Paul Brancato Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Greg - I tried sending you a PM to no avail. No need to continue this in a public thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Thanks for setting me straight Greg.... and Tommy, please don't exert yourself over silly things like fact checking, reading or research... like the WCR & HSCA, it only got in the way of the predetermined conclusions Regarding your question - like "who killed JFK" the answer is a result of your investigation into the matter - some believe one thing, others believe something else and both have evidence to support them. again Tommy: "you aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know" and you definitely do not want to know in this case... so maybe learn the vocabulary so you can put the answer in context. You might as well ask why Nagell was trying to rob the bank - if you dont understand the context, you're not going to understand the answer. I have my theories from the work I've done. yet there is no point in sharing them with you - you're neither open or receptive to the info, nor care about its history or context. So let's keep our "discussions" to the simple stuff that does't require anything beyond opinion... that way neither of us can ever be wrong. Opposing POVs have been offered - readers here can make up their own minds and use the following to dig deeper - y'know if "fact-checking" is important to them. These notebooks contain documents straight from the Archives and not available anywhere else convering topics well in excess of H&L. There is a wealth of "Evidence" in there. What it means and how it fits is an ongoing process. Enjoy http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/jfk/index.php?id=72484 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Thanks for setting me straight Greg.... and Tommy, please don't exert yourself over silly things like fact checking, reading or research... like the WCR & HSCA, it only got in the way of the predetermined conclusions Regarding your question - like "who killed JFK" the answer is a result of your investigation into the matter - some believe one thing, others believe something else and both have evidence to support them. again Tommy: "you aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know" and you definitely do not want to know in this case... so maybe learn the vocabulary so you can put the answer in context. You might as well ask why Nagell was trying to rob the bank - if you dont understand the context, you're not going to understand the answer. I have my theories from the work I've done. yet there is no point in sharing them with you - you're neither open or receptive to the info, nor care about its history or context. So let's keep our "discussions" to the simple stuff that does't require anything beyond opinion... that way neither of us can ever be wrong. Opposing POVs have been offered - readers here can make up their own minds and use the following to dig deeper - y'know if "fact-checking" is important to them. These notebooks contain documents straight from the Archives and not available anywhere else convering topics well in excess of H&L. There is a wealth of "Evidence" in there. What it means and how it fits is an ongoing process. Enjoy http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/jfk/index.php?id=72484 Jo Jo, Gee Thanks, but unfortunately that wasn't the question I asked you most recently. Just to freshen your memory, the question I asked you most recently was -- "How did the bad guys go about choosing two young boys they hoped would grow up looking sufficiently familiar to be able to fool so many witnesses several years later?" or words to that effect. Thank you in advance, --Tommy Edited March 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 And as I answered the first time... What's to be found, racing around,You carry your pain wherever you go.Full of the blues and trying to loseYou ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. Take care Tommy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Tommy - Your attitude and predetermined conclusions preclude me from wanting to engage with you any longer. If it's too much trouble to go do some work to come to your own conclusions you simply are not being sincere in your interest for an answer. Go play your condescending games with someone else... I'm done engaging with you on any level until you can show some maturity. "How did the bad guys choose two young boys knowing they would grow up looking sufficiently alike to be able to fool so many witnesses several years later?" They chose very well Tommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Tommy - Your attitude and predetermined conclusions preclude me from wanting to engage with you any longer. If it's too much trouble to go do some work to come to your own conclusions you simply are not being sincere in your interest for an answer. Go play your condescending games with someone else... I'm done engaging with you on any level until you can show some maturity. "How did the bad guys choose two young boys knowing they would grow up looking sufficiently alike to be able to fool so many witnesses several years later?" They chose very well Tommy. Evidently, Jo Jo. Evidently. That would explain why Lee Harvey Oswald looked so similar yet so "different" in all those photographs, huh. Maybe they had one of them really good crystal ball thingies way back there around 1955. --Tommy PS Looks like Jack White did a little extra-curricular creative "touch up" on that newspaper photo of Lee Harvey Oswald. Thanks for posting the original newspaper article in post # 94, Greg Parker. That's the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald that has bothered me the most over the years, and now I understand why. Jack White changed the way Oswald's mouth and chin looked in his version... Edited March 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Tommy, at the risk of sounding ... however it might be (mis)perceived, it is a good example of what co-operative research looks like - warts - vulgar language, and all. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t908-harvey-lee-and-ozzie I can only repeat -- the deception involved is an utter disgrace. http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Greg - I tried sending you a PM to no avail. No need to continue this in a public thread. Paul - sorry - have no idea why the PM function is not working. Bottom line: I don't doubt you've been helped, because as discussed, many now only use osteopathy to get their medical qualification - and no doubt some do make fine doctors - just as some mainstream doctors make fine quacks. But osteopathy itself is psuedo-science. Additionally, we are not talking about the current situation - we are talking about the 1940s. Here is a good and balanced article on it http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2010/10/27/osteopaths-versus-doctors/ If you really need to discuss further, my email address is gregrparker(at)outlook.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Well Tommy - I've seen the Jack White work and another version of the photo with that same blocked background but without "Jack's" work. Sure would have been nice to see the actual photo in context - with the Star Telegram heading and other columns... Seems Robert gave a reporter a photo of Lee and then when the Star-Telegram reporter turned up, he had no more, so he passed off one of himself. My guess is money changed hands as the motivation. Wild speculation without a shred of evidence... your "guess" .... do you ever get to the point where your speculation is supported by any evidence? You ASSUME Robert did something then you accuse him of taking MONEY for it too boot. All without a lick of evidence... So the nose of person also changes drastically over time - goes from that braod flat nose to a pointed one in less than a couple years... - must be that Asperger's thing again or a black ops nosejob... Why? The before/after composite is EXACTLY the same as your "Harvey/Lee" composite. You mean Jack White's H&L composite? The three photos I used for Oswald are not composites... The image on the right is Oswald's arrest. that photo deos not appear in Jack's work. Try to keep who you're attacking straight GP... you appear to have insulted quite a few people here. Maybe if you kept a card file or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Greg Parker, Please tell why you believe John Armstrong is out to lunch and whether you believe he gets anything right. I ask in good faith. Most JFK students rely on the works of JFK scholars, such as you, for information and insights. When one scholar dismisses another, it's important for students such as myself, who have relatively limited access to original source material, to know why. In particular, is Armstrong not an accurate reporter? If not, is he sloppy or careless, or is he devious? If not, in what ways is he and is he not an accurate reporter? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Boy, look at the nose on the boy John Pic says is not his brother while Robert claims to have taken the photo... They do seem kinda similar don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Wild speculation without a shred of evidence... your "guess" .... do you ever get to the point where your speculation is supported by any evidence? You ASSUME Robert did something then you accuse him of taking MONEY for it too boot. All without a lick of evidence... So the nose of person also changes drastically over time - goes from that braod flat nose to a pointed one in less than a couple years... - must be that Asperger's thing again or a black ops nosejob... Speculation - yes - "wild" no. Robert did indeed give a previous reporter a photo of Lee. I was giving the benefit of the doubt that the the photo used by the Star Telegraph wasn't Lee. That being the case, the simplest explanation is that Robert gave a photo of himself. I'm more than happy for the original photo to depict Lee Harvey Oswald. Talk about switcheroos... here I am giving your theory some leeway and you're the one saying "no".... The substantive issue is the Frankenstein Oswald created by Jack White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Greg Parker, Please tell why you believe John Armstrong is out to lunch and whether you believe he gets anything right. I ask in good faith. Most JFK students rely on the works of JFK scholars, such as you, for information and insights. When one scholar dismisses another, it's important for students such as myself, who have relatively limited access to original source material, to know why. In particular, is Armstrong not an accurate reporter? If not, is he sloppy or careless, or is he devious? If not, in what ways is he and is he not an accurate reporter? Thanks. Jon, if the Jack White composite photo hasn't convinced you it's a scam, I'm not sure what will, but in the spirit of benefit of doubt I remind you that I did point you to a whole set of research before which shows how various claims are not only wrong, but constructed with smoke and mirrors and cherry-picking. I'll help you out a bit more and point to some of the main ones to save reading through the whole thing. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t87-the-mrs-jack-d-tippit-phone-call Shows that the Hungarian father/uncle story is a load of old cobblers (or at least dress-makers) http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t435-why-palmer-mcbride-was-wrong Proof McBride got his years mixed up. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t782-hand-and-arm-scars-of-lho Sorry -- no missing scars. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t688-jacobi-hospital Proof that Jacobi hospital - where Armstrong claims LHO was tested psychologically - didn't exist until 1955 - after Lee Oswald had left NYC http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t349-what-odom-and-shasteen-discussed Armstrong - or one of his underlings - caught lying about testimony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Wild speculation without a shred of evidence... your "guess" .... do you ever get to the point where your speculation is supported by any evidence? You ASSUME Robert did something then you accuse him of taking MONEY for it too boot. All without a lick of evidence... So the nose of person also changes drastically over time - goes from that braod flat nose to a pointed one in less than a couple years... - must be that Asperger's thing again or a black ops nosejob... Speculation - yes - "wild" no. Robert did indeed give a previous reporter a photo of Lee. I was giving the benefit of the doubt that the the photo used by the Star Telegraph wasn't Lee. That being the case, the simplest explanation is that Robert gave a photo of himself. I'm more than happy for the original photo to depict Lee Harvey Oswald. Talk about switcheroos... here I am giving your theory some leeway and you're the one saying "no".... The substantive issue is the Frankenstein Oswald created by Jack White. Essentially, you don't know who is in that photo and simply can't post a link or evidence which substantiates your, "Robert did indeed give a previous reporter a photo of Lee" statement. You can guess based on Occum's razor... yet in this case that cannot be treated as an axiom we can hang our hats on - it's just a generality. No offense Greg, it's just that you or anyone just saying it is not the same as offering anything to assist in proving it. It doens't really matter who that photo is or where it came from unless you can prove it... The "substantive issue" is that none of this is my work. You want to know why Jack or John A did something you should have talked to them when you had a chance and when you have one. The ISSUE is the EVIDENCE... taken as a whole. When the time is taken to corroborate and authentic the huge variety of Evidence and the info subsequently found via research and direct interview, the EVIDENCE holds within it clues that point to the existence of these two boys/men. Do one or two of your rebuttals destroy the presentation and mountian of evidence to consider? Sorry Greg, but to me the answer is no. You try to be reasonable in these rebuttals yet they are predominantly your opinion as it applies to the Evidence... not Evidence to impeach other evidence. You don't have to subscribe to the explanation - yet just as I would assume you'd rather not have others disparage your work unless they could PROVE YOU WRONG - I think you might want to offer 1) a bit more respect for the work done & 2)a more complete rebuttal which includes some sort of real evidence that counters the claims and corroborations found rather than what you believe is the simpliest or easiest answer, and that's it so obivous I'm an #@!%$% for not seeing it. This situation is neither simple or easy and your lack of investigation into the rest of the corroborating evidence (the book, notebooks and images) for the existence of H&L just makes you look disgruntled and your responses half-assed. WCR tells us FELDE was with Oswald FELDE's chronology does not match the USMC The FBI/WCR went out of its way not to present information from people who knew LEE - that man who did not complain about politics, did not sat alone and had friends The FBI/WCR went out of its way to stay away from 1954-55 The WC lawyers skipped completely over 1947 with Robert - the year of 101 San Saba Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I would say at no time it was. In moving up perhaps there to the time of the divorce and everything, I don't remember when Mr. Ekdahl moved out of the house. At that time we were living on Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth. This was during a summer period there. And I think this was the summer after the second year that we attended there this would be the summer of 1947. Mr. DULLES. If it is agreeable, I think we will adjourn for just a minute. It is now 11 o'clock. Mr. DULLES. Very well. Mr. JENNER. At the recess, Mr. Oswald, we were dealing with excuse me. We were dealing with the period of time that you and your mother and your two brothers lived in Benbrook, Tex. This brought us through the summer of 1948, I believe. Am I correct? Mr. OSWALD. That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Liebeler has determined that the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother took place in 1948. We cannot give you the month and the day in 1948, but it was during the year 1948. We had reached the point in which you related to us that, I believe, following the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother, she purchased a small home. Mr. OSWALD. That is correct. Mr. JENNER. And refresh my recollection, please--was that in Benbrook, Tex.? Mr. OSWALD. That was in Benbrook, Tex. Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba. Mr. PIC - During Christmas vacation of 1945 Robert and I received money to go home for the Christmas holidays. We were to take the train from Vicksburg, Miss., to Shreveport, La. These were instructions and when we arrived at Shreveport, we were to wait for Mr. Ekdahl to pick us up. We arrived and he wasn't there. So I think we waited around, I have an estimate of between 1 and 2 hours, and then he showed up. He then drove us to Fort Worth, Benbrook, Tex., and we had a house about 15 miles below Fort Worth in Benbrook, it was way out. It wasn't the same Benbrook house, it was further. This was a brick house. Mr. PIC - It was rather isolated on one of the main highways. In fact, I just drove that way recently and I couldn't find the place. When I went up to Fort Worth in 1962 I was looking for the house, I couldn't find it. Mr. JENNER - Was it Granbury Road, Box 567, Benbrook, Tex.? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that sounds familiar. Mr. JENNER - He (Lee) entered in September 19, 1946, and continued to January 23, 1947, old Covington Grammar School. (In New Orleans) PIC: ...During the school year 1947--48 I was informed about divorce proceedings. Christmas holidays, 1947, Robert and I returned 'to the house on Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth and those are the pictures of Lee sitting on the bike, it is in that time period. John Pic does not know about San Saba since it was not his family who lived there. The discussion on San Saba is on page 26 of H&L and involves Georgia Bell and Tarrant County Land records which JA dug up. That San Saba is unknown to John and Robert's testimony specifically skips this year is at the very least an interesting coincidence - yet winds up being much more - when one does the digging and sees how these elements fit together. Could everything we know about H&L and the JFK assassination be complete BS? of course. I don't have to agree with everything Mr. Armstrong claims, yet at the same time I dont dismiss his research simply because I dont agree with some of the conclusions he reaches just as I would never dismiss yours if it too was supported with Evidence. Take care Greg.... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) http://reopenkennedy...jacobi-hospital Proof that Jacobi hospital - where Armstrong claims LHO was tested psychologically - didn't exist until 1955 - after Lee Oswald had left NYC this is what I mean Greg... It was a housekeeper, Louise Robertson, who supposedly called the FBI and told that story... not John. I helped impeach Ms Robertson by pointing out that Jacobi did not open until 1955 so please, give credit where it's due and get your facts straight. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/18246 should be the link to John's notebook with her report (you need to go to page 2) Wow are you something... your link shows that John asks a question as to whether Oswald could have been at Jacobi instead of school... except this is not John's work but Jim H's. I know that MO actually said that her son NEVER went to Jacobi. It should say that LOUISE said that MO said... blah blah I will let Jim/John know that this is a misquote of the book and the EVIDENCE that was offered. Not everything is as nefarious as you would make it. Sometime simple mistakes are made... DJ Edited March 12, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now