Steven Gaal Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) AS ARMSTRONG PRESENTS IT. = the History of the world --- AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT. // Parker ==================================================================================== The Walls of Jericho - Excerpt Jericho was once thought to be a “Bible problem” because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified... see (article & 54 minute video) --------------------------- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx#Article Almost all scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.[7] It was written by authors far removed from the times it depicts,[8] and was intended to illustrate a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[9] The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[10] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[11] The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua lies behind the judgement of archaeologist William G. Dever that the battle of Jericho "seems invented out of whole cloth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho Just wiki not look at info. It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal == Bones, Stones, and the Scriptures: Has Archaeology Helped or Hurt the Bible? By: Joel B. Groat posted in fair use Of the areas of study related to the Bible's history, few are as exciting as archaeology. Digging for articles buried thousands of years ago, uncovering pottery, tools, lamps and other treasures, excavating ancient cities and houses; all these stir the imagination and narrow the gap between then and now. But how have archaeological studies affected our knowledge of the Bible and its credibility as authentic, ancient Scripture? Has archaeology helped or hurt the Bible? "Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity." This is an important question because the Bible's historical and spiritual messages are intertwined. For example, the Bible uses the miraculous capture of Jericho as an example of God's power and provision on behalf of those who trust Him. If this incident never occurred, the principles derived from it have no ties to reality, and our reason for believing evaporates. Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity. As a result, we who accept the Bible as historical Scripture consider the findings of archaeology relevant to our faith. If the biblical narrative is comprised of factual accounts there should be evidence to support the stories. So what kind of evidence do we have? How has archaeology impacted the credibility of the Bible? Jericho: Did "The Walls Come Tumblin' Down"? The Old Testament story of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:1-25) is a good example of a specific biblical event for which archaeology has provided striking confirmation. The Bible relates God's dramatic intervention for His people after they enter the land of Canaan. The Israelites storm the city of Jericho after its fortified walls miraculously collapse allowing them to march straight up into the city. In the past, many critics relegated this story to the genre of faith-promoting myth. However, excavations done at the site have revealed a number of interesting details which support this biblical story. The archaeological evidence is summarized by scholar Bryant G. Wood in the March/April 1990 Biblical Archaeology Review. Dr. Wood comments: "The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative is substantial: the city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20); the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10); the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1); the siege was short (Joshua 6:15); the walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20); the city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18); the city was burned (Joshua 6:24)." 1 Of course there are limits to what archaeology can confirm. It cannot prove a miracle caused the walls of Jericho to fall, but by verifying specific details of Joshua 6, it strengthens the credibility of the Bible as an authentic ancient record. Solomon's Lavish Empire For years critics considered the Bible's lavish descriptions of Solomon's empire to be greatly embellished. Today most of those critics have been silenced as a result of archaeological discoveries which substantiate a number of specific details of the Solomonic era, including: His use of a naval fleet to gather wealth (1 Kings 10:22). The existence of copper mining and ore refineries for smelting copper and manufacturing bronze (1 Kings 7:13, 14, 45-46). The specific towns and cities that comprised much of his empire (1 Kings 9:15-17).2 Real People And Places Archaeologists have sometimes discovered evidence for small details in the Bible which previously seemed inconsequential. For example, the writer of 1 Kings 9:15-17 mentions in passing Solomon's construction work on the towns of Jerusalem, Hazor and Megiddo and the rebuilding of the town of Gezer after its destruction by an Egyptian Pharaoh. Prof. William G. Dever, though disdainful of biblical Christianity, has noted that this passage was considered of little significance: " ... until modern archaeologists uncovered similar Solomonic city gates and walls at Hazor and Megiddo, and then discovered an Egyptian destruction and nearly identical city walls and gate at Gezer." Prof. Dever goes on to say, "Here we have confirmation of a neglected, rather laconic footnote to biblical history, the more dramatic because it was totally unexpected: No one had set out to prove the historicity of this text."3 Though not as dramatic as the discoveries at Jericho, in their own way such details offer important support for the authenticity and accuracy of the biblical record. This reaffirms that the Bible is not talking about unsubstantiated places and unverifiable events, but real people and places in real history. In addition to the examples described above, all of the following places, names and objects and many more besides, are historically confirmed parts of the biblical narrative: Jehu, king of Israel - name inscribed on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (1 Kings 19:16-19; 2 Kings 9-10).4 Hezekiah's Tunnel - cut through solid rock and discovered in 1880 (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30)5 Heshbon - city mentioned 38 times in the Bible. The site is known today as Hisban and pottery found there dates back to 900 B.C. (Numbers 21:25 ff; Joshua 13:17).6 Darius, Persian monarch - ancient texts dating to 498 B.C. confirm both his existence and identity as described in Ezra 4-6.7 Claudius, Roman emperor - Two literary archaeological discoveries link him to the New Testament, where he is mentioned in Acts 11:28, and 18:28 daric, drachma, denarius - Persian and Roman coins mentioned in the Bible, now verified by archaeology.9 Asherah, Baal - Prominent Canaanite gods attested to by mythical literary materials discovered at Ugarit dating to biblical times, as well as a figure of Baal carved in limestone dated at least to 1650 B.C. The morally depraved practices associated with these gods are in keeping with Old Testament condemnations of anyone associating with them (e.g., Judges 3:7, 1 Kings 18).10 Because of the vast amount of one-to-one correspondence, the Bible has earned widespread respect among archaeologists. Prof. William G. Dever of the University of Arizona has stated: "The Bible is no longer an isolated relic from antiquity, without provenance and thus without credibility. Archaeology may not have proven the specific historical existence of certain biblical personalities such as Abraham or Moses, but it has for all time demolished the notion that the Bible is pure mythology. (OOPS,gaal) The Bible is about real, flesh-and-blood people, in a particular time and place ... "11 Likewise, Millar Burrows of Yale University writes: "The more we find that items in the picture of the past presented by the Bible, even though not directly attested, are compatible with what we know from archaeology, the stronger is our impression of general authenticity. Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronisms and incongruities."12 Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck could write: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."13 The Bible is trustworthy and true. Archaeological studies continue to verify that the events and people portrayed in the biblical record are historically accurate, and textual studies have confirmed the precision and accuracy of our copies of the Bible, divinely preserved by God through centuries of translation and transmission.14 With renewed confidence in the Bible, we too can say with the psalmist, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:105, 160). Notes 1. Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho; A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1990, pp. 44-58. 2. Edward M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, editors, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp. 419-422. While the exact dating of the smelting sites is debated, there is incontestable evidence that metallurgy was practiced during biblical times. 3. William G. Dever, "Archaeology And The Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship," adapted from Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, by the editors of Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1990, p. 56. 4. Blaiklock & Harrison, p. 409. 5. Ibid, p. 237. 6. Ibid, p. 236. 7. Ibid, p. 149 ff. 8. Ibid, p. 131. 9. Ibid, p. 134-135. 10. Ibid, p. 460-461. Note: King James Version uses "groves" for what now is translated "Asherah(s)." 11. William G. Dever, p. 55. 12. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), p. 42. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 267. 13. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: History of the Negev (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969), p. 31. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 65. 14. For a thorough treatment of the textual reliability of the Bible and the accuracy of today's translations see Heart and Mind series "Can We Trust the Bible?", parts 1-4 (Spring 1990, Summer 1990, Winter 1991, Summer 1991). ======================================================================================= bumped see http://creation.com/calibrating-carbon-dating == This article will explain how carbon dating is supposed to work and then show you the serious flaws with this process. It is derived from a transcript of Dr. Hovind’s video, which you can see above. (His videos and materials are not copyrighted.) Carbon dating was not invented until 1949. When the schools started to teach that the earth is billions of years old, back in 1830, the reasoning was not because of carbon dating. Carbon dating had not even been thought of yet. So why were they teaching that the earth was billions of years old back in the 1800’s? Billions of years are needed to make the evolution theory look good. Without billions of years to hide in, the theory looks absolutely ridiculous. The geologic column is where it all started. The earth was divided up into layers. Each layer was assigned a name, an age, and an index fossil. The ages were chosen without any scientific reasoning: they were picked out of the clear blue sky! Now any dating technique that comes along, like carbon dating, has to match the geologic column: or it is rejected. This is only because the geologic column has been taught for so long now and is assumed to be true. Just because something has been taught for a long time does not make it true. However, this is the logic most scientists have. They might have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until they get the age that they want. How would you know any of the dates given are right if you are getting a different one every time? “Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. ” They do not date fossils by carbon dating. Fossils are dated by their geological position. And as we mentioned earlier the dates on the geologic column were chosen out of the clear blue sky with no scientific basis. So their entire dating method for dating rocks and fossils is based off of circular reasoning. The earth’s atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. The atmosphere has very distinctive layers to it. The earth’s atmosphere contains: 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .06% carbon dioxide, and .0000765% radioactive carbon. This radioactive carbon 14 is different from regular carbon. It is produced by radiation striking the atmosphere. In essence, sunlight strikes the atmosphere, slaps the nitrogen around, and turns it into carbon 14. So it all starts by the sunlight striking the atmosphere. About 21 pounds of carbon 14 is produced every year; and that is spread out all over the world. If you look at a periodic table you will notice that Carbon and Nitrogen are right next to each other. Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14 and Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. If the sunlight slaps the nitrogen around, like talked about earlier, it will knock a few things off of it and it becomes Carbon 14. It still weighs as much as nitrogen, but it is now considered carbon. It is called radioactive because it is unstable and will eventually break apart. On average half of it will break down every 5,730 years. While it is Carbon 14 it is floating around in the atmosphere and latches onto oxygen becoming carbon dioxide. During photosynthesis plants breathe in carbon dioxide and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat plants and make it part of their bodies as well. This is how Carbon 14 gets into the living world. It gets produced in the atmosphere from the sun, the plants breathe it in, and the animals eat the plants. We have all either eaten plants or eaten animals that have eaten plants. The plants are breathing in this carbon dioxide and some of the carbon is radioactive. If the atmosphere contains .0000765% radioactive carbon, it is assumed that the plants also have .0000765% radioactive carbon as well. So, you probably have .0000765% carbon 14 in you because you have been eating these plants or eating the animals that have eaten the plants. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in carbon 14 and whatever it had starts to decay. It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing coming in to replace it. So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5,730 years. While it was alive it should have had .0000765% carbon 14. If a fossil only has .00003825% of carbon 14 it has been dead for one half-life. In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount. There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40,000 – 50,000 years. “With their short 5,700 year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980’s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. [ii]” Now think for a minute of what this means. The textbooks say that coal formed 250 million years ago. However, when coal is tested it still has carbon 14. How is that possible? If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum of 250,000 years, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal? Obviously it is not 250 million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds? Again it is obvious that they are not millions of years old. The carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. The earth’s atmosphere is gaining 21 pounds of carbon 14 every year. It is also losing carbon 14 through decay. The question is how long would it take the atmosphere to reach a stage called equilibrium? The people who invented carbon 14 dating in the 1940’s did a lot of studies on this matter. They wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of carbon 14 was the same. They determined that it would take about 30,000 years to reach this equilibrium state. They made two bad assumptions after they came up with this calculation. They assumed that the earth was millions of years old and then assumed that they could ignore the equilibrium problem. It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. “Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying. [iii]” Now think about that for a minute. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30,000 years old. It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time. It simply does not work. If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon 14 can be measured and the rate of decay can be determined. However, that is all that can be determined. It is impossible to know how much carbon 14 was in it at death and it is impossible to know if carbon 14 has always decayed at the same rate. If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would have blocked out a lot of the radiation from the sun. This would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. Animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. There may have been none at all, but the amount would certainly be less than what we have today. “If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it. [iv]” So does this mean that they simply choose any numbers that they want? That is exactly correct. If the number doesn’t fit what they expected, they throw the number out. Here are some things to consider about carbon dating. When something of known age is dated: it doesn’t work. When something of unknown age is dated: carbon dating is assumed to work. That is not science! O’Rourke, J. E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54 [ii] www.ICR.org [iii] R.E. Taylor et al., “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,” American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140 [iv] T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p. 35 Edited August 17, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal Not really, it's just that we don't believe in fairy tales. So we have the main protagonist of the H&L nonsense now being promoted by someone who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old!!! Not for the first time, John Armstrong will be pulling his hair out when he reads your last few posts. He deserves better than this. All that work. All that money. Trashed. Yes Steven, you see his work as evangelical, a complex tome of hidden mysteries, unseen hands, walls and mirrors, and secret cosmic codes that only the very wise can interpret. Add a huge dollop of unrestricted messianic faith and a willingness to be told what to think and we have a mind set almost identical to fanatical religious fundamentalism. Keep digging... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal Not really, it's just that we don't believe in fairy tales. So we have the main protagonist of the H&L nonsense now being promoted by someone who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old!!! Not for the first time, John Armstrong will be pulling his hair out when he reads your last few posts. He deserves better than this. All that work. All that money. Trashed. Yes Steven, you see his work as evangelical, a complex tome of hidden mysteries, unseen hands, walls and mirrors, and secret cosmic codes that only the very wise can interpret. Add a huge dollop of unrestricted messianic faith and a willingness to be told what to think and we have a mind set almost identical to fanatical religious fundamentalism. Keep digging... Bernie, One must be a "True Believer" to have any faith in the H & L doctrine. --Tommy Edited August 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Jim Hargrove, Thanks. Two matters: [1] Marina's husband had a great spoken, and apparently from what you cite, written command of English, which is contra to what the Yale professor opined. [2] The Walker letter, as I've written elsewhere here, is filled with errors of the sort no native Russian language speaker would make; errors of usage, character formation, grammar, and spelling. This according to my daughter, who is a Russian language and literature scholar, who has taught Russian language at an Ivy League university, and who at my request examined the so-called Walker letter. Jon, Oswald's real "LIFE IN RUSSIA" report, in "Harvey" Oswald's actual handwriting, is filled with the minor grammatical errors you would expect from a foreigner writing in English as a second or third language. It is readily available on the net, though in several minutes of searching I didn't find it. I'll send along a link when I do locate it. Please note the intelligence behind the minor grammatical errors. My opinion of the so-called Walker letter no doubt confirms what you and your daughter long ago concluded: it's bullxxxx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal Not really, it's just that we don't believe in fairy tales. So we have the main protagonist of the H&L nonsense now being promoted by someone who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old!!! Not for the first time, John Armstrong will be pulling his hair out when he reads your last few posts. He deserves better than this. All that work. All that money. Trashed. Yes Steven, you see his work as evangelical, a complex tome of hidden mysteries, unseen hands, walls and mirrors, and secret cosmic codes that only the very wise can interpret. Add a huge dollop of unrestricted messianic faith and a willingness to be told what to think and we have a mind set almost identical to fanatical religious fundamentalism. Keep digging... Bernie, John Armstrong doesn't pay any attention to "internet chat rooms," as he always calls forums like this, but during a number of our phone conversations I've read him some of Steven Gaal's posts, including info from Gaal's links, and John has been VERY interested. If you make ANY EFFORT AT ALL to listen, Mr. Gaal has some fascinating things to say. I must say that few people here want to hear it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal Not really, it's just that we don't believe in fairy tales. So we have the main protagonist of the H&L nonsense now being promoted by someone who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old!!! Not for the first time, John Armstrong will be pulling his hair out when he reads your last few posts. He deserves better than this. All that work. All that money. Trashed. Yes Steven, you see his work as evangelical, a complex tome of hidden mysteries, unseen hands, walls and mirrors, and secret cosmic codes that only the very wise can interpret. Add a huge dollop of unrestricted messianic faith and a willingness to be told what to think and we have a mind set almost identical to fanatical religious fundamentalism. Keep digging... Bernie, John Armstrong doesn't pay any attention to "internet chat rooms," as he always calls forums like this, but during a number of our phone conversations I've read him some of Steven Gaal's posts, including info from Gaal's links, and John has been VERY interested. If you make ANY EFFORT AT ALL to listen, Mr. Gaal has some fascinating things to say. I must say that few people here want to hear it, though. Yes, yes we know - because you keep reminding us - "internet chat rooms". Code for "they are beneath me". Sheesh. So you read Stevo's word salads to the Great One and he nods with delight. Why am I not surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal Not really, it's just that we don't believe in fairy tales. So we have the main protagonist of the H&L nonsense now being promoted by someone who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old!!! Not for the first time, John Armstrong will be pulling his hair out when he reads your last few posts. He deserves better than this. All that work. All that money. Trashed. Yes Steven, you see his work as evangelical, a complex tome of hidden mysteries, unseen hands, walls and mirrors, and secret cosmic codes that only the very wise can interpret. Add a huge dollop of unrestricted messianic faith and a willingness to be told what to think and we have a mind set almost identical to fanatical religious fundamentalism. Keep digging... Bernie, John Armstrong doesn't pay any attention to "internet chat rooms," as he always calls forums like this, but during a number of our phone conversations I've read him some of Steven Gaal's posts, including info from Gaal's links, and John has been VERY interested. If you make ANY EFFORT AT ALL to listen, Mr. Gaal has some fascinating things to say. I must say that few people here want to hear it, though. Wow, they must be riveting conversations! You really recite Steven's 20,000 word-dumps to John Armstrong over the phone? If he's that interested why doesn't he do what most people do and simply read it from source, i.e., here? Don't kid yourself Jim, he's on here every day and you know it! Either he prefers servants to feed him info from the internet "chat rooms", because he is too important to do it himself...or, it's a lie and he devours everything that is said about his work. Who spends ten years and huge amounts of money on a body of work but then takes no interest in what his peer researchers think and relies on others to feed him titbits (BOTH pro and anti H&L) from "chat rooms"? This is just Guru worship. That's why hardly anyone takes it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Steve, Is the above all of your work or someone's else that you are quoting? The Robert Oswald link has a "403 forbidden" on it when you click on it. Can you please source the blog spot? (BTW "Behaviour" is a proper British spelling. "Behavior" is American English) KATHY PLEASE READ START OF POST (BELOW in RED) KATHY PLEASE READ TEXT WERE I INTERJECT WITH OTHER RELEVANT INFO AND WRITE MY NAME (Marguerite Oswald does not know if her husband was right or left handed...strange "family" (in quotes) no ?? ,gaal ) SAID FAMILY DOES NOT KNOW SIMPLE INFORMATION ABOUT ITSELF (MY POINT). Robert Oswald link dead above post # 1285 edited. ,gaal Oswalds Mother BlogSpot Edited August 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Yes, yes we know - because you keep reminding us - "internet chat rooms". Code for "they are beneath me". Sheesh. So you read Stevo's word salads to the Great One and he nods with delight. Why am I not surprised? Once again we are so very thankful you are here to tell us what every post and sentence ACTUALLY means.... helps in understanding what you are doing here at all.. Did you forget about your posts stating that your BELIEFS entitle you to ASSUME something is a fact that needs refuting... when you are only basing your "facts" on your beliefs and assumptions... Very transparent Greg... when and if you ever get around to offering the supporting evidence for you belief-based facts, snowballs will be thrown around in hell. You post these statements and then proceed as if they are facts... just like the WCR - and like the WCR your sources have nothing to do with the conclusions. it's a very poor way to fashion an argument as they have proven... but as you say, "Why am I not surprised?" ============================ As for "they are beneath me" - you having an inferiority complex and needing to lash out against your betters is very juvenile Greg. Makes you look desperate for attention and very insecure about your own position... then again, what your position is exactly and how you go about proving it is amazingly suspect and unbelievably self-centered... cause you know everything there is to be known about Oswald... yet you offer nothing to support this knowledge but assumptions and personal belief... (case in point... who the piano fell on and who that photo is which Myra claims was her Harvey during Mardi Gras... you make claims, but offer nothing to support them... you are refuting a direct eye witness with nothing but air, rainbows and hopes... your "belief" that they are wrong and somehow your "belief" you are right... Damn the evidence or proof... "you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" argument - now where have we seen that used repeatedly ?? Von Pein, Judy Baker, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers... you're in good company mate.... How about sticking to what YOU have to say and proving it - you know...how 200 days fits into 125 or how 168 + 12 is not the same concept as 179 + 5... info you've posted to prove your points... (ever figure out what significance 3830 W. 6th St has or is that still lost to you? - maybe if you read the work you'd have a clue) So I guess we'll have to continue to suffer thru you and your buddies trying to refute the evidence presented by focusing on NOT reading the work offered and spending post after post whining about the use of color or font size or the number of words being too much for your little minds to handle... all this when you have nothing with which to counter the evidence, As I said before - transparent tactics boys and girls.. and easily refuted by just asking to "provide supporting evidence", leaving them lost and confused once again... and the cycle begins anew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Yes, yes we know - because you keep reminding us - "internet chat rooms". Code for "they are beneath me". Sheesh. So you read Stevo's word salads to the Great One and he nods with delight. Why am I not surprised? Once again we are so very thankful you are here to tell us what every post and sentence ACTUALLY means.... helps in understanding what you are doing here at all.. Did you forget about your posts stating that your BELIEFS entitle you to ASSUME something is a fact that needs refuting... when you are only basing your "facts" on your beliefs and assumptions... Very transparent Greg... when and if you ever get around to offering the supporting evidence for you belief-based facts, snowballs will be thrown around in hell. You post these statements and then proceed as if they are facts... just like the WCR - and like the WCR your sources have nothing to do with the conclusions. it's a very poor way to fashion an argument as they have proven... but as you say, "Why am I not surprised?" ============================ As for "they are beneath me" - you having an inferiority complex and needing to lash out against your betters is very juvenile Greg. Makes you look desperate for attention and very insecure about your own position... then again, what your position is exactly and how you go about proving it is amazingly suspect and unbelievably self-centered... cause you know everything there is to be known about Oswald... yet you offer nothing to support this knowledge but assumptions and personal belief... (case in point... who the piano fell on and who that photo is which Myra claims was her Harvey during Mardi Gras... you make claims, but offer nothing to support them... you are refuting a direct eye witness with nothing but air, rainbows and hopes... your "belief" that they are wrong and somehow your "belief" you are right... Damn the evidence or proof... "you gonna believe me or your lying eyes" argument - now where have we seen that used repeatedly ?? Von Pein, Judy Baker, Posner, Bugliosi, Myers... you're in good company mate.... How about sticking to what YOU have to say and proving it - you know...how 200 days fits into 125 or how 168 + 12 is not the same concept as 179 + 5... info you've posted to prove your points... (ever figure out what significance 3830 W. 6th St has or is that still lost to you? - maybe if you read the work you'd have a clue) So I guess we'll have to continue to suffer thru you and your buddies trying to refute the evidence presented by focusing on NOT reading the work offered and spending post after post whining about the use of color or font size or the number of words being too much for your little minds to handle... all this when you have nothing with which to counter the evidence, As I said before - transparent tactics boys and girls.. and easily refuted by just asking to "provide supporting evidence", leaving them lost and confused once again... and the cycle begins anew. O the the irony and lack of self-awareness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) George Bailey's article said: Lee starts doing some peculiar. He starts researching Oswalds in the phone directory seeking to get in touch with his father’s brothers. Yes, there is something strange. A young man returning to the city of origination for his family decides to look up some relatives he has lost touch with. I'll bet that has never happened before. Lets see where Bailey is going with this. Apparently, Lee didn’t want anybody in his family to know that he was looking up Oswald family members that by all counts, he should have known were dead. Maybe because this is the wrong Lee, an impostor arriving in New Orleans with a sketchy history of the Oswald family. Again, a two Oswald advocate sees an event and can think of no other way to explain it other than two Oswalds. Hard to believe but true. Edited August 19, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 following some brief peeks at some of the supporting evidence, I'm beginning to take an interest in this theory - just an "openness," mind you... I plan on looking through this long thread and I hope to at least discover something convincing of either its legitimacy or of ya'lls lunacy. preferably the former... 2 quick questions, with hopefully quick answers: 1 - can someone describe THE one, or maybe two, most powerful item(s) that support(s) this theory? and 2 - in as much of a nutshell as possible: in a given that that there are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marg.s, in what direction would this likely take the investigative focus? more toward the CIA? more away from the Secret Service (of course...)? how about the anti-Castros? what about the Russians (pre-war and post-war)? this would obviously put the Mafia into a much lesser 'role'... the theory could explain a lot of curiosities. and it proposes an enormous amount of - issues - with our US Government. it's very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 O the the irony and lack of self-awareness... That's it? Ain't it great Grego... Your Faith-based conclusions don't require you to prove anything... just like religion. And once again your command of the english language is awful... Take a minute and learn what it actually means please. I mean what I say I have no reversal of expectations when I say it And I'm not getting into another argument with you over your inability to understand the simplest of things http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony Learn the language already Gregster, maybe it will help you understand that Tippit call report you butchered so badly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 It amazes me that some believe in what I call "conspiracy-lite". Conspiracy-lite holds that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy the U.S. Government has failed to reveal, but that certain conspiracy theories are beyond the pale. Beyond-the-pale means, "Don't tell me why you believe X. I don't care." Rejecting John Armstrong's work wholesale, IMO, is conspiracy-lite. It's far better, I believe, to take a critical look at what Armstrong or anyone else has written and make an independent judgment as to whether and to what extent the writer's basic argument is based in reason. OK. Armstrong got certain things wrong. What did he get right? IMO, the U.S. Government didn't recruit two similar boys. But IMO, it's not unreasonable to believe the U.S. Government, either pre- or post-assassination, wished to confuse the identities of two young men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 following some brief peeks at some of the supporting evidence, I'm beginning to take an interest in this theory - just an "openness," mind you... I plan on looking through this long thread and I hope to at least discover something convincing of either its legitimacy or of ya'lls lunacy. preferably the former... 2 quick questions, with hopefully quick answers: 1 - can someone describe THE one, or maybe two, most powerful item(s) that support(s) this theory? and 2 - in as much of a nutshell as possible: in a given that that there are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marg.s, in what direction would this likely take the investigative focus? more toward the CIA? more away from the Secret Service (of course...)? how about the anti-Castros? what about the Russians (pre-war and post-war)? this would obviously put the Mafia into a much lesser 'role'... the theory could explain a lot of curiosities. and it proposes an enormous amount of - issues - with our US Government. it's very interesting. 1 - can someonedescribe THE one, or maybe two, most powerful item(s) that support(s) thistheory? Like proving Oswald a Patsy, it’s the aggregation of these small conflicts which proves the point. Some thoughts though: John Pic picking Lee from Harvey in every photo Lee in Japan while Harvey is in Ping Tung The FBI ignoring everyone who interacted with Lee and only gathering info from Harvey witnesses Gorsky claiming Lee left the Marines in March 1959, not September The boy with a NORTHERN accent sitting next to negroes in New Orleans and Texas and not knowing any better (the same boy the FBI’shousekeeper Robertson claims called her a n###er) Anna Lewis claiming more than once to see Lee in New Orleans in Feb 1962 with JVB in the room and not correcting her. One man is 5’11”, the other barely 5’9”. Not a single one of Lee’s letters when in the Marines to his mother is in evidence even though she claims he wrote once or twice a week from theMarines. Marg could not produce a singleone for the WC… (hint for Parker… thisis where 3830 W. 6th comes into play) Red Cross records inFort Worth show that (the tall, nice looking) Marguerite Oswald wasinterviewed at their office on November 18, 1957: "She (Marguerite Oswald)stated that the serviceman (Lee Oswald) has always been good about writing to them,writing at least once a week, and often twice. However they last heard October10." Two days later Red Cross records show that Marguerite Oswald telephoned theiroffices and advised, "She received two letters from the serviceman today." So you see Glenn, taken alone it is difficult to say that there is one or two things, there are hundreds which add up, like Oswald's innocence of the crimes. and 2 - in as much of anutshell as possible: in a given that that there are 2 Oswalds and 2 Marg.s, in what direction would this likely take the investigative focus? more toward theCIA? more away from the Secret Service (of course...)? how about the anti-Castros?what about the Russians (pre-war and post-war)? this would obviously put the Mafia into a much lesser 'role'... the theory couldexplain a lot of curiosities. and it proposes an enormous amount of - issues -with our US Government. it's very interesting. There is nothing much to do but speculate on that answer Glenn… there can’t be a right or wrong answer . The investigation did in fact come acrossquite a bit related to two Oswalds… Hoover himself even says that it was notOswald in Mexico based on the evidence but someone impersonating him, a “second man down there”. Yet he did not dismiss Oswald from being there. (I think fromthe available evidence that Hoover knew Oswald was at Odio’s and not in Mexico) Even in the face of conflicting evidence as to his location,the FBI et al simply did not acknowledge the possibility that these impersonations were something more nefarious… or they KNEW it was more and madesure not to stir the pot. The investigation would always find Oswald guilty and alone,regardless. Even in the face of painfully obvious evidence to the contrary. The Evidence IS the Conspiracy, not an explanation of whathappened and will always be. I do not think there is anything left which could accurately describe what happenedother than the witnesses who were there. The very thing counted upon to make “proof” impossible and doubt run rampant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts