Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Greg, Thanks. I can't respond to your comments about the "race riots" other than to say Armstrong's failure to do research as to the date(s) of the alleged riot(s) seems to me to be a minor matter in the overall scheme of things. It's not a minor matter at all, Jon. Armstrong stated in one of the conferences in the '90s that it was McBride's FBI interview that was his starting point. The fact that there were no race/communist riots in FW in 1958 (at least none worth making the news) but there were such riots during the implementation of a deeply unpopular decision in 1956 completely destroys McBride's claim of getting that letter from Lee posted in FW in Aug, 1958. Those 1956 stories pin the date of the letter to the first few days of September, 1956. The Pfisterer and Beauregard witnesses -- I don't know what to think. I have an absence of knowledge of the facts. Are you alleging Armstrong ignored interviewing certain persons because they would tell him things he didn't want to hear? If so, I'd say that's a substantial allegation. But I don't know, because I lack information, how to assess such an allegation. Armstrong also said at the above-mentioned conference that two well-known researchers mocked him when he suggested the issues raised about the timing in the McBride FBI report needed further investigation. He went on to say that the experience with those two researchers made him realize he would need to build an airtight case. He should have wanted to interview them to get on record that what the FBI wrote in the reports is not what they told the agents. That is what Armstrong and cronies insist - that the FBI lied in the reports. What Armstrong failed to do was to substantiate that. He knew about the witnesses. All the FBI reports are among his archives. He could tracked them down. He had the resources to do it - as demonstrated with other witnesses. Your comment about "Russian successes" -- here I disagree. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 was a huge success for the Soviet Union and a tremendous victory for the soviets in the cold war. It demonstrated the superiority of soviet science and engineering. It was a very big deal. It's what caused me to go to college and study engineering and to build rockets in my garage from scratch. Anyone in the late 1950s or early 1960s who referred to "Russian successes" in 1957 or 1958 was surely referring to Russian successes in space, which at the time was labeled "Sputnik." I'm not claiming Sputnik wasn't a Russian success. Of course it was. That is not the issue. The issue is that McBride never mentioned Sputnik. That is an unwarranted Armstrong insertion. The words in the report are simply "Russian successes." And as I have shown, the newspapers throughout 1956, carried stories of Russian success in their space program. I'd go a couple of steps further. Firstly, if someone is talking about the Sputnik program, they don't downgrade it to a mention a "Russian success" - they name the name - they would say "Sputnik". To suggest otherwise is akin to someone going to see the Beatles in 1965 and later telling someone they had been to a concert by a successful band from England. Secondly, the "riot" stories from 1956 kill any notion that Oswald was in NO at the time of the Sputnik launch. Edited March 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Jon, Some of Armstrong's research is good. However, the leap of faith occurs when we are expected to believe two Oswalds and two Marguerites carried on a complex plot with government aid without the evidence of one. The rest is ok, the thesis is flawed. Carmine, I disagree. Misuse and abuse of evidence is never okay. The thesis is predicated on contorted evidence, miss-remembered time-frames and a whole slew of related issues and bolstered by coached witnesses, claims of FBI altering every single document that undermines the thesis, and the misreading of school and USMC records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Greg, Perhaps he believes his contentions despite the overwhelming evidence. I do not seek to assess his psychology just his ideas. I agree he is wrong. However, unless it can be proven he did so with careless abandon there is no need to guess on his reasoning. Carmine, you said "Some of Armstrong's research is good." I disagree. The liquid in the bottle being sold by the Snake-Oil Salesman is always, snake oil - regardless of what the label says, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'm someone who doesn't know the insides & outs of the JFK assassination. Could you explain what you mean about the TSBD below (my bolding)? The TSBD was notorious for running guns and drugs - it was watched by the FBI, infultrated by many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'm someone who doesn't know the insides & outs of the JFK assassination. Could you explain what you mean about the TSBD below (my bolding)? The TSBD was notorious for running guns and drugs - it was watched by the FBI, infultrated by many. No he can't explain it. Notorious: adjective 1.well-known for some bad or unfavourable quality, deed, etc; infamous 2. (rare) generally known or widely acknowledged It is neither well-known, nor widely acknowledged. It is sourced from an obscure article cited in another article. Although the guns bit is at least possible, the evidence is slim by any standards. What we have in the comment you quoted is Hyperbole: noun, Rhetoricobvious and intentional exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 Greg, When you say Armstrong is peddling snake oil, you are saying he's a deliberate deceiver. You may be right. I can't tell. I can say that if Armstrong set out in H&L to deceive, or if along the way he decided to deceive, he did something remarkable. Which is to have done a bunch of research and written an immense book. I know from my professional life that sometimes widely regarded experts are just plain wrong on certain matters. Meaning they miss the mark on specific narrow issues. And if millions of dollars turn on the particular issue, missing the mark can be a huge flaw. I see this often enough. And yeah, when I see this, I wonder, what other bad advice has this widely respected person given? I'm usually sure he or she has gotten other things wrong, so I might not respect his or her opinion on matters open to debate. But usually, that's usually, I find the experts who get certain key things wrong get the garden-variety stuff correct. So they turn out to be OK advisers except on the few key things they get wrong. Accordingly, I find it hard to believe H&L is all snake oil. Is all wrong. Unless there's something about John Armstrong that you know and I don't know that goes to his basic credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Greg, When you say Armstrong is peddling snake oil, you are saying he's a deliberate deceiver. You may be right. I can't tell. I can say that if Armstrong set out in H&L to deceive, or if along the way he decided to deceive, he did something remarkable. Which is to have done a bunch of research and written an immense book. I know from my professional life that sometimes widely regarded experts are just plain wrong on certain matters. Meaning they miss the mark on specific narrow issues. And if millions of dollars turn on the particular issue, missing the mark can be a huge flaw. I see this often enough. And yeah, when I see this, I wonder, what other bad advice has this widely respected person given? I'm usually sure he or she has gotten other things wrong, so I might not respect his or her opinion on matters open to debate. But usually, that's usually, I find the experts who get certain key things wrong get the garden-variety stuff correct. So they turn out to be OK advisers except on the few key things they get wrong. Accordingly, I find it hard to believe H&L is all snake oil. Is all wrong. Unless there's something about John Armstrong that you know and I don't know that goes to his basic credibility. Jesus H Christ, Jon. When someone with the money and resources to do so, has a fairly large group of witnesses to draw on in NO, but zeroes in a small minority who seem to fit with his theories and ignores the majority (who happen to go against his theory) I smell snake oil. When someone uses FBI reports when it suits them, and then states that any that don't, have been faked, I smell snake oil. When someone substitutes words/phrases in documents for words/phrases that better suit their argument, I smell snake oil. When someone misreads school records in a manner that suits their arguments, and then CONTINUES to do so when the correct method has been meticulously explained to them, I smell snake oil. When a side-kick who happens to be a photographer, puts together a collage of photos as "proof" of the theory and one one of the photos turns out to have been faked by said photographer, I smell snake oil. When one of the witnesses is later revealed by said side-kick (in a desperate attempt to convince that the witness is legit) to be a friend of 50 years standing and that friendship was never declared in the book, I smell snake oil. When John Pic's childhood memories of the height of someone are used and no attempt is made to find records, or no interviews conducted to substantiate the claim - and further, when someone else makes the effort and finds records showing Pic's memories to be out by several inches, I smell snake oil. When medical claims are made that are untrue (Oswald had a tonsillectomy, so his must have been "magic" to grow back) I smell snake oil. When an FBI report about an allegation that Marguerite brought Oswald to NYC for "mental tests" at Jacobi Hospital is waved around as "proof" of involvement in some type of MKULTRA plot, without any checking of the claim at all, I smell snake oil. After it is pointed out that the claim is impossible because Jackobi Hospital didn't exist at the time, and the sole, lame response is that it was not Armstrong's claim - it was the claim of the witness, I smell snake oil. When it is claimed that scars disappeared, that the autopsy clearly shows as present and accounted for, I smell snake oil. When it is claimed that a tooth was knocked out, and the witness used qualifying language, while two other witnesses ignored by Armstrong, gave a non-knocked out tooth account - and never used any qualifying language, I smell snake oil. When it is repeatedly claimed that some records show LHO as 5' 11" and others as 5' 9" - even though they know (because they have been told many times) that the records showing the taller height, are all ones that were self-reported and not taken from actual measurement, I smell snake oil. When someone claims, as Armstrong did, that the McCone-Rowley document is the biggest breaking news in the JFK assassination ever, then I smell snake oil. And by snake oil, I do mean bullsh*t. You are far too smart not to get this, so I'm through trying to get through. You are now someone I regard as hostile to getting this case solved and will be treated as such. Edited March 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 Greg, I'm an American who wants to know who killed JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 To whom it may concern: I'm inclined to believe: [a] No third party set up Oswald. Oswald was without his knowledge made the pre-determined patsy. [c] The cover-up and the framing of Oswald have been separate, intertwined threads, coextensive in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 Greg, I acknowledge you know a lot more details about the case than I. When you come here, I assume it's fair to ask for your thinking on certain matters. I don't challenge your superior knowledge of the case, and I respect and learn from your detailed response at post #152. Thank you. In addressing you, I wish merely the benefit of your thinking. I'm not hostile toward solving the case. If you are correct, so be it. If David Josephs is correct, so be it. If DVP is correct, so be it. You may not believe it. I want only the truth as best individuals of good will seek it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 David Josephs, I'm not the expert you and Greg are on the details of the case. I can say with certainty that the top row photos of "Oswald" from 1956 and 1959 are not photos of Marina's husband. There's an argument that Marine boot camp and life bulked one up with muscle. That is untrue. If one does military exercises (running. pushups, squats, chin-ups, sit-ups, and other body-resistance exercises), one becomes leaner and lighter, not bulkier. I know from having done such exercises for the past 50+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) David Josephs, I'm not the expert you and Greg are on the details of the case. I can say with certainty that the top row photos of "Oswald" from 1956 and 1959 are not photos of Marina's husband. There's an argument that Marine boot camp and life bulked one up with muscle. That is untrue. If one does military exercises (running. pushups, squats, chin-ups, sit-ups, and other body-resistance exercises), one becomes leaner and lighter, not bulkier. I know from having done such exercises for the past 50+ years. Dear Mr. Jon G. Tidd, I asked a Marine Corps Captain this very same question just last week as our vehicles were being worked on at the same shop. He said it all depended on what the recruit was doing before he signed up. If he was playing football, there wouldn't be much change. On the other hand if he was a couch potato, there would be a big change. Was Oswald playing high school football when he enlisted? Baling hay? Doing landscape labor? Working on the docks? Or was he performing such strenuous activities as model plane making and astronomy and amateur photography? He also said that they got an unlimited amount of "chow" while in boot camp. --Tommy Edited March 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 David Josephs, I'm not the expert you and Greg are on the details of the case. I can say with certainty that the top row photos of "Oswald" from 1956 and 1959 are not photos of Marina's husband. There's an argument that Marine boot camp and life bulked one up with muscle. That is untrue. If one does military exercises (running. pushups, squats, chin-ups, sit-ups, and other body-resistance exercises), one becomes leaner and lighter, not bulkier. I know from having done such exercises for the past 50+ years. Dear Mr. Jon G. Tidd, I asked a Marine Corps Captain this very same question just last week as our vehicles were being worked on at the same shop. He said it all depended on what the recruit was doing before he signed up. If he was playing football, there wouldn't be much change. On the other hand if he was a couch potato, there would be a big change. Was Oswald playing high school football when he enlisted? Baling hay? Doing landscape labor? Working on the docks? He also said that they got an unlimited amount of "chow" while in boot camp. --Tommy The real trick is getting the 5'11" 165 lb LEE to become the 5'8" 135 lb Oswald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 Tommy, When I was in ROTC "boot camp", I got limited food. Field rations, mess hall, and C rations. I was starved for calories and loaded up on white bread and butter at field rations. This was Fort Riley, Kansas, summer 1968. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 Tommy, I have a bald spot for genetic reasons. Not for food in 1968. 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