Tom Hume Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Hi Chris, The post that I deleted, as you know, was in response to your observation that Buell Wesley Frazier appears to be impossibly tall unless, of course, he was standing on a stool or sitting on a ladder. My hypothesis is that Richard Nagell, and five others including Oswald, were actively trying to prevent the assassination, and concurrently creating a huge series of coded puzzles to tell their assassination story and supply their alibis. If my hypothesis turns out to be correct, they called themselves, "ICO". I have a few partially decoded puzzles that appear to indicate a relationship between Buell Wesley Frazier and "ICO", and a few of these appear to indicate that on the 22nd, Oswald and Frazier were following a script that had already been written in the "ICO" puzzles. While highly subjective at this point, some of my puzzle answers appear to address some of the questions on both this thread and the "Oswald Leaving TSBD" thread, and so I thought I would write a brief "food for thought" post. A bad idea, apparently. What I will do, Chris, is tack my deleted post onto the end of my last post on "The Oswald Code" thread, post #26. I am doing it this way because it is a bare bones post that I will be able to expand on in the future. Give me a couple of hours to get this up and running. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20276&page=2 I really like your work, man. I wish I had math and science background to fully follow and appreciate it. Tom Edited March 21, 2015 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 I think the Prayer Man thread mentioned in this thread should be pursued as far as possible, in hopes that a definitive YES or NO answer can be arrived at, if it is possible. Anyone who wants to stop debate, discussion, and further inquiry on the topic either 1)has something to hide, 2)has a vested interest in NOT finding out the truth, or 3) a combination of 1 and 2...IMHO. Otherwise, why would anyone at all have a problem with the pursuit of TRUTH? Perhaps they tire of the lack of evidence. I would suggest that as well. IMHO. However, I do believe I have said all that needs to be on that. I wish you luck in your search. How many times do we get to listen to you having your final say on this matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I'm sorry Robert, are pro PM only allowed on this thread? I have to listen, and so do you. Just because we disagree does not mean you get silence me. Sorry. I can respect your right to speak, can you not respect mine? Please let us discuss the topic. Carmine, part of the problem seems to be that you make statements like this, "However, I do believe I have said all that needs to be on that." but then come back to restate (for the 4, 586th time and counting) your position and your feelings on the matter anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 Your swan song is getting old REAL quick, Carmine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Greg, Perhaps you should not lecture on the shelf life of ideas. Mine have the support of verifiable evidence. So there is that. How about the topic? Again, like Bob, you cannot silence me. So shall we discuss the evidence you do have. Please offer it. Carmine, this again demonstrates your lack of understanding of what is being said to you. I said nothing about the "shelf life of ideas". The shelf life of ideas is directly tied to their quality - not how often they are repeated. What I was alluding to was you seeming to bow out, only to return very quickly to repeat what you have already told us on numerous occasions. And Carmine, I say this without any rancor. Your ideas are not supported at all by verifiable evidence. You have a single statement you cling to like a bit player in a b grade horror. It has been patiently explained a number of times why that can't be used the way you wish it to be. Edited March 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Oh my dear sweet goodness. Carmine, will you make your case? The onus is on you to show SM has not documented his findings. By refusing to offer any justification at all for your statement that the thread isn't verified you are simply demonstrating either 1) you haven't read the thread; 2) you don't understand the thread; 3) you can't demonstrate that the thread isn't verified or 4) all of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Carmine, the thread stands as a fully supported and documented argument. No-one has found any chinks in it's armour since it was published almost 2 years ago. Of course, we all accept your right to express your opinion on this issue. But you have expressed your opinion innumerable times, we all know what it is. Now it is time for you to support your opinion with an example of where the thread is unsupported. I believe it's time to put up or shut up, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Carmine, the evidence is contained within every page of the thread. Just pick one piece and show us that it is not substantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Vanessa, Many claim that, the proving it with evidence is the trouble. So do you have evidence, that is all I am interested in. As Vanessa said, Carmine... the thread is brim full of evidence. If you are as interested as you claim, you would know that. No one says you have to agree with or like the evidence. But not agreeing or not liking something doesn't make it cease to exist. The continuing existence of certain football teams and politicians is ample proof of that. Here's a novel idea. Look through the thread in question and pick a piece of evidence you disagree with and let's specifically talk about that, instead of going round and round in your metaphysical nightmares. Edited March 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Exactly. Thank you Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Oh Carmine - I do not want to shut you up if you have something purposeful to say. All I am asking is that you put us all out of our misery and say it. Do as Greg has politely requested, examine the thread and pick an item for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Okay, Carmine, let's discuss the photo. Personally I think that is the icing on the cake of SM's argument. But the photo needs better resolution so we can finally settle this question once and for all. Would you be willing to join in an effort to see that this film/photo is properly developed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Greg, Specifically? Ok. The non authenticated, blurry, and undecipherable picture you claim as the thesis is a good place to start. Your thoughts? What do you mean by "non-authenticated"? We know the background to the frames and what films they are from. "Undecipherable"? Not true. It is clearly a young human white male figure in working man's clothes. The rest of the thread examines other evidence to draw a conclusion as to who it could feasibly be, given the above. Edited March 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I mean it is not an original photo, from an original set or film. It was created by Robert Groden from two films according to the thread. Undecipherable, as in you cannot decipher the face of the man, thus it is not decipherable. Since feasibly hundreds of unidentified males were present it does not support the hypothesis. Indeed a conclusion may be drawn either way. However, the speculation that it must be Oswald, or even that it is probable is the problem. Without evidence it remains unproven. Carmine, the picture is not a fake. It can be used to the extent it has been in this exercise. Some of us would like to take it to the next level and obtain clearer copies. You could support that, without supporting the idea of PM - just as say, McAdams supports the release of documents despite being a LN. There is enough data to know it is a young white male dressed in worker's clothes approximately the same height as Oswald. It (the image) is a starting point only. It is not the be all and end all of the argument, as your wish to portray it. That you don't like the image is noted. That you don't except the existence of other evidence, save a single quote from Oswald in which the context is blurred (there's a word!) is noted. Your second challenge is to help overcome this PM evidence suppression that your mind imposes upon you. Use your investigative skills to find the thread, Open the thread. Go through the thread. Treat it like a computer game. If you can get through the first 10 pages without finding any supporting evidence, you fail level one and must start again. If you do find some supporting evidence, congratulations! You have reached Level 2 and may proceed for the next 10 pages, or alternatively, you may put the game on pause and report back here as to what you found. As with any game, the important thing is to have fun while you learn! Good luck, Carmine and Godspeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Lee, I am sorry you do not agree with me. However, unproven claims like your unproven ideas prove nothing. So I will ask again, any evidence? You sound like JVB claiming all who oppose your bad ideas are some nefarious plot against your "truth". Nice. JVB is an hysterical fantasist who refuses to face those with questions or research which opposes her fantasies. She unleashes her spleen from FB groups where replies can't be made, or gets her followers to post negative comments about the person. You know her MO as well as I do, so you know Lee is acting nothing like her, nor making any claims about you which are in any way similar to the nonsense she spreads about her detractors. What will it take to get you past such redundant, borderline nonsensical comments as "unproven claims like your unproven ideas prove nothing"? You claim to use "evidentiary standards". it is a fair question to ask what field of law you are involved in since "evidentiary standards" can vary depending on the type of case and type of court. You also claim not to use "Greg's standards". I have explained before what my standards are. Evidence that brings us to a "balance of probabilities" which is what is used civil cases. So do you set yourself a higher bar than that? Lower? Explain exactly where your bar is set, please, so we lesser mortals can peer into the Savastano evidentiary mindset. Some of us may go blind as a result, others turn into a pillar of salt. One or two may even fall on their own sword. At first, I will even think it will have been worth it. I will leave this Earth with MLK's words ringing in my ears... "there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice..." .. then you pipe in to add... "feasibly"... Unfortunately for me, at that point I know where I'm heading is Hell... Edited March 22, 2015 by Greg Parker 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