David Josephs Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda... What poppycock and piffle! I wasn't the one who rebooted this thread urging people to go read HardlyLee.nut, the website selling Armstrong's theory and his book, was I? Moreover, when I was a member at DeepFooFoo.orgy, you guys were urging - nay - BEGGING me talk about my book so I would stop humiliating you over the hardlylee theory. When I REFUSED to talk about my book unless someone asked a specific question about it, and continued replying to the garbage being spouted about the historical figure of Lee Harvey Oswald, I was booted. To quote Carmine S. "Keep trying". Best laugh I've had today... Can't believe we have to keep having this conversation how could they possibly see you as anything but sincere over at FooFoo... especially after reading anything posted on your forum... We get it Parker... as long as you stay with H&L you don't have to explain that pile of kindling you call a book - which winds up being mostly other people's words that you just agree with and reprint. Brilliant !! btw - in every article you linked to the consensus is that regrowth of tonsil tissue is not commom at all From the NIH link you provide they mention that: PARTIAL tonsillectomies - increase the rate of tonsillar regrowth and the test subjects that did show regrowth were all less than 6 years old. Did the records specify a "partial" ?? From another site: http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f/Can-Your-Tonsils-Grow-Back-After-A-Tonsillectomy.htm which links directly to the nih web page on the subject Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size. If you had your adenoids removed at the same time as your tonsils, it is more likely that they will grow back than your tonsils. While I have cared for patients who are having a second adenoidectomy, I have never cared for someone, or even known someone, who has had to have their tonsils removed more than once in a lifetime. If you know someone whose tonsils have grown back, they probably had their tonsils removed many years ago. There was a period of time when the method used to remove the tonsils made it more likely for them to grow back. This method, which involved leaving the outer portion of the tonsils intact in order to reduce pain and decrease the risk of bleeding, is no longer used. --------------- So Parker, does a 50% chance of regrowth mean the other 50% of no regrowth is not possible? or just not allowed to be considered by your probabilities. What if it was 75/25 or 90/10 for regrowth - still a better chance THAT is the explanation because H&L is simply not allowed in your universe... Bottom line - your explanation carries with it a probability of occurance. What it does not do is take into account the other 5000 items of conflict that make up the entire story... Like trying to explain the WCR conclusions by saying Brennan saw Oswald in the window so it had to have been him. When you get past that one little mistake - like you assuming the tonsils grew back, end of story - we come to find that, and all the other support for "Ozzie did it" is not so trustworthy. As I've said... you got tonsils and Asperger's to hang your rebuttal upon... oh, and a fort worth high school riot. You only have 4996 other things to to address Keep on Truckin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Excuse me. I'm still waiting for an apology from YOU for telling untruths about past posts of mine. Oh great and powerful Parker... please accept my apology for ever telling any untruths about anything you've ever posted. Yours are the truest of true words and the wisest of wise thoughts. Get over yourself already and my dear friend Tommy... yes indeed... the people that read what he writes who agree, do find him effective. These are the same type who follow a Ms. Baker. Faith Tommy... ya gotta have FAITH and you too can get a few followers, guaranteed. Still have yet to hear a convincing argument to explain the timeline conflicts of CE1961 and CE1962. Care to give it a shot or maybe defer to the rabbi? Dear David, Why in the world would I ever want to defer (or even refer) to you instead of Greg Parker? Sorry but I'm not into cults, and IMHO "Harvey and Lee" is an elaborate, paranoiac cult which ultimately does not help us to figure out who killed JFK, but just makes us madder than hornets at "the powers that be" in a vague, self-destructive kind of way. Peace, Mahalo, and Shalom, --Tommy "Wow. Genetic programming. The CIA and the FBI and the Military Industrial Complex must have done it! I hate America !!!" LOL Edited May 16, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda... What poppycock and piffle! I wasn't the one who rebooted this thread urging people to go read HardlyLee.nut, the website selling Armstrong's theory and his book, was I? Moreover, when I was a member at DeepFooFoo.orgy, you guys were urging - nay - BEGGING me talk about my book so I would stop humiliating you over the hardlylee theory. When I REFUSED to talk about my book unless someone asked a specific question about it, and continued replying to the garbage being spouted about the historical figure of Lee Harvey Oswald, I was booted. To quote Carmine S. "Keep trying". Best laugh I've had today... Can't believe we have to keep having this conversation how could they possibly see you as anything but sincere over at FooFoo... especially after reading anything posted on your forum... We get it Parker... as long as you stay with H&L you don't have to explain that pile of kindling you call a book - which winds up being mostly other people's words that you just agree with and reprint. Brilliant !! btw - in every article you linked to the consensus is that regrowth of tonsil tissue is not commom at all From the NIH link you provide they mention that: PARTIAL tonsillectomies - increase the rate of tonsillar regrowth and the test subjects that did show regrowth were all less than 6 years old. Did the records specify a "partial" ?? From another site: http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f/Can-Your-Tonsils-Grow-Back-After-A-Tonsillectomy.htm which links directly to the nih web page on the subject Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size. If you had your adenoids removed at the same time as your tonsils, it is more likely that they will grow back than your tonsils. While I have cared for patients who are having a second adenoidectomy, I have never cared for someone, or even known someone, who has had to have their tonsils removed more than once in a lifetime. If you know someone whose tonsils have grown back, they probably had their tonsils removed many years ago. There was a period of time when the method used to remove the tonsils made it more likely for them to grow back. This method, which involved leaving the outer portion of the tonsils intact in order to reduce pain and decrease the risk of bleeding, is no longer used. --------------- So Parker, does a 50% chance of regrowth mean the other 50% of no regrowth is not possible? or just not allowed to be considered by your probabilities. What if it was 75/25 or 90/10 for regrowth - still a better chance THAT is the explanation because H&L is simply not allowed in your universe... Bottom line - your explanation carries with it a probability of occurance. What it does not do is take into account the other 5000 items of conflict that make up the entire story... Like trying to explain the WCR conclusions by saying Brennan saw Oswald in the window so it had to have been him. When you get past that one little mistake - like you assuming the tonsils grew back, end of story - we come to find that, and all the other support for "Ozzie did it" is not so trustworthy. As I've said... you got tonsils and Asperger's to hang your rebuttal upon... oh, and a fort worth high school riot. You only have 4996 other things to to address Keep on Truckin' From Harvey and Lee: Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January 17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02 Is what I've highlighted above a true statement or not? Just a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is required. And while we are at it, where are the two citations that he ALWAYS uses (except when it is marked as speculation) showing the operation was performed at Parkland Hospital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Greg, You're the one who's grasping at straws here, not Armstrong or his defenders. Your dismissal of Armstrong includes the most unlikeliest of conjectures. For instance, Oswald's tonsils growing back. As a baby boomer, I knew lots of kids who had their tonsils out. Never heard of a single case of them growing back later. That had to be an extremely rare thing. You were eagerly claiming to have "solved" the Albert Bogard incident a while back, and posted a lot of information about the man you believed had been mistaken for Oswald, someone named Oswalt. Not long after that, you just as eagerly announced that you had resolved the issue again, and that the man Bogard encountered was the real Lee Harvey Oswald. Your "evidence" amounted to declaring that Oswald decided he needed a car for his driver's test. And you think others are wildly speculating? If you want to focus on the holes in Armstrong's theory, go after his support of the official narrative of Oswald's post-assassination movements; the bus ride, cab ride, and especially the killing of Tippit. I'm with you on that. But what are the odds that the anomaly in the records about Oswald's tonsils are the result of a rare occurrence of them growing back and most of the encounters with an apparent phony Oswald were the result of separate, distinct mental issues on the part of those reporting them? Given all the "coincidences" and "mistaken" witnesses we have been asked to accept for over 50 years, in order to swallow the official fairy tale, I can't help feeling that you're asking researchers to do the same thing. It's your cavalier dismissal of all those unconnected witnesses who reported an encounter with a seeming Oswald impersonator that I take such strong objection to. When you claim they were all mentally ill, you are not only relying on a truly remarkable coincidence (all those disparate people sharing a common experience just happening to each have mental issues), you are introducing the kind of "evidence" that Warren Commission apologists have always relied on. I'll let you address Bernie on the issue of your friends tonsils. As for your second para... you seem to have an issue with me admitting a probable error because more research had brought to light a better explanation? Let me just say that if it wasn't the historical Lee Harvey Oswald, Louis Oswalt/Oswald is a far better prospect than a CIA doppelganger. You guys want to keep referring to his comment about coming into some money -- but take it out of the context of the situation. It was a lie to save face for not having the money, not having a credit record and for not being employed long enough to get a loan. You also conveniently forget that one of your own witnesses claimed the person was only 5' tall and that it happened on the 2nd. He was CLEARLY remembering some other potential mark customer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 From Harvey and Lee: Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January 17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02 Is what I've highlighted above a true statement or not? Just a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is required. No Greg... given that there is a possibility that the tonsils can grow back, there is a chance that Lee Oswald's did just that enough to cause him the pain we see treated in the USMC record. I don't speak for John, I speak with him. Does the chance that they did grow back negate the one and only thing which suggests the existence of the two men? do we agree that this is not the only conflict in who-what-where-when-how stated within the USMC/FBI/CIA/etc records and it was these same USMC Discharge documents which state he was 71" and 150 lbs in Sept 1959.... is that not official enough? do we agree the man ruby killed was not 71" nor 150 lbs - or do I need to post the autopsy too... See, you posted the first half argument already - the photo of the marine getting bigger after basic... Ozzie gets bigger in the marines and from 17 to 20 as any man would... but the getting smaller part over the next few years, you don't seem to say much about that Greg. Your argument is that there is no official measurement of Oswald at 71"... I posted the image. What else ? =========== You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it. Will your response to the height issue will be based on a better probability of occurring then tonsil regrowth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Your "evidence" amounted to declaring that Oswald decided he needed a car for his driver's test. And you think others are wildly speculating? Wild speculation? No it's not Don. Maybe you forgot I had a citation for it. Mrs. PAINE - Just prior to the assassination. The 16th I was having a birthday party for my little girl and said I couldn't possibly take him again to this place so he could take a test. But that he didn't need a car. This was news to him. He thought he needed a car for his initial test, learner's permit. I said he could go himself from Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Quote Your "evidence" amounted to declaring that Oswald decided he needed a car for his driver's test. And you think others are wildly speculating? =============================================== Wild speculation? No it's not Don. Maybe you forgot I had a citation for it. Mrs. PAINE - Just prior to the assassination. The 16th I was having a birthday party for my little girl and said I couldn't possibly take him again to this place so he could take a test. But that he didn't need a car. This was news to him. He thought he needed a car for his initial test, learner's permit. I said he could go himself from Dallas. // Parker ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE GOSPEL OF RUTH SO SAITH THE PARKER Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers." James DiEugenio has argued that this "cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism."================= Ruth Paine in the 1990s -The final speaker to address the issue of the Paines was researcher Carol Hewett, who read a paper that she said had been prepared by fellow researcher Barbara Lamonica."This concerns Ruth's activities in the 1990s," Hewett said. "We see that Ruth was a political activist in the 1960s; she spent a great deal of time trying to learn Russian. I guess she failed at this, and decided it was time to learn Spanish instead, because in the 1990s we find her in Nicaragua, of all places. "During the ensuing decades following the assassination the focus of U.S. intelligence activities shifted away from Cuba to Central America, culminating in the Reagan Administration's efforts to destabilize and overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government through a CIA proxy war. In the early Sixties the CIA molded anti-Castro Cuban refugees into paramilitary mercenary gangs dubbed the 'Liberation Brigade,' just as in the eighties they would bankroll former Samoza national guardsmen into the mercenary army dubbed the 'Freedom Fighters.' Several illuminai from the Bay of Pigs rogue's gallery materialized to train the Contras," including Felix Rodriquez and Theodore Shackley. "In third world countries the CIA routinely utilizes religious organizations to undermine the social movements of indigenous peoples, and to advance the goals of U.S. policy. This was also a clarion call to the CIA to increase funding to the missionary and relief efforts of more conservative and fundamentalist groups who supported the Contras. It was also believed that the more progressive relief groups were heavily infiltrated." Hewett then told the story of Sue Wheaton, an assassination researcher who also works with the Office of Aging in Washington D.C. In 1991, she and her husband, an Episcopalian priest, were part of the progressive relief effort in Nicaragua. In the course of this work, Wheaton chanced to meet Ruth Paine at a Quaker group. After confirming that she was the same Ruth Paine from the assassination saga---a fact that she admitted only reluctantly---Ruth told Sue Wheaton that the Quaker group was funded primarily by six wealthy conservative individuals from the Southeast... "It was curious to Wheaton that conservative individuals would want to support humanitarian aid to Nicaragua, especially during the previous Contra war. Ruth's particular group also ran a sawmill [?] project on the eastern coast of Nicaragua, a Contra holdout and a nexus of CIA-based activity. Recall the Lake Pontchartrain gang outside of New Orleans, whose cover was operating a lumber mill as well. "Ruth Paine showed up at one of Sue Wheaton's council meetings of the anti-Contra group, of which pro-NICA was a part. According to Sue Wheaton---and this is quoting Sue directly, from some correspondence she shared with us--- I myself did think that Ruth was taking down information about Americans in Nicaragua, who opposed U.S. policies there. She constantly wrote down the names of individuals and organizations. Her project---that is, Ruth's project---sent a letter to all of the U.S. peace organizations which visited Nicaragua, encouraging them to stay at the Quaker hospitality house. (SO SHE COULD KEEP AN EYE ON THEM,GAAL) Someone told me that Ruth studied the bulletin board there, copying down everything that was on it. Also, Ruth made reference to people she knew in the U.S. embassy. Most of us---[that is, people that Sue associated with]---did not know any people in the embassy, as we associated it with policies we abhorred. "Sue Wheaton goes on to recount how Ruth and an associate of Ruth's by the name of John [Reese?] attended several meetings of a Solidarity Committee...while there, Ruth took copious notes, and another friend of Ruth's, by the name of Sean Miller, made several tape recordings and took photographs. Ruth claimed that the photographs were being taken for the Nicaraguan Network in Washington, D.C. Later, when a friend of Sue Wheaton's checked with the Nicaraguan Network, the network claimed that they had not commissioned anyone to take pictures in Nicaragua. Thus the explanation given by Ruth Paine as to why her associate was taking pictures of members of the U.S. community in Nicaragua was false." "Ruth is now living in St. Petersberg, Florida," Hewett said. "She's been divorced from Michael for quite some time. She's active with a Quaker group there in St. Petersberg. Edited May 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) As you notice Greg, your name is nowhere to be seen. No one seems to care enough about what you are doing to even bother discussing it. "Reminded me of Jim Douglass's book... so pleasantly surprised I could have listened to this stuff all day..." Len Ocanic after listening to an audio version of 'Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War' during his interview with Jim DiEugenio on Black Op Radio, March 27, 2014 “According to Oliver Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii” I sent the man a note – be interesting to get his take on you and the use of his work. From which “thesis” does Lee’s work that you use come from – you know, a footnote or document reference so we can see if you are true to your source… like the thousands of footnotes and docs offered by JA. Ahem. The book does have the citation. It was too difficult for CTKA to include any of them. South Korea Likely Provoked War with North by Oliver Lee, Star-Bulletin, June 24, 1994. Since quoting from such a work is considered fair usage, and since I agree with his findings and actually added to them, I'm sure he will be delighted to see his work has been picked up and used. Edited May 16, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Quote Your "evidence" amounted to declaring that Oswald decided he needed a car for his driver's test. And you think others are wildly speculating? =============================================== Wild speculation? No it's not Don. Maybe you forgot I had a citation for it. Mrs. PAINE - Just prior to the assassination. The 16th I was having a birthday party for my little girl and said I couldn't possibly take him again to this place so he could take a test. But that he didn't need a car. This was news to him. He thought he needed a car for his initial test, learner's permit. I said he could go himself from Dallas. // Parker ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE GOSPEL OF RUTH SO SAITH THE PARKER Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers." James DiEugenio has argued that this "cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism." ================= Ruth Paine in the 1990s - The final speaker to address the issue of the Paines was researcher Carol Hewett, who read a paper that she said had been prepared by fellow researcher Barbara Lamonica. "This concerns Ruth's activities in the 1990s," Hewett said. "We see that Ruth was a political activist in the 1960s; she spent a great deal of time trying to learn Russian. I guess she failed at this, and decided it was time to learn Spanish instead, because in the 1990s we find her in Nicaragua, of all places. "During the ensuing decades following the assassination the focus of U.S. intelligence activities shifted away from Cuba to Central America, culminating in the Reagan Administration's efforts to destabilize and overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government through a CIA proxy war. In the early Sixties the CIA molded anti-Castro Cuban refugees into paramilitary mercenary gangs dubbed the 'Liberation Brigade,' just as in the eighties they would bankroll former Samoza national guardsmen into the mercenary army dubbed the 'Freedom Fighters.' Several illuminai from the Bay of Pigs rogue's gallery materialized to train the Contras," including Felix Rodriquez and Theodore Shackley. "In third world countries the CIA routinely utilizes religious organizations to undermine the social movements of indigenous peoples, and to advance the goals of U.S. policy. This was also a clarion call to the CIA to increase funding to the missionary and relief efforts of more conservative and fundamentalist groups who supported the Contras. It was also believed that the more progressive relief groups were heavily infiltrated." Hewett then told the story of Sue Wheaton, an assassination researcher who also works with the Office of Aging in Washington D.C. In 1991, she and her husband, an Episcopalian priest, were part of the progressive relief effort in Nicaragua. In the course of this work, Wheaton chanced to meet Ruth Paine at a Quaker group. After confirming that she was the same Ruth Paine from the assassination saga---a fact that she admitted only reluctantly---Ruth told Sue Wheaton that the Quaker group was funded primarily by six wealthy conservative individuals from the Southeast... "It was curious to Wheaton that conservative individuals would want to support humanitarian aid to Nicaragua, especially during the previous Contra war. Ruth's particular group also ran a sawmill [?] project on the eastern coast of Nicaragua, a Contra holdout and a nexus of CIA-based activity. Recall the Lake Pontchartrain gang outside of New Orleans, whose cover was operating a lumber mill as well. "Ruth Paine showed up at one of Sue Wheaton's council meetings of the anti-Contra group, of which pro-NICA was a part. According to Sue Wheaton---and this is quoting Sue directly, from some correspondence she shared with us--- I myself did think that Ruth was taking down information about Americans in Nicaragua, who opposed U.S. policies there. She constantly wrote down the names of individuals and organizations. Her project---that is, Ruth's project---sent a letter to all of the U.S. peace organizations which visited Nicaragua, encouraging them to stay at the Quaker hospitality house. (SO SHE COULD KEEP AN EYE ON THEM,GAAL) Someone told me that Ruth studied the bulletin board there, copying down everything that was on it. Also, Ruth made reference to people she knew in the U.S. embassy. Most of us---[that is, people that Sue associated with]---did not know any people in the embassy, as we associated it with policies we abhorred. "Sue Wheaton goes on to recount how Ruth and an associate of Ruth's by the name of John [Reese?] attended several meetings of a Solidarity Committee...while there, Ruth took copious notes, and another friend of Ruth's, by the name of Sean Miller, made several tape recordings and took photographs. Ruth claimed that the photographs were being taken for the Nicaraguan Network in Washington, D.C. Later, when a friend of Sue Wheaton's checked with the Nicaraguan Network, the network claimed that they had not commissioned anyone to take pictures in Nicaragua. Thus the explanation given by Ruth Paine as to why her associate was taking pictures of members of the U.S. community in Nicaragua was false." "Ruth is now living in St. Petersberg, Florida," Hewett said. "She's been divorced from Michael for quite some time. She's active with a Quaker group there in St. Petersberg. There are two things missing from your analysis. A citation is a citation is a citation. The use of a citation (regardless of how YOU value it) automatically negates any suggestion of "wild" (i.e. evidence-free) speculation. The other thing missing is logic. The quote I supplied from Ruth was not made out of any possible self-interest. It is therefore reliable - unless it can be DIRECTLY rebutted by other evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) The other thing missing is logic. The quote I supplied from Ruth was not made out of any possible self-interest.* It is therefore reliable - unless it can be DIRECTLY rebutted by other evidence.// Parker ======================= Like sworn statements from DMV people that there was a LHO drivers license. GAAL *LIKE SUPPORTING YOUR KINDLE BOOK ============================================== citations Buddy Walthers - Spartacus Educational spartacus-educational.com › American History › The Assassination of JFK Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records ... Michael Paine - Spartacus Educational spartacus-educational.com › American History › The Assassination of JFK Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Michael Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, ... Ruth Paine - JFK Assassination Forum www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=8652.90;wap2 "Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, ... P | jfkcoupdetat https://jfkcoupdetat.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/p/ Jan 7, 2014 - Detective Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they 'found six or seven metal filing ... Edited May 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) The other thing missing is logic. The quote I supplied from Ruth was not made out of any possible self-interest.* It is therefore reliable - unless it can be DIRECTLY rebutted by other evidence.// Parker ======================= Like sworn statements from DMV people that there was a LHO drivers license. GAAL *LIKE SUPPORTING YOUR KINDLE BOOK ============================================== citations Buddy Walthers - Spartacus Educational spartacus-educational.com › American History › The Assassination of JFK Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records ... Michael Paine - Spartacus Educational spartacus-educational.com › American History › The Assassination of JFK Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Michael Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, ... Ruth Paine - JFK Assassination Forum www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=8652.90;wap2 "Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, ... P | jfkcoupdetat https://jfkcoupdetat.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/p/ Jan 7, 2014 - Detective Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they 'found six or seven metal filing ... Are you for real? Ruth Paine never made the comment out of any self-interest. What the hell does a quote from 1963 have to do with a kindle book that ends in 1954? Your citations are not direct rebuttal to the quote I supplied from RP's testimony. They are meaningless for that reason. Have you found yet where I misrepresented anything in my background? No? Then where is my apology. Again, I call upon the owners of this forum to take action against Steven Gaal for making the completely spurious claim that I have misrepresented myself. And I reiterate that I do NOT want his false claims deleted or removed. They will tell readers everything they need to know about him. Edited May 16, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Steven Gaal, on 15 May 2015 - 8:51 PM, said: Your citations are not direct rebuttal to the quote I supplied from RP's testimony. They are meaningless for that reason.// PARKER ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Like sworn statements from DMV people that there was a LHO drivers license (not made out of any possible self-interest) . vs SPOOKY RUTH PAINE TO EACH HIS OWN (end gaal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What on earth are talking about? This has NOTHING TO DO with whether he had a license or not. It is about her saying that Lee was under the wrong impression that he needed a car to take the test. There is NO direct rebuttal to that. Either you have some serious comprehension issues, or you deliberately clouding the issues.//PARKER ============================================================= If he has a drivers license ,then no need to take a test........GAAL Edited May 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Steven Gaal, on 15 May 2015 - 8:51 PM, said: Your citations are not direct rebuttal to the quote I supplied from RP's testimony. They are meaningless for that reason.// PARKER ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Like sworn statements from DMV people that there was a LHO drivers license (not made out of any possible self-interest) . vs SPOOKY RUTH PAINE TO EACH HIS OWN What on earth are talking about? This has NOTHING TO DO with whether he had a license or not. It is about her saying that Lee was under the wrong impression that he needed a car to take the test. There is NO direct rebuttal to that. Either you have some serious comprehension issues, or you deliberately clouding the issues.//PARKER ============================================================= If he has a drivers license ,then no need to take a test........GAAL Moronic. They said it was all stained brown and dirty like it had sat in someone's wallet for a while. That sounds a lot like his application to me... Edited May 16, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda... What poppycock and piffle! I wasn't the one who rebooted this thread urging people to go read HardlyLee.nut, the website selling Armstrong's theory and his book, was I? Moreover, when I was a member at DeepFooFoo.orgy, you guys were urging - nay - BEGGING me talk about my book so I would stop humiliating you over the hardlylee theory. When I REFUSED to talk about my book unless someone asked a specific question about it, and continued replying to the garbage being spouted about the historical figure of Lee Harvey Oswald, I was booted. To quote Carmine S. "Keep trying". Best laugh I've had today... Can't believe we have to keep having this conversation how could they possibly see you as anything but sincere over at FooFoo... especially after reading anything posted on your forum... We get it Parker... as long as you stay with H&L you don't have to explain that pile of kindling you call a book - which winds up being mostly other people's words that you just agree with and reprint. Brilliant !! btw - in every article you linked to the consensus is that regrowth of tonsil tissue is not commom at all From the NIH link you provide they mention that: PARTIAL tonsillectomies - increase the rate of tonsillar regrowth and the test subjects that did show regrowth were all less than 6 years old. Did the records specify a "partial" ?? From another site: http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f/Can-Your-Tonsils-Grow-Back-After-A-Tonsillectomy.htm which links directly to the nih web page on the subject Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size. If you had your adenoids removed at the same time as your tonsils, it is more likely that they will grow back than your tonsils. While I have cared for patients who are having a second adenoidectomy, I have never cared for someone, or even known someone, who has had to have their tonsils removed more than once in a lifetime. If you know someone whose tonsils have grown back, they probably had their tonsils removed many years ago. There was a period of time when the method used to remove the tonsils made it more likely for them to grow back. This method, which involved leaving the outer portion of the tonsils intact in order to reduce pain and decrease the risk of bleeding, is no longer used. --------------- So Parker, does a 50% chance of regrowth mean the other 50% of no regrowth is not possible? or just not allowed to be considered by your probabilities. What if it was 75/25 or 90/10 for regrowth - still a better chance THAT is the explanation because H&L is simply not allowed in your universe... Bottom line - your explanation carries with it a probability of occurance. What it does not do is take into account the other 5000 items of conflict that make up the entire story... Like trying to explain the WCR conclusions by saying Brennan saw Oswald in the window so it had to have been him. When you get past that one little mistake - like you assuming the tonsils grew back, end of story - we come to find that, and all the other support for "Ozzie did it" is not so trustworthy. As I've said... you got tonsils and Asperger's to hang your rebuttal upon... oh, and a fort worth high school riot. You only have 4996 other things to to address Keep on Truckin' From Harvey and Lee: Lee Oswald could not possibly have contracted tonsillitis because his tonsils were surgically removed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas 12 years earlier, on January 17, 1945, by Dr. Philben. 2 57-02 Is what I've highlighted above a true statement or not? Just a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is required. And while we are at it, where are the two citations that he ALWAYS uses (except when it is marked as speculation) showing the operation was performed at Parkland Hospital? Come on. It can't be that hard. Is the highlighted text from Harvey & Lee a true statement or not? Provide the citations for the operation happening at Parkland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Two witnesses stated that Oswald Oswald's tooth went through his lip (and was not knocked out). This is supported by the autopsy report noting a small scar on the lip where this happened. Documents show that Edwin Ekdhal was at least 3 inches shorter than Armstrong claimed, Yet another example of falling on your face relying on someone's memory rather than the actual documentary record. Curious Greg… how do you know this was not just some stated height like the ones you claim for Oswald’s 5’11” height? Who measured Ekdahl to arrive at this 3” shorter figure? You saying it does not make it so Greg… show the evidence and make a real case. -------------------------------------------------------- I posted the documents -- possibly at the foo. How do I know? Because that would make Ekdahl the first person to lie about his height to make himself SHORTER!!!! COMMON SENSE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts