On Speculation

[Paul Brancato]

Carmine - the subject of this thread is 'on speculation'. Would you be so kind as to lay off of your contention about verifiable proof? Sometimes thinking outside the box, especially when one suspects the box to be an artificial construct, brings good results.

[Tom Hume]

Greg, here are a couple of quotes from this thread:

Robert Howard: “He [Greg Parker] is the single best researcher in the mix, and has been for some time…. It would not be miraculous for some of the former best & brightest to come back to posting here, but that would require a considerable infusion of a higher standard of behavior in postings and savoir faire.”

Tom Neal: “I hope you continue to post here. There are MANY who want to hear what you have to say.
”

1,373 views of your thread in two days tells me that I’m not the only one that agrees with the two quotes above.

Tom

[Thomas Graves]

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot.

Hello Greg,

I hope you continue to post here. There are MANY who want to hear what you have to say.

Do you know the identity of the individual who is the "recruiter" or "spotter"? Will you be releasing any additional information in the near future, or saving it for a book?

Thanks for any thoughts/info,

Tom

Tom, thanks for the thumbs up. I did only come here to straighten out an individual who was messing with the truth about old posts of mine. Have stayed longer than intended because there are a couple of threads of interests.

Yes, I know who the recruiter was. It will all be in volume two of my book, hopefully out later this year. That part is already written, though more players and background to get to.

I know it may seem like a strange statement, but the same program that sent him to the Soviet Union, also got him into the TSBD. Except it was a pretext to lure him in there in the latter case.

The whole thing with the recruitment and the trip (which had a dual purpose) won't be anything like you might expect.

Jon Tidd said the planners had a great knowledge of politicians... that shows keen insight, tho it goes beyond a good knowledge of politicians. Anyone wanting to know why Oswald was in the TT for example, and what his alleged pocket litter was all about, need only brush up on history. Same goes for other, older aspects of the legend.

There just happened to be someone holed up in DPD HQ all day of Nov 22 who had a keen knowledge of all the right history - that is - the history that was borrowed and overlaid on Oswald. He also had the right connections...

We have been going around in circles for 50+ years because we have accepted far too much on face value. In court, it is common practice to have an agreed set of facts between defense and prosecution as a starting point. We are under no such obligation to accept any of the facts as given by the government, it's agencies, or by Texas officials.

Here's one recent and very basic example dug up by a guy named Mick Purdy...

The accepted dogma - Wes Frazier took LHO to work every Monday from the time Oswald started at the TSBD.

Fact: That's not a certainty by any means.

Mr. RANKIN.When your husband went back to work on Monday, October 28th, did he drive with Wesley Frazier at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems--it seems that he had overslept and that someone else had picked him up. But, no--no, I remember that he did not come to get him, but Lee met him near his house. Lee told me that. Or his sister. I don't remember. Lee told me about it. But I have forgotten.

Mr. RANKIN. But he did not go in by bus that day?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. He said his sister drove him to the bus. I only know that this boy did not come to get him that day.

Mr. RANKIN. As far as you know, he may have gone all the way into Dallas in a car, or he may have gone in a bus?

Mrs. OSWALD. Perhaps he hadn't told him to pick him up on that day. I don't know. I only know the fact that the boy did not pick him up on that day.

Mick's contention is that Frazier did not take LHO to work on Nov 22, either. There are no witnesses to Oswald walking to the Randle house (though such witnesses were sought), no witnesses to Oswald being in the car except Wes, no witnesses to Oswald walking from the car park. In fact, there are witnesses to Oswald's absence from the car park because Edward Shields told the HSCA investigator sent to interview him that Charles Givens had called out from the other building asking Wes where his rider was. According to Shields, Wes replied that he had dropped Lee at the front entrance.

The point is, the whole case needs stripping back and rewriting without any allegiance except to approximate the facts as closely as possible.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the reply.

A tantalizing post to say the very least. I'm eager to see what you have come up!

Tom

Greg, Tom, David, et al.

Not trying to divert this thread, but I just noticed how darn good Marina's English was when she gave this testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964, two years after she had moved to the U.S. with her husband who, by all accounts, made her speak Russian at home because he didn't want her to learn English.

She uses two grammatical tenses correctly which even many educated Americans have a hard time with -- the past perfect tense, and the present perfect tense. I nearly drove myself crazy trying to teach these two tenses to my students in the Czech Republic.

Just sayin'

Greg, I'm looking forward to your second book. Keep up the good work.

--Tommy

[David Josephs]

David Josephs,

Your post #30 interests but puzzles me.

Do you believe the extant Z-film is an accurate recordation of what happened? Just a question.

Second question: In your opinion is the extant Altgens 6 an accurate depiction of what happened close to Altgens, ignoring the background and PM?

#1 - No, the extant Zfilm is not an accurate recordation of what happened... not even close.

#2 - I happen to believe that Alt 6 is an exact print of the negative - Oswald is not in that photo yet may be the person at the top left of the landing in the shadows... but that's even a stretch for me without better evidence... That person is standing there from well before the motorcade to well after...

the bigger concern imo is Altgens 7 which does not have a negative and looks nothing like the other photos in terms of sharpness, contrast, detail and that the top right of the image has been cropped off...

Altgens claims that the photo he took which is related to Z255 or so (Alt6) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0304b.htm was of a limo and subject that were 30-40 feet away

Mr. LIEBELER - And you say Exhibit No. 203 was taken about 30 feet away?

Mr. ALTGENS - But it might be 40 feet, but I couldn't say that that's exactly the distance because while it may be in focus at 40 feet, my camera has it in focus 30 feet. It's the same thing--if I focus at 15 feet, my focus might extend 20 feet and it might also be reduced to 10 feet, but my focusing was in that general area of 30 feet.

He then states that JFK himself was about 15 feet from the left side of the limo when JFK was hit.

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

One assumption to make is that the front of the limo was 30 feet away with JFK about 45 feet for Alt 6 and the left side of the limo was 15 feet with JFK about 20 feet further north.

In either case the limo between Z255 and the "headshot" barely moves. Corroboration?

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head.

/s/ William E. Newman, Jr.

Muchmore claims to NOT having taken any film of the shooting yet the above image supposedly comes from her camera...

The main point was that any moment in time does not necessarily tell an absolute truth and requires much more corroboration even to SPECULATE correctly.

Speculation is step one

Corroboration and authentication is Step two

Evidence speculated upon cannot be accepted as evidence if it cannot be authenticated and/or corrorobated - yet this case is full of such evidence being accepted as evidence (such as C2766 was ordered, owned and used by Oswald - the evidence related to this conclusion can be proven false and/or unsupporting of the conclusion).

Edited March 11, 2015 by David Josephs

[Greg Parker]

Carmine - the subject of this thread is 'on speculation'. Would you be so kind as to lay off of your contention about verifiable proof? Sometimes thinking outside the box, especially when one suspects the box to be an artificial construct, brings good results.

Paul,

Indeed the subject is speculation. However, Greg decided to change it to me and Prayer Man, and offer insults instead of evidence. So I shall respond as I wish. Perhaps he should make less claims and declare they are truth, at least he removed the vulgarity. By the way popularity does not prove things. Hence the many photographic claims that remain unproven.

Since we are discussing speculation, precisely how can a case be reopened without verifiable evidence? Do some think grand speculations and unverified photographs will do? Indeed ideas are useful, if they have sufficient evidence.

Greg,

Speculate away, just do not demand others call it the truth.

Carmine, you baited me with your comment on PM. I don't mind taking bait. But if necessary, I'll pull the boat under.

What insults have I made against you? I've honestly tried to be helpful to you. If you feel insulted by that, it wasn't the intent. I could accuse you of the same, but I take it as you being you.

You ask how the case can be reopened without verifiable evidence - yet you have no clue what I have. I actually do have verifiable evidence. But then, you conflate everything anyway. You are conflating "verifiable evidence" with "proof" right here and now.

It may be easier for you to digest if you will accept the "verifiable evidence" as "leads" in an open case. That's how it works. I am not in law enforcement or part of the justice department. In an ordinary case, I pass on my evidence as leads to the appropriate authorities. The appropriate authorities decide the value of of them and follow them up or not. They make that call. Not me. Not you.

I advised you before to take a deep breath and get some advice on your contributions to this thread. That's still a good idea.

I have never demanded everyone should believe PM. That's just a fiction. What I do demand are some standards in debate. One being - no BS. You have breached that standard with that comment.

I removed the vulgarity? Well, that's your speculation. Where is your verifiable evidence?

Edited March 12, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Carmine - the subject of this thread is 'on speculation'. Would you be so kind as to lay off of your contention about verifiable proof? Sometimes thinking outside the box, especially when one suspects the box to be an artificial construct, brings good results.

Paul,

Indeed the subject is speculation. However, Greg decided to change it to me and Prayer Man, and offer insults instead of evidence. So I shall respond as I wish. Perhaps he should make less claims and declare they are truth, at least he removed the vulgarity. By the way popularity does not prove things. Hence the many photographic claims that remain unproven.

Since we are discussing speculation, precisely how can a case be reopened without verifiable evidence? Do some think grand speculations and unverified photographs will do? Indeed ideas are useful, if they have sufficient evidence.

Greg,

Speculate away, just do not demand others call it the truth.

Carmine, you baited me with your comment on PM. I don't mind taking bait. But if necessary, I'll pull the boat under.

What insults have I made against you? I've honestly tried to be helpful to you. If you feel insulted by that, it wasn't the intent. I could accuse you of the same, but I take it as you being you.

You ask how the case can be reopened without verifiable evidence - yet you have no clue what I have. I actually do have verifiable evidence. But then, you conflate everything anyway. You are conflating "verifiable evidence" with "proof" right here and now.

It may be easier for you to digest if you will accept the "verifiable evidence" as "leads" in an open case. That's how it works. I am not in law enforcement or part of the justice department. In an ordinary case, I pass on my evidence as leads to the appropriate authorities. The appropriate authorities decide the value of of them and follow them up or not. They make that call. Not me. Not you.

I advised you before to take a deep breath and get some advice on your contributions to this thread. That's still a good idea.

I have never demanded everyone should believe PM. That's just a fiction. What I do demand are some standards in debate. One being - no BS. You have breached that standard with that comment.

I removed the vulgarity? Well, that's your speculation. Where is your verifiable evidence?

Greg,

Are you sure this is the argument you wish to pursue? I did not bait you, you acted a child because I challenged your assertion. Do not blame me for your shortcomings. I can ask the moderators for the log. Your call. Please do go on.

I wish to remind you, I did not bring up your precious idea, you did. So do you think this current tactic will help you? Do you believe risking your credibility over what we both know you stated is worth it? I prior stated I respected your work, perhaps I was mistaken.

Allow me to save you the time and indignity of another denial, so this opens new questions wouldn't you say? I can also get the log from the moderators if you wish as well. You see Google logs things, if one gets to it fast enough. Perhaps you might learn to speak like an adult before you pass out more advice.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Education+forum+greg+parker+asswipe

I do hope the admin will forgive my repeating Greg's prior statement that he claims he never made. I do not speak in such terms, in public anyway. Two words for you Greg, Mea Culpa.

You really are something else, Carmine. Once again you failed to take heed and get advice from people you trust before jumping in and making a bad situation for yourself even worse.

Firstly, the link doesn't work. Not for me anyway.

Secondly, I never denied using what you so delicately term "vulgarity". You claimed I removed it. That's what I was calling your speculation for which you had no verifiable evidence.

For the love of God. I don't even have to try. You're beating the crap out of yourself. All I've tried to do is stop you doing it. That's a helluva an uppercut you have. I hope your chin can keep taking it.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Malcolm Ward]

I removed the phrase. Please move on. There is no need to bring up those things. It's been corrected.

Carmine.Kathy states that she removed the phrase.I think she is saying let it drop and she is Admin.