sepember 57. In Spring 57, he was

still in basic training of various sorts).

Armstrong's great moment of joy came when, after being repeatedly nudged by

me to get Pfisterer and other employers to cough up tax records, he got two

letters from the Memphis IRS office saying the Employer Tax ID Numbers on the

W-2's were from January 1964.

That's when he had his great Eureka Experience.

The John Armstrong Eureka Experience---befriend him and he'll tell you all

about it---details how he then came to realize that the tax documentation

(i.e. the W-2's) found amongst LHO's personal effects after the assassination

must have been forged.

In fact, the truth is much simpler: the IRS letters are wrong. Period. And so

is the Armstrong theory (which depends on them for its validity.) The IRS

error stems from the fact that in connection with some region going to

computers in 1964, certain dates "defaulted" to Jan. 1964. THirty years

later, an IRS employee attempting to answer the questions posed by Linda

Faircloth of Pfisterer and Maury Goodman of Dolly Shoe were sent letters

incorrectly stating that those ID numbers didn't exist until Jan 1964.

Not true.

This whole matter was explored by the ARRB and the account of how the two

letters sent Armstrong were in error is dealt with in detail in documents

that will be made available when the Arcnhives raises the curtain on all the

ARRB material. (It is alluded to indirectly in the ARRB Final Report).

https://groups.googl...f3b2b750ea2037d

DSL dated Nov 2, 1998

Again, no mention of any Ft Worth news stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Jim Hargrove:

None of this changes the fact that LHO's tax records and Social Security

records were in fact located, and they do not support McBrides account.

So that should really be the end of it.

All you're doing, by continuing to spread this stuff around, is to

demonstrate the fact that faced with documentary evidence that demolishes

the Armstrong thesis, you are willing to ignore that evidence and instead

attempt to rely on faulty recollections that are 30 and even up to 45 years

old.

Much of John Armstrong's "investigation" unfortunately is based on the fact

that he doesn't grasp what common sense dictates and what any freshman is

taught in a law school class on evidence: the man doesn't understand the

difference between the power of a real-time computer record, and a 40 year

old recollection. In that sense, he has invented his own version of the

best evidence "concept"---if it agrees with my hypothesis, it must be true.

Never mind the documentary record.

https://groups.googl...e038ba44d118ff1

DSL dated Apr 8, 1999

Yet again, no mention of any Ft Worth news stories

There are other post 1995 usernet entries if you'd like to be reminded of them. Don't bother trying to scrub those. I have copied them.

Your "other fish to fry" story isn't looking any better than any of your other stories. Like your "I Led 3 Lives" reason for looking through the Ft Worth library records which superceded your 1st reason ("I had someone go to the Fort Worth library, pull microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and actually locate news stories mentioning that [the riots]."and 2nd reason ["I had someone carefully go through the Fort Worth Star Telegramarchives (or microfilms, at the Fort Worth Library) for the summer of 1956, simply because Oswald and his mother moved there on July 1, 1956, and that was his residence until the day he enlisted in the Marines on 10/24/56.") Your "I Led 3 Lives" version of events only emerged AFTER I pointed out how silly that second reason was.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Greg Parker

[David Lifton]

THE TAX RECORDS VERSUS THE (September 1956) FORT WORTH NEWS STORIES

((snipped; see previous Parker's previous post [#189 on this thread] for his full and unedited argument))

Greg Parker,

You really are a hoot. For you, apparently, this is the Alamo, and you are going to keep firing away, until you have not a single drop of ammunition remaining.

Now you have gone back to the old Usenet archives from September, 1998 (that’s 14 years ago) to search for posts that I made back then, but nothing you have found in any way contradicts the essence of what I have said, and will repeat here again, since I fear you are a slow learner.

The Fort Worth news stories (with which you seem to be so obsessed) were not my focus at all. As I have repeatedly stated, my focus --in determining when Oswald knew McBride (and what year it was that they both worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories in New Orleans)--was on the Oswald and McBride federal tax records. Because such records, if located, would establish beyond a doubt (imho) just when these two individuals were employed there--i.e., what calendar year it was--and whether they were employed there at the same time.

Here, let me go through this again, for I fear you are behaving like a little mouse on a treadmill, and simply cannot get off. But let's give it another try. . . :

1) I interviewed Palmer McBride first in September, 1994, and then on October 2, 1994, on camera. In that on-camera filmed interview, McBride (who was employed at Pfisterer for a short while) admitted to me that his original 11/23/63 statement about when he knew Oswald was incorrect. You will find excerpts from those interviews earlier on this thread. (See my previous summarizing post for more detail, or posts # 124 and # 128 for the exact quotes). Please note: that filmed interview was conducted four years before the Usenet posts you have located.

2) The next month, in November, 1994, I asked Deborah Conway to go to the Fort Worth Public Library and peruse the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for the TV listings of Oswald’s favorite TV program I Led 3 Lives, to see if it was being broadcast that summer. (It was). Again, this took place four years prior to those Usenet posts.

3) In connection with that search, Debra also noticed (please note those two words, "also noticed") the news stories about the civil unrest in Ft Worth, and told me about (and sent me) those stories. These were stories that were published locally—in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram--and not the same as the stories you found, just recently, through a Google News search, and which were published thousands of miles away, in some other American newspaper (e.g., the item you located that was published in the Spokane [Washington] Daily Chronicle, with a Fort Worth dateline). FYI: The stories that Debra found were the actual stories--published locally--that would have been read by Lee Oswald, when he was living in Fort Worth, Texas, between July 1, 1956, when he moved there from New Orleans, and October 24, 1956, when he enlisted in the Marines.

4) In the summer of 1995, the ARRB opened for business, and Doug Horne was on the staff. On September 17, 1996, the ARRB held hearings here in Los Angeles, and I was a witness. Throughout the life of the ARRB, I was in touch with Doug Horne, and, on any number of occasions, with Jeremy Gunn, because they were deposing witnesses who were prominent from my book BEST EVIDENCE. In connection with my ongoing relationship with Jeremy Gunn and Doug Horne, I urged the ARRB to seek the tax records of Palmer McBride and Lee Oswald, for calendar year 1956, to establish, without any question, when Oswald (and McBride) worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories.

5) FYI (and I have not mentioned this previously): I also urged John Armstrong to write the IRS, and seek tax records; and also for him to urge anyone he knew at Pfisterer, to also seek tax records—i.e., Pfisterer’s actual tax returns, as well, and particularly the Social Security Records ("Form 941") which are records of Employer Withholding, and which would establish exactly when McBride and when Oswald, worked there. John finally moved off his butt, and requested certain records, and the response he received (from the IRS, concerning the matter of "Employer Identification Number") was, imho, rather inadequate. Armstrong was sent letters which (to him) falsely suggested that his hypothesis was correct. I—and others—were sure that those IRS letters were incorrect. Consequently, I (for one) redoubled my efforts to get the ARRB to "clarify the record" and to seek the actual original IRS tax records, and to do so before 9/30/98, when the ARRB would no longer exist. Otherwise, Armstrong would be forever proclaiming that the IRS had supplied him information which "proved" that his hypothesis was correct, when it was not.

Greg Parker please note: everything I have said above applies to events between 1994 and 1998--that is, between 2 and 6 years prior to the time you (by your own admission) ever got involved in the JFK case (which, you say, was in the year 2000).

6) What I have said above (in point number 5) is exactly why I wrote the ARRB the fax I did on September 4, 1998, urging them to do their job correctly, and seek those records. Their legisltative mandate, after all, was to "clarify the record," and this was certainly an area where such "clarification" was needed. Again, I repeat: my concern was not the Fort Worth newspaper stories, on which you seem to obsess (apparently because you recently made a discovery, and believe that I am trying to "steal your research," or some such thing, by stating that I knew about it back in 1994).

7) Through my personal contacts with Doug Horne, and/or Jeremy Gunn (ARRB Director and General Counsel), I learned that certain tax records had in fact been located, and I also knew (by that time) what the verdict was: the records established that Oswald worked at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories in 1956, just as his own federal 1956 tax return (Form 1040) indicated. Furthermore: Oswald's IRS Form 1040 for 1956--i.e., his actual 1956 tax return-- was also located, and made part of the JFK Records Collection. It showed that Oswald himself listed Pfisterer Dental Labs as one of this employers in 1956 (and IRS W-2 records also backed this up). From my "back channel" communications with the ARRB (and specifically with Doiug Horne) I knew the answer to the puzzle before the ARRB released its official report a short while later: the tax records proved Armstrong’s hypothesis (re McBride) to be false.

8) Consequently, I went online--in what was then called "Deja News" (the on-line news group)--and made certain posts about that subject; and you have located those posts. My general reaction to this Internet search effort about my past posts, in which you have been engaged, is simply this: So what? It doesn’t change anything that I have said. To the contrary, it only reinforces and corroborates my own account.

9) You keep raising the issue of why I did not mention the Fort Worth news stories. To repeat for the umpteenth time: I didn’t think the Sept/August 1956 Fort Worth news accounts (about civil unrest) were all that significant, because my focus was on the tax records, not those stories. From the 14 year old Usenet posts you have located, you have only corroborated my own account, and further established that my focus was on the tax records, and not on the 1956 news stories. You can find as many posts as you wish--you will not be able to change that basic fact, because it happens to be true.

And let me add this one other point: not only was my focus on the tax records (which I think is very obvious, from my own posts, and the letter I wrote the ARRB in early September, 1998), it is also very possible--even likely--that I completely forgot about the "Fort Worth news stories," which is very likely one reason I did not mention them. (Yes, its possible that when one is dealing with thousands of files, and facts and factoids, that its possible to not remember every single thing. . . but I digress. . . )

Now returning to your own research (circa 2011 or 2012), and which you apparently think I am trying to take credit for, or steal your ideas and/or insights.

10) Rather recently, you have entered this maze, but from a slightly different direction. Apparently, you have plugged the word “riots” and “Fort Worth” into a Google News search engine, and come up with wire service dispatches about the (August/September, 1956) Fort Worth civil unrest. You have rightly pointed out that these dispatches appear to offer a reasonably close match to the incident(s) mentioned in Palmer McBride’s 11/23/63 statement (based on a letter he [McBride] had received from Oswald, after he and his mother left New Orleans [on 6/30/56] and moved to Fort Worth). Further, you have argued that, because of that approximate "match," those stories offer good data showing that Palmer McBride’s original statement as to the time period he was talking about, in his 11/23/63 statement, was wrong. It was 1956, not 1957 or 1958 (as McBride had said). And I agree. But none of that is inconsistent with that account I previously wrote. None of that changes the basic fact that I learned of the Fort Worth civil unrest (circa "summer of 1956") from Debra Conway, when, at my request, she did certain library research back in November, 1994.

11) Interestingly enough—now, in the year 2012, and as a result of Google News--you have such news stories, published thousands of miles away, in other American cities (e.g., your recent post about an article in the Spokane [Washington], Daily Chronicle, published on 9/3/56). Now pardon me, but these are not the actual stories that Oswald read, and on the basis of which he would have written to Palmer McBride. Oswald was reading the actual news stories in Ft Worth, not from Spokane, Washington, or Dayton, Ohio, which may have come up in a Google News search. What Debra located were actual copies of the Fort Worth news stories, as published, locally, in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and she located them because of the work she did and the effort she expended when she went to the Fort Worth Public Library, in November, 1994. Now you may not wish to believe that, and you may characterize her effort with insulting terminology, but that is your problem. At this point, we enter the realm of psychology--your psychology--and if all you can do, by way of reaction to this situation, is to spit and curse, like an out-of-control adolescant--then perhaps you should seek outside help.

12) I’m oh so sorry if you are unwilling to believe the facts as I have described them, but that’s exactly what happened. Its unfortunate that, because of your personal animus towards me, and your single minded, paranoid (and quite mistaken) focus on the idea that I have been trying to “steal” your “original research,” that all you can “see” is the notion that I made up a story about Debra Conway assisting me (by going to the Fort Worth Public Library, in November, 1994), and that I constructed such a fiction so that I might steal your idea(s). That is total nonsense.

13) I don’t know any way to change your mind, because you don’t seem open to reason. I could recommend that you undergo some “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull,” but that would probably be bad medical advice, and, despite your thick-headedness, I don’t believe the chances are high that you would survive such a procedure.

14) But, considering the kinds of tendentious and silly argument you persist in advancing, your apparent obsession with these "Fort Worth news stories," and the largely irrelevant “archival” research in which you have been engaged to promote your hypothesis (about me)--in short, your single minded focus on what has been truly peripheral--I am reminded of something a noted law professor once stated, in another context, but in words that apply to you: “Great trial lawyers have an instinct for the jugular. You, sir, have an instinct for the capillaries.”

Good day.

DSL

9/16/12; 12:10 PDT

Edited, 3:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 17, 2012 by David Lifton

[Bernie Laverick]

I don’t know any way to change your mind, because you don’t seem open to reason.

I know of one really good way...simply show him where you have used this information before. Why won't you just do that and end this silliness?

I could recommend that you undergo some “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of your skull,”

Before or after they swap Greg's body?

[David Lifton]

I don’t know any way to change your mind, because you don’t seem open to reason.

I know of one really good way...simply show him where you have used this information before. Why won't you just do that and end this silliness?

I could recommend that you undergo some “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of your skull,”

Before or after they swap Greg's body?

Bernie,

I listened to the music video, along with the art ("The Scream," by Edvard Munch). It was very nice. Thank you.

Now, to certain "unfinished business": when are you going to post your bio?

DSL

9/16/12; 3:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited September 17, 2012 by David Lifton