Greg Parker Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 What does the "c/ofpo San Fransisco", California" mean on the above envelope? Steve did get one thing right. The military has it's own mail system and it seems all mail goes via San Fransisco. That point alone proves nothing in regard to where Oswald was treated between certain dates. It was their claim that "3835" is a code for "Japan". Clearly it isn't because we have NAS 955 also in Japan. NAS simply stands for Naval Air Station. They have been guessing about everything else. It seems to me it is no more complicated than having your home address noted on any other medical paper work. It's up to them to show that it was impossible for Oswald to receive medical treatment on the Skagit for something he was being treated for PRIOR to sailing to Taiwan and immediately AFTER returning to at Atsugi. Otherwise it's just more smoke. Hi Greg Here is a portion of the letter Steven tried to link us to. It is in response for evidence that NAS 3835 referred to Japan. One letter. Look at the address layout. Am I missing something here...? How does the number 3835 refer to BOTH Atsugi and the Californian postal HQ? I don't think it does. As I said, Bernie. They are guessing and trying to pass off their guesses as hard fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 With your 15% in 5 year olds "probability", - David Josephs. How does this clown even tie his shoelaces in a morning? The 15% is YOUR figure!! Jeeeez!! 15% is much too high... the actual figure is 6.1%... I was being generous and proving you never read the work to begin with... You really are so full of yourself that you'll go to any lengths to show just how wrong you are... and then get all pissy-whiny about it to boot. You remain a skidmark on this community & thinking people everywhere... thanks for posting and continually proving it Long term outcome of tonsillar regrowth after partial tonsillectomy in children with obstructive sleep apnea. AbstractOBJECTIVE:We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).METHODS:Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors.RESULTS:All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy.CONCLUSION:Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved And where can we read of all this on the Harveylee website? Has the webmaster removed it? I wonder why... Losers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) With your 15% in 5 year olds "probability", - David Josephs. How does this clown even tie his shoelaces in a morning? The 15% is YOUR figure!! Jeeeez!! I didn't think it was anywhere near that high until you posted the link proving it! Now you say it's only my "probability" that this happens. Why has it been taken down from Harveylee website then? That's the 5th time you've been asked that now. Keep up David, John's preferred spokesperson, Jim, has seen fit to remove it. I think you may need to vent your frustration on him instead of others on here. We didn't take it off your website! (Well, in a roundabout way we did...) Here is a lesson others on this forum could deploy in this situation. Clearly David, as usual, is looking for a flame war. He has been disciplined and warned on here countless times over the years by the mods for his aggressive argumentative style and he clearly has a strategy to incite anger from fellow forum members. Everyone on here can see that his argument has been well and truly trashed. Why bother arguing further? As he refuses to answer simple questions and changes the subject every time he gets bogged I don't see the point in engaging with him. David is a coward who hides behind rules which disallow me calling him a xxxx. This allows him to get away with lying through his teeth. It shows what he has in the way of probative argument and also what he is made of. The fact that he throws in the word "radionics" every time he mentions my name now shows the depths he is willing to go to. Coward. xxxx. Epithets probably too kind for him. For anyone tuning in right now... my mention of radionics was in relation to another area of this case. It is not something I have any faith in. But clearly, some people do, and that was my only point. David's need to throw it into the mix here in an attempt to link me to that word is despicable, dishonest baiting. Edited May 27, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 What does the "c/ofpo San Fransisco", California" mean on the above envelope? Steve did get one thing right. The military has it's own mail system and it seems all mail goes via San Fransisco. That point alone proves nothing in regard to where Oswald was treated between certain dates. It was their claim that "3835" is a code for "Japan". Clearly it isn't because we have NAS 955 also in Japan. NAS simply stands for Naval Air Station. They have been guessing about everything else. It seems to me it is no more complicated than having your home address noted on any other medical paper work. It's up to them to show that it was impossible for Oswald to receive medical treatment on the Skagit for something he was being treated for PRIOR to sailing to Taiwan and immediately AFTER returning to at Atsugi. Otherwise it's just more smoke. Hi Greg Here is a portion of the letter Steven tried to link us to. It is in response for evidence that NAS 3835 referred to Japan. One letter. Look at the address layout. Am I missing something here...? How does the number 3835 refer to BOTH Atsugi and the Californian postal HQ? I don't think it does. As I said, Bernie. They are guessing and trying to pass off their guesses as hard fact. You have to understand how the Navy "postal system" works. For example, in the 1970s, I was assigned to the USS Virginia, a cruiser home-ported in Norfolk VA. My mailing address then was: Randy Sorensen USS Virginia, CGN-38 FPO New York 09501 Mail sent to me first went to FPO New York. From there, the Navy distributed it to my ship's location, at port or at sea, wherever that happened to be at the time. So 3835 refers to an ultimate destination for mail – through the San Francisco CA FPO office. Yep. Got all that. It goes nowhere near proving that Oswald was treated at a naval hospital in Japan while simultaneously on board the Skagit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 With your 15% in 5 year olds "probability", - David Josephs. How does this clown even tie his shoelaces in a morning? The 15% is YOUR figure!! Jeeeez!! 15% is much too high... the actual figure is 6.1%... I was being generous and proving you never read the work to begin with... You really are so full of yourself that you'll go to any lengths to show just how wrong you are... and then get all pissy-whiny about it to boot. You remain a skidmark on this community & thinking people everywhere... thanks for posting and continually proving it Long term outcome of tonsillar regrowth after partial tonsillectomy in children with obstructive sleep apnea. AbstractOBJECTIVE:We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).METHODS:Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors.RESULTS:All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy.CONCLUSION:Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved And where can we read of all this on the Harveylee website? Has the webmaster removed it? I wonder why... Losers... So you did read all that and still wasn't able to convey/remember the info correctly? Can't stay on topic for 5 minutes and can't man up when you're wrong... no wonder Parker likes you so much. As for Parker... luckily all one need do is read your work - between Asperger's and tonsils you really have made some amazingly weak arguments here. but that's obvious to all. ... C'mon Parker... use those Radionics you trust in and move something on my desk... Maybe your crazy women shortened Oswald by those 2 inches using her mind as well... As to the long list of H&L conflicts - all you seem to be able to muster is a bad reply to only one of them... Stick with the first point - show us how the USMC simply guesses or asks the marine his height, weight, vision, etc... when he both enters and leaves the Marines... This should be highly entertaining. btw - the Autopsy of LHO shows him to be 69" and 135 lbs... you'll let us know when and where you find out the USMC just wings it on this subject... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 With your 15% in 5 year olds "probability", - David Josephs. How does this clown even tie his shoelaces in a morning? The 15% is YOUR figure!! Jeeeez!! 15% is much too high... the actual figure is 6.1%... I was being generous and proving you never read the work to begin with... You really are so full of yourself that you'll go to any lengths to show just how wrong you are... and then get all pissy-whiny about it to boot. You remain a skidmark on this community & thinking people everywhere... thanks for posting and continually proving it Long term outcome of tonsillar regrowth after partial tonsillectomy in children with obstructive sleep apnea. AbstractOBJECTIVE:We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS).METHODS:Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors.RESULTS:All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy.CONCLUSION:Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved And where can we read of all this on the Harveylee website? Has the webmaster removed it? I wonder why... Losers... So you did read all that and still wasn't able to convey/remember the info correctly? Can't stay on topic for 5 minutes and can't man up when you're wrong... no wonder Parker likes you so much. As for Parker... luckily all one need do is read your work - between Asperger's and tonsils you really have made some amazingly weak arguments here. but that's obvious to all. ... C'mon Parker... use those Radionics you trust in and move something on my desk... Maybe your crazy women shortened Oswald by those 2 inches using her mind as well... As to the long list of H&L conflicts - all you seem to be able to muster is a bad reply to only one of them... Stick with the first point - show us how the USMC simply guesses or asks the marine his height, weight, vision, etc... when he both enters and leaves the Marines... This should be highly entertaining. btw - the Autopsy of LHO shows him to be 69" and 135 lbs... you'll let us know when and where you find out the USMC just wings it on this subject... Why is none of this now mentioned on the HarveyLee website? Who removed it and why? You must be absolutely furious with them for making you look so foolish as to defend a theory they have now quietly dropped. This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy. Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 . C'mon Parker... use those Radionics you trust in and move something on my desk... Maybe your crazy women shortened Oswald by those 2 inches using her mind as well... Once again... trying to start a flame war to save your sorry backside from the kicking it's getting. It shows you are incapable of proper debate, or representing the counter-argument in any sort of honest fashion. You are a pathetic human being clinging desperately to a theory that you have tied your meagre identity to. Keep flaming, David. You expose more of yourself each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy. Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... More pathetic flaming. Anyone would think you're trying to get barred as a mercy killing. Edited May 27, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy. Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... Don, you must be very proud of your man here! What a stupendous moderator you are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy. Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... Once again no answer to the question. Jim took it down because even he doesn't believe it anymore. You're on your own... But I'm sure you're used to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) So basically you're lost and have no answer for the facts provided and are hoping I call you both out for the XXXXXXs you are so I get banned? Try to stay focused little children.... you can't address the height issues - so you whine and quietly try insults you can't address the height issue when they are younger - so you whine and quietly try insults you don't like that you brought up Radionics as a basis for one your your thesis papers and I remind you of it - so whine and quietly try insults You have no answer for the other couple dozen issues so you make it about a website, a photo, a line from the book, something someone said 20 years ago or ANYTHING but having to deal with these issues - so whine and quietly try insults. You cannot defend a single thing you offer other then with remote statistical possibilities and Asperger's... and are amazed when no one buys the tonic you sell - so whine and quietly try insults... When any of the moderators continues to forgive your posting transgressions you get all pissy about why they haven't come to save you from the big bad mean man calling you out for the XX artists you are.. Poor you Greg... Don fight all your battles for you now? You and yours have been exposed for the cowards you are... Post a real response with real evidence just once and maybe someone will begin to believe anything you write again... But since all you have is Radionics, Asperger's, the Marines don't know how to measure and a weak argument about Osteopaths I can understand your reluctance to engage on topic with anything meaningful. gotta go now children... play nice... Edited May 27, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy. Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... Don, you must be very proud of your man here! What a stupendous moderator you are! This forum has moderators???? But only when a member takes on a provocateur who's sole aim is to mislead, cause flame wars, divert attention and tell lies. Then the provocateur will be defended to the hilt and the frustrated member will be disciplined. I've seen it on here so many times now. That's why it's just better sticking to the facts. I've asked David numerous times why the H&L site has taken down all reference to the tonsil debacle. His lack of response speaks volumes. He's embarrassed. And he has every right to be. Let readers work out for themselves why he is more interested in hurling abuse than answering basic questions about his idiotic theory. I say 'his' theory, because David loves to wallow in all this as if it is his very own work. It isn't. He is just the bagman. David is a disposable used car sales rep that has added a big fat zero of his own to this whole sorry theory. What addition to H&L theory have you personally contributed to? NOTHING!!!! That's not your job: that's for the big boys. Your job is to stand at that parking lot and hustle punters into the showroom. But you can't even do that without insulting them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 So basically you're lost and have no answer for the facts provided and are hoping I call you both out for the XXXXXXs you are so I get banned? Try to stay focused little children.... you can't address the height issues - so you whine and quietly try insults you can't address the height issue when they are younger - so you whine and quietly try insults you don't like that you brought up Radionics as a basis for one your your thesis papers and I remind you of it - so whine and quietly try insults You have no answer for the other couple dozen issues so you make it about a website, a photo, a line from the book, something someone said 20 years ago or ANYTHING but having to deal with these issues - so whine and quietly try insults. You cannot defend a single thing you offer other then with remote statistical possibilities and Asperger's... and are amazed when no one buys the tonic you sell - so whine and quietly try insults... When any of the moderators continues to forgive your posting transgressions you get all pissy about why they haven't come to save you from the big bad mean man calling you out for the XX artists you are.. Poor you Greg... Don fight all your battles for you now? You and yours have been exposed for the cowards you are... Post a real response with real evidence just once and maybe someone will begin to believe anything you write again... But since all you have is Radionics, Asperger's, the Marines don't know how to measure and a weak argument about Osteopaths I can understand your reluctance to engage on topic with anything meaningful. gotta go now children... play nice... Oh that's the reason he removed it off the website is it? Hey, me any you were talking about TONSILS!!!] I have never mentioned height in any of all this. So why throw that? Is it because you hope it will divert attention from the above question you refuse to answer? Talk about childishly predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy. Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... Don, you must be very proud of your man here! What a stupendous moderator you are! This forum has moderators???? Hard to believe, I know. But Don J is a mod. He left these debates urging someone to step forward and do what he what incapable of doing - defend the "big boys". But only when a member takes on a provocateur who's sole aim is to mislead, cause flame wars, divert attention and tell lies. Then the provocateur will be defended to the hilt and the frustrated member will be disciplined. I've seen it on here so many times now. That's why it's just better sticking to the facts. I've asked David numerous times why the H&L site has taken down all reference to the tonsil debacle. His lack of response speaks volumes. He's embarrassed. And he has every right to be. Let readers work out for themselves why he is more interested in hurling abuse than answering basic questions about his idiotic theory. I say 'his' theory, because David loves to wallow in all this as if it is his very own work. It isn't. He is just the bagman. David is a disposable used car sales rep that has added a big fat zero of his own to this whole sorry theory. What addition to H&L theory have you personally contributed to? NOTHING!!!! That's not your job: that's for the big boys. Your job is to stand at that parking lot and hustle punters into the showroom. But you can't even do that without insulting them! No. He's doing that in the vain hope of getting kicked off to save himself further embarrassment. But as you point out, that fate rarely befalls the real provocatuers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts