Greg Parker Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) Brian Doyle seems a bit obsessed with Ralph Yates and is demanding I answer questions that have already been answered Here is Brian in the cozy enclave of the deepfoo where he knows I can't post " All you need to know about Parker and his cult minions is he said Larry Crafard was the man whom Ralph Yates saw and it explained everything. Parker stupidly neglected the fact that if it was Crafard that would prove a direct employee and associate of Jack Ruby was carrying a rifle wrapped in brown paper, backyard photos of Oswald, and speaking of a plot to shoot JFK from an office building with a high-powered rifle 2 days before the assassination. Parker thinks no answer is necessary for this nor could he give any. Meanwhile Parker ignores the fact that Scheim discovered that Crafard was noticeably more sloppy-looking than Oswald and was missing his front teeth. Something Yates would be very unlikely to not notice. Seeing how it is very unlikely that Crafard was the double Yates witnessed, and FBI was so desperate to disprove this sighting, this then begs the question of who exactly it was? And who was the Oswald taken out the back door of the Texas Theater? Parker shows no interest in honestly pursuing this. I'm sorry but these men fail the standard of objective analysis they pretend to uphold right there. What is your opinion of Parker taking a strong FBI position on witness and victim Ralph Yates? Parker stays quiet because his denial method has reached its limit. He can't answer because he would have to admit that he is confirming Yates' witnessing by acknowledging that Crafard was a look-alike to Oswald. You see Parker says Yates fabricated the whole thing because he was mentally ill (just like FBI) but then commits the gaffe of validating Yates' witnessing by admitting he saw the look-alike Crafard. So which was it Greg, mental illness or Crafard? In his zeal to deny Parker lost track of his arguments. None of these denial trolls will honestly admit Yates passed a lie detector test on these details and that's why FBI persecuted and murdered him. Parker is caught by the balls because Dempsey Jones admitted Yates came to him because the hitch-hiker discussed the same shooting JFK from a building subject that Jones and Yates had discussed earlier. Fear not, Brian. You can rest easy. Everything you wanted to know about my take on Ralph is right here. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t910-the-strange-story-of-ralph-leon-yates Brian's strawmen have been highlighted in this color Brian's begging the question is highlighted in this color Guesses based on need rather than evidence in this color (the evidence is that Crafard was mistaken multiple times for Oswald without his teeth being an issue) Unmitigated claptrap/psuedo-logic in this color Ad hom in bold A big mix of everything in one last spit-ball in italics Can anyone explain to me why senior members at deepfoo endorse - even applaude the above debating tactics - used not only by Brian (whose identity crisis must factor in to his troubling state of mind) but also by Josephs, Gaal and Hargroves? Almost forgot, Brian added this What's your opinion on Parker's hit and run approach to Oswald's driver's license? Do you honestly think it was a registration even though 6 employees whose job it was to know those identification cards by heart identified it as a driver's license. "Speculation"??? And why did it disappear? I have corrected Brian several times on this already. I never said they found registration papers. That is another strawman. I said the description they gave of the "license" was that of being dirty and folded like it had been inside a wallet for a while - which is a very good description of his learner's application. Brian finishes his rant with this classic Accusing people of lacking strict evidence is a weak and cheap position considering. It's one all deniers depend on. " It almost sounds like he is taking the mickey out of himself for lacking much in the way of evidence. Unfortunately Brian doesn't possess that much insight. Edited June 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) CRAFARD ?? who played MARINA ?? (below) I do believe it was CRAFARD with employment counselor in Dallas named Laura Kittrell. BUT many OTHERS LHO sightings ,just don't think so. IMHO GAAL =========================================== Posted by Steven Gaal on 16 June 2015 - 04:21 PM in JFK Assassination Debate = Mrs. Ambrose Martinez worked as an Intake Secretary in the Welfare Office of the Salvation Army at 500 North Ervay Street in Dallas. She recalled that two or three months before the assassination Lee and Marina Oswald, accompanied by both of their children, (Marina gave birth in Oct) came to the Salvation Army seeking aid. Mrs. Martinez remembered the Oswalds because Marina spoke only Russian and recalled that she listed her father in Moscow as a reference (Marina's father died when she was young) while Lee Oswald listed a "Mrs. Paine" as a reference. Oswald said that he and his wife were living with Mrs. Paine in Irving, Texas (not true) and they had met Mrs. Paine in New Orleans (Harvey and Marina met Ruth Paine in Dallas).17 // JOESPH ======================================================================== I get it Salvation Army full of KOOKS ..yeah that's it and drunk ...yeah and can be bought off yeah .....just want attention ...liars all yeah that's it !!! >>>>>> THAT WHAT U THINK WHEN U THINK SALVATION ARMY !!! >>>GAAL TONGUE IN CHEEK ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] http://www.salvation...org/ihq/ourwork OUR WORK From family tracing to disaster response, The Salvation Army offers a wide variety of services worldwide. Below is an overview of what we do. If you would like to find out more about any of the services we offer, please get in contact with the Salvation Army in your country. = Addiction DependencyFor those in need, the Salvation Army runs a number of addiction rehabilitation programs. We believe in taking the holistic approach, not just helping the client to overcome their addiction, but attacking the roots of that addiction. Emergency ResponseFrom sites of natural and man-made disasters to places of human conflict, the Salvation Army is there to provide compassion and practical support to those in real and sudden need. The Army strives to provide first for the immediate physical needs but beyond that, ministry for the aching heart and the weary soul. = Family Tracing The Family Tracing Service was officially established in 1885, when it was designated as 'Mrs Booth's Enquiry Bureau'. It has developed to become one of The Salvation Army's most distinctive international services in many territories where it continues to be in operation 120 years on. The mission of the Family Tracing Service is to restore or sustain family relationships by tracing relatives with whom contact has been lost, either recently or in the distant past. To find out more about the Family Tracing Service or to apply to have a relative traced, please contact the Salvation Army in the country where you reside. = Health Services International Projects = Social WorkThe Salvation Army is one of the largest social care providers in the World. There are social programs running in almost every country we operate in. = Sports Ministry International Headquarters’ Sports Ministry Desk exists to encourage, support and resource Salvation Army Sports Ministry leaders around the world to find connections, to build relationships and to help people and communities to enjoy healthy lives in bodies, minds and souls. It does this as part of The Salvation Army’s mission to ‘save souls, grow saints and serve suffering humanity’. }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} also see http://www1.salvatio...2F?openDocument Edited June 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't. Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, despite all your claims of victory, the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. // Don Jeffries ======================================================================== YES Don. Who is the main anti- H & L man ?? ANSWER: Parnell who is a lone nutter. Golly says a lot to me. GAAL Edited June 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 When and under what circumstances did Yates tell his story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, Jack smeared his own reputation by giving 3 different versions of the nature of his relationship to Armstrong star witness, Frank Kudlaty. You're just shooting the messenger. without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, The evidence is right here on this forum. It came straight from the horses mouth and via Armstrong himself who claims White gave him a third version. You guys are just willfully blind. you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. Brian has an identity crisis. As usual, you have this entirely the wrong way around. He's the one that needs to explain why he calls himself Albert. Of course I refer to the other forum as FooFoo? No, Don. Deep FooFoo. It's gotta be deep, otherwise it's just meaningless Foo. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I never gave him the name "Brian". His parents did. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, I thought you had no connection to him. Now you you can see inside his head? Remarkable! compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't. I need to explain it because.... why? Let him explain his peccadillos. Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. Obsession would be hosting a website/shrine to it for how long? 15 years and running for the lapdog? It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. My interest is in getting the case reopened. Part of that is clearing the decks of all the garbage that discredits the case for conspiracy. I have also gone after JVB, Fetzer, Cinque and others. The effort expended by me on any of them is commensurate with the resistance offered. As has been pointed out, H & L is a well-organized group which acts very much in the same way as a cult. To that extent, it's a special case. JVB is learning. She is organizing herself and her followers along similar lines. But they are less visible, preferring for the most part to stay behind locked doors. It's all rather creepy, imo. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, So... there were no riots in FW in 1956. The FBI planted those stories and destroyed the evidence that they really occurred in 1958? So tonsils never ever grow back? So Bennerrita Smith made up the name Bobby Nuemann out of whole cloth. The little nerdy guy she described as hanging out with Voebel was really "Harvey"? So John Pic's memory of Ekdahl's height trumps actual documentary evidence that he was actually 3 inches shorter? So the Frankenstein image was correctly labelled as NOT the one used by the newspaper? And on and on... And of course, Hargroves has not been forced to change anything at his shrine. That's just a figment of my imagination. Don, the first rule in maintaining credibility in a debate is to debate with honesty and integrity. Don't fall back on logical fallacies. Don't make stuff up out of whole cloth. Don't misrepresent the arguments and positions of your opponent. You guys should try resisting all of those things. I know. It would make it tough, but at least you will be able to hold your collective heads up. despite all your claims of victory, Examples where I have claimed anything of the sort. See above about misrepresentation. the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. One man's laughing stock is another's sane environment for research which does not rely upon 50 different fonts, sizes and colors surrounded by dancing emoticons to deflect from its myriad flaws. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. "Serious" researchers don't use 50 different fonts, colors and sizes surrounded by dancing emoticons. They don't employ the whole gamut of logical fallacies to defend their positions. They don't shoot the messenger. I have the case for conspiracy, Don. Last I looked, the statutes on conspiracy didn't require the need to prove the existence of a CIA doppelganger program. You might want to check that with your very busy loyer friends. Edited June 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) When and under what circumstances did Yates tell his story? Steve Kober Member 27 posts Gender:Male Location:New Jersey Posted 17 December 2008 - 05:33 PM === Bill, I think you may want to refer to Chapter 13 of the book "Live By the Sword" by Gus Russo. In that chapter Russo writes "during a FBI interview Dempsey Jones clearly recalled that on Wednesday, November 20, Yates came in and told him of his strange rider who discussed shotting the President from a building (FBI interview of Ralph Yates 26 november 1963; also FBI interview of Dempsey Jones 28 November 1963. " If Jones is right about "clearly" remembering Yates story and is sure that the story was told to him before 22 Nov, then it would seem that Yates story is confirmed by a second person. Personally, I believe Yates. To me it is an example of the second Oswalds setting up LHO, although this is a bit clumsey and over the top. Steve Kober Edited June 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 When and under what circumstances did Yates tell his story? Steve Kober Member 27 posts Gender:Male Location:New Jersey Posted 17 December 2008 - 05:33 PM === Bill, I think you may want to refer to Chapter 13 of the book "Live By the Sword" by Gus Russo. In that chapter Russo writes "during a FBI interview Dempsey Jones clearly recalled that on Wednesday, November 20, Yates came in and told him of his strange rider who discussed shotting the President from a building (FBI interview of Ralph Yates 26 november 1963; also FBI interview of Dempsey Jones 28 November 1963. " If Jones is right about "clearly" remembering Yates story and is sure that the story was told to him before 22 Nov, then it would seem that Yates story is confirmed by a second person. Personally, I believe Yates. To me it is an example of the second Oswalds setting up LHO, although this is a bit clumsey and over the top. Steve Kober Um, Steve, why not use the actual source material? Could it be because it doesn't actually support what you quote? "Yates said this boy had a package not described at the time..." "Yates did not discuss this man the day before the president was shot in any great detail..." http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406&relPageId=425&search=%22dempsey_jones%22 Ralph says hiker asked if he knew the Carousel Club or Jack Ruby. This is strong indicator it was the known hitchhiker, Larry Crafard. Ths also states that Yates was the one who initiated discussion about possible assassination. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95672&search=%22ralph_leon+yates%22#relPageId=44&tab=page Ralph's state of mind http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57760&search=%22ralph_leon+yates%22#relPageId=149&tab=page Don wants me to leave you guys alone, Your post is a prime example of why that can't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Ralph says hiker asked if he knew the Carousel Club or Jack Ruby. This is strong indicator it was the known hitchhiker, Larry Crafard. Ths also states that Yates was the one who initiated discussion about possible assassination. http://www.maryferre...eId=44&tab=page // PARKER QUOTE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOLLY NO Mr. Parker you are wrong for the the hitchhiker (could be LHO since you believe he couldn't drive) asks Ralph Yates about Ruby not Ralph Yates asking hitchhiker. You have it backwards !! SEE PREVIOUS PAGE of FBI DOC you linked yourself see below BELOW // GAAL http://educationforu...ic=6017&p=53294 Although the activities of the schoolbook operatives often overlapped those of Jack Ruby, the only verifiable link was Lee Harvey Oswald. There were many witnesses testifying to an association between Ruby and Oswald, but the most credible is Daniel T. McGown. On March 31, 1963, McGown accidentally found a letter at the Carousel Club addressed to “Jake Rubinstein” with a return address from “Lee Oswald,” at 1106 Diceman Street in Dallas. McGown later confirmed that “Lee Oswald” was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald. [30] ############################################################# below Diceman article by Weston ############################################################## To Jake Rubenstein, c/o The Carousel Club William WestonOctober 2001 On October 31, 1976, a government agent greeted a gray-haired gentleman who, on his own initiative, came into the FBI office in Memphis, Tennessee. He had a secret about the Kennedy assassination, he said, and he wanted to disclose it. [1]The distinguished-looking visitor did not appear to be the type who would know something about the world of spies, pimps, drug dealers, con artists, and other disreputable denizens inhabiting the murky milieu of assassination intrigue. Daniel T. McGown, by anyone's standards, was a pillar of the community, a successful businessman with an honorable career in a prestigious profession. Born in 1908 in Brownwood, Texas, his family moved to Memphis prior to his graduation from high school. After receiving a degree from the School of Architecture at Georgia Tech, he went to work for Schulz & Norton, an architectural and engineering firm in Memphis. In 1941, he married Irma Lee Beasley, a daughter from one of Tennesee's more respectable families. During the course of their marriage, the couple had two children. In 1948, he started his own architectural firm, which over the years grew and prospered. He became president of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects and was a member of the Calvary Episcopal Church. [2] Family man, businessman, church member, community server, Mr. McGown lived a life that was largely indistinguishable from thousands of other men of his class who lived around the country. However, in that fateful year of 1963, a strange twist of fate had placed within his hands a hitherto unknown secret regarding a connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby.The incident occurred during a business trip to Texas in March 1963. McGown had flown to Austin, in order to check over the plans for a new building that was to be constructed on the campus of the University of Texas. When he had completed his survey, he rented a car and drove north to the city of Brownwood, where he spent a day with some relatives. He then drove to Fort Worth, where he visited his first cousin, a prominent attorney in that city. Late in the evening, he used his cousin's telephone to call his wife Irma. He wished her a happy birthday and said that he would see her the next day, when his plane arrived in Memphis. Irma's birthday was March 28.McGown left his cousin's house and drove east to Dallas. It was almost midnight when he checked in at the Adolphus Hotel on Commerce Street. After getting settled into his room, he felt like having a nightcap before going to bed. He left his room, went down the elevator to the lobby, and went outside. The brightly lit sign of the Carousel Club beckoned from across the street. He walked over to the club entrance door and opened it. Behind the door was a staircase, leading up to the second floor. When he reached the top of the stairs, he was stopped by a heavy-set man. The club was closing up, the man said, who then complained about city regulations that prevented him from keeping the place open after midnight. [3] Rebuffed by the manager of the club, McGown went back to his room.The following morning, McGown decided to do a little sightseeing, since he had a few hours to kill before his plane departed from Dallas. As he was walking down Commerce Street, he paused at the Carousel Club. Near the entrance was a showcase display featuring pictures of female performers. As he was gazing at the pictures, another man who was walking down the street crowded into the entryway to look at them too. It was an awkward moment for McGown as he tried to make room for the other man while at the same time trying to keep a favorable point of view for himself. Presently, the other man turned to leave. As he did so, he brushed by an overstuffed mailbox that hung on the entrance door. A few large pieces of mail, two magazines, and three letters spilled on the ground. The man continued on his way without stopping.McGown proceeded to pick up the envelopes and magazines and stuff them back into the box. He noticed that the three letters were written by women and were addressed to "Jake Rubenstein, c/o The Carousel Club." Rubenstein must have been the heavy-set man whom McGown met the previous night. He was probably also the one who hired women to be performers in the club. Perhaps the senders of the three letters were prospective applicants for employment. McGown looked at the envelopes again. Two of the women lived in Fort Worth, and one lived in Dallas. The name on the Dallas letter caught his attention, for he happened to have a friend who had the same last name. [4] After making a mental note of the address, he put the letters back in the box with the rest of the mail. The woman he was planning to visit was "Lee Oswald."Using a city map as a guide, McGown drove toward Miss Oswald's place. As he was approaching her street, he looked at the houses in the neighborhood. Expecting to see lower class housing, he was surprised to find upper middle class or upper class residences. McGown wondered about this. Why would anyone living in such an area have any dealings with a strip joint?When he arrived at his destination, he stopped the car and looked at it. It was a two-story apartment building, constructed in the cheap, boxy style that was becoming the prevailing fashion at that time. It had an outside stairway that led up to a balcony walk on the second floor. It was a new building, perhaps two or three years old at the most. For the convenience of the postman, there was a mailbox with individual compartments that stood facing the street next to the curb. In order to find the unit that Miss Oswald was renting, McGown got out of his car and looked over the names of the tenants posted on the compartment doors. When he found Oswald's name, he realized that he had made a mistake. The middle name of Lee Harvey Oswald showed that this person was not a woman. Without further ado, McGown got back into his car and drove away.Eight months later, when the names of Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby were being broadcasted on radio and television, the details of this episode came vividly back to his memory. Should he tell the authorities what he knew, or should he not? His reputation might suffer if this embarrassing incident ever became widely known. He hoped that the authorities would find out about Oswald's connection to Jack Ruby without his help. When the Warren Report was published, he bought a copy and read it from cover to cover. There was nothing in it to indicate that the government knew what he knew. Furthermore he read that the commission could find no "credible evidence" of an association between Oswald and Ruby. After the death of Jack Ruby in January 1967, McGown wondered if he was the only one left who still had the "credible evidence" that eluded the Warren Commission. Finally, nine years later, he told his wife about it. She encouraged him to go to the FBI. After all, his story might make a difference in the new, upcoming investigation into the JFK assassination that Congress was preparing to launch. Such were the circumstances that led Daniel T. McGown to the local office of the FBI in 1976.The FBI of course wanted to know where the apartment was. McGown could not remember its exact location, but he drew a diagram depicting the apartment in relation to the mailbox out front, as well as in relation to a nearby apartment that faced another street. He remembered that the address had four digits and sounded something like "Diceland." A Dallas city map showed that there were was no street with the name of "Diceland," but there were two with the name of "Diceman." One was Diceman Drive, and the other was Diceman Avenue.Dallas FBI agent Robert Gemberling drove out to Diceman Drive to see if there were any apartments matching McGown's diagram and description. Diceman Drive had single-family houses but no apartments. A few inquiries among the residents showed that no apartment had ever existed on that street.Next stop was Diceman Avenue. Gemberling looked from one end of the avenue to the other, and the only dwellings that he could see were single-family homes - with one exception. At the point where Diceman ran into Cedar Crest Boulevard was a two-story building made of brick. It was the Cedar Crest Heights Apartment. It had a second floor balcony walk with an iron railing just as McGown described it. Next to the curb was a large mailbox with sixteen key-locked compartments with tenant nametags. Adjacent to the building was another apartment facing Birdsong Street. The apartment at 1106 Diceman Avenue must be the place that McGown had visited in 1963. There was no other possibility. Still, Gemberling was not satisfied. He noticed that all the buildings in the neighborhood were rundown, dilapidated, and occupied entirely by lower-class blacks. This was not the upper class neighborhood that McGown claimed to have seen.Gemberling looked for the manager. He found him at a nearby office at 2514 Birdsong Avenue. The manager told him that the apartment was owned by a company called General Rental. It was built around 1959 or 1960, and it was the only apartment that had ever been on that street. The mailbox seen out front had been there since the apartment was first constructed. So far these extra details provided additional confirmation for McGown's story. Gemberling wanted to see the tenant records for 1963, but the manager told them that they no longer existed. They were destroyed with all the other tenant records in a fire that occurred in April 1968. Gemberling asked the manager if he knew anything about Oswald living in the apartment in 1963. Although the manager acknowledged that he had only been working for General Rental since 1969, he was nevertheless positive that Oswald could not have lived in the apartment in 1963. In an all-black neighborhood, people would have certainly remembered Oswald as the only white man living among them, and such was not the case.Apparently the manager's statement was enough to convince Gemberling that the 1106 Diceman lead was a dead end. No further inquiries were made, as far as the available records show. (There are however some "postponed in full" documents from the Memphis office of the FBI regarding a "Daniel McGowen" that are now in the National Archives.) To find out more about the apartment, I checked the 1963 Dallas criss-cross directory and found a former tenant by the name of Orlean Dorsey. I located Dorsey in Lufkin, Texas and called him up. Contrary to what the General Rental manager told Gemberling, Dorsey, who is black, said it was not an all-black apartment in 1963. Both white and black people lived there. Furthermore, the apartment was indeed located in a prestigious area. About a mile south of the apartment was the Lakeview Golf Course, where Dorsey worked as a landscape and maintenance man. Among the celebrities who played golf there were such baseball legends as Mickey Mantle and "Dizzy" Dean. At that time, the golf course was racially segregated. Whites played there during the day and blacks played at night.Not just anyone could live at the Cedar Crest Apartment. A prospective tenant had to have a very good background and excellent references. Dorsey was able to get his unit because he knew the manager, a black named Denny Blair, who often played golf at Lakeview. Blair was an employee of Bailey Rental, a white-owned company that had title to the Diceman apartment. (Bailey Rental was later renamed General Rental.)The Cedar Crest Apartment was an expensive place to live. It took all of Dorsey's wages to pay the rent. He was making $1.25 per hour and the rent was about $210 per month. The only way he could afford to live there was by working a lot of overtime on the weekends. By way of comparison, Oswald was making $1.35 per hour at Jaggers Chiles Stovall during the month of March 1963, and he was paying $72.68 a month for a one-bedroom flat at the Neely Street house. [5]Dorsey and his family moved into the apartment in November 1962. Because of his long working hours and because he was going to plumbing school at the same time, he did not get to know the other tenants. His wife and children also did not do much socializing. Thus he was unable to confirm or deny whether Oswald lived there. Dorsey and his family moved to another apartment in October 1963.The transition from an affluent, mainly white neighborhood to black lower class ghetto occurred during the mid-1960's, according to Dorsey who would come back to visit his former apartment from time to time. The quality of the building and the surrounding area deteriorated as a result of vandalism and neglect. When I called the General Rental office in 1995, I found out that the apartment was still owned by the Bailey family. I also learned that rent was only $50 per week - a real bargain for anyone brave enough to live there.Did Oswald live at the Cedar Crest Apartment? Considering the high cost of rent in 1963, it is unlikely he would have chosen to live there. A more reasonable possibility is that he used the address simply to receive his mail. As a man astute in the ways of intelligence, he no doubt realized that a mailbox at the post office was under surveillance. A second mailbox in another area would be highly useful for receiving mail from more sensitive sources. This line of reasoning is supported by the fact that most of the units at 1106 Diceman were listed as "vacant" in the criss-cross directories of 1962 and 1963. In 1962 only five of the sixteen units available were occupied. This ratio dropped to only four occupied units the following year. An apartment manager with a 75% vacancy rate might let someone temporarily use an unused mailbox for a small fee.It is interesting to note that on March 29, the day that McGown was at the Diceman apartment, Oswald was seen at a barbershop in Sparta, Wisconsin. Oswald told John Abbott, the barber, that he got his money by blackmailing a Texas nightclub operator, for whom he had previously worked. Each time he made a contact with this man, he would get fifty dollars. The money he obtained would be used to cover his travelling expenses. (He never gave the name of the nightclub operator.) Perhaps the Oswald letter that McGown saw was another demand for more money.McGown's story lends credence to the story of a connection between Ruby and Oswald in the May 17 edition of the National Enquirer. It said: "After a sniper shot at but missed General Walker in Dallas, April 10, 1963, Dallas police suspected that Oswald was the sniper and Ruby was the payoff man. The cops were set to arrest the pair. But they never got the chance, because of heavy pressure brought to bear by the Justice Dept. and so Oswald and Ruby were to remain free." The article also said that a top secret document, signed by a high official of the Justice Dept., was sent in April 1963 to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry requesting the police not to arrest Oswald and Ruby. This document was reportedly in the hands of the Warren Commission.Given the potentially explosive implications of the above story, it is no wonder that the Warren Commission chose to discount all witnesses to a connection between Oswald and Ruby, including Wilburn Litchfield, Joe Franklin, and Bill DeMar. McGown's story is not only important in rehabilitating the credibility of these undeservedly maligned witnesses, but it also provides a glimpse into the covert ways by which Oswald and Ruby communicated with one another. ENDNOTES 1. Sources for this article were FBI reports in Memphis and Dallas. Also referred to were ten pages of McGown's hand-written account that was photocopied by the FBI.2. Engagement announcement, Sept. 14, 1941; wedding announcement, Dec. 3, 1941, and obituary of Daniel T. McGown, March 5, 1985, in the Memphis newspaper, The Commercial Appeal.3. According to Jack Ruby's bartender, Andrew Armstrong, clean up started at midnight on weeknights and at 1:00 am on Saturday and Sunday. All bottles and glasses had to be cleared off the tables by 12:15. If a vice squad police officer saw anyone drinking after 12:15, he could slap a five-day suspension on the club (Vol. 13 of the Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, p. 325).4. Actually the friend's surname had a slightly different spelling. Felix Oswalt, a member of the Board of Education in Memphis, was the friend McGown was talking about.5. Warren Report, p. 743. ____________________________________________________________ (Gaal comments below on above article)A professional man is traveling alone andsees an opportunity to meet strippers. Eight months later, when the names of Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby were being broadcasted on radio and television, the details of this episode came vividly back to his memory. Should he tell the authorities what he knew, or should he not? His reputation might suffer if this embarrassing incident ever became widely known. He hoped that the authorities would find out about Oswald's connection to Jack Ruby without his help. When the Warren Report was published, he bought a copy and read it from cover to cover. There was nothing in it to indicate that the government knew what he knew. Furthermore he read that the commission could find no "credible evidence" of an association between Oswald and Ruby. After the death of Jack Ruby in January 1967, McGown wondered if he was the only one left who still had the "credible evidence" that eluded the Warren Commission. Finally, nine years later, he told his wife about it. She encouraged him to go to the FBI. After all, his story might make a difference in the new, upcoming investigation into the JFK assassination that Congress was preparing to launch. Such were the circumstances that led Daniel T. McGown to the local office of the FBI in 1976.********************************************** (Gaal)PAUSE AND REFLECTPAUSE AND REFLECTPAUSE AND REFLECT ...............What would motivate a professional married man to contact the FBI (in the early 1960s timeframe) and say he ," improperly looked at US Mail and wanted to 'hunt' down a stripper." ????++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Answer ZERO . No motivation to make up this story. #################################### Greg Parker Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:40 AM Back in 2001, I made the following post to a news group: Quote Quote Quote DPD Criminal Intel Report on narcotics filed on Boxing Day,1963 in summary states: From confidential source:Everett Edward Burnett DPD# 31924 and Robert Ray Jordon DPD#30119 recently robbed an unknown Mexican from San Antonio,Texas of 2.5 ounces of heroin.Source further stated that these two men have also beencommitting drug store burglaries.They live in an apartment house on Gaston Ave. Exact addressunknown.Informant further stated that Everett Edward Burnett is ahomosexual and has had unnatural sex relations with JackLeon Ruby. http://www.maryferre...717&relPageId=5 What immediately struck me about that was at least one of Ruby's prison psych's put in his report that Ruby thought Oswald looked like Paul Newman, It's also mentioned here:http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=367099 ================================================ also add http://spartacus-edu...JFKcheramie.htm Rose Cheramie Rose Cheramie (Cherami) was found unconsciousness by the side of the road at Eunice, Louisiana, on 20th November, 1963. Lieutenant Francis Frugé of the Louisiana State Police took her to the state hospital. On the journey Cheramie said that she had been thrown out of a car by two gangsters who worked for Jack Ruby. She claimed that the men were involved in a plot to kill John F. Kennedy. Cheramie added that Kennedy would be killed in Dallas within a few days. Later she told the same story to doctors and nurses who treated her. As she appeared to be under the influence of drugs her story was ignored. Following the assassination, Cheramie was interviewed by the police. She claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had visited Ruby's night club. In fact, she believed the two men were having a homosexual relationship. ################# ################# http://educationforu...ic=5074&p=41488( part of HOMOSEXUAL THREAD) +++++++++++++++++++++++ Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent? yes recruited by homosexual blackmail as a young boy. > > Ruby thought Oswald looked like Paul Newman < --------------- Edited June 19, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, Jack smeared his own reputation by giving 3 different versions of the nature of his relationship to Armstrong star witness, Frank Kudlaty. You're just shooting the messenger. without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, The evidence is right here on this forum. It came straight from the horses mouth and via Armstrong himself who claims White gave him a third version. You guys are just willfully blind. you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. Brian has an identity crisis. As usual, you have this entirely the wrong way around. He's the one that needs to explain why he calls himself Albert. Of course I refer to the other forum as FooFoo? No, Don. Deep FooFoo. It's gotta be deep, otherwise it's just meaningless Foo. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I never gave him the name "Brian". His parents did. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, I thought you had no connection to him. Now you you can see inside his head? Remarkable! compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't. I need to explain it because.... why? Let him explain his peccadillos. Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. Obsession would be hosting a website/shrine to it for how long? 15 years and running for the lapdog? It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. My interest is in getting the case reopened. Part of that is clearing the decks of all the garbage that discredits the case for conspiracy. I have also gone after JVB, Fetzer, Cinque and others. The effort expended by me on any of them is commensurate with the resistance offered. As has been pointed out, H & L is a well-organized group which acts very much in the same way as a cult. To that extent, it's a special case. JVB is learning. She is organizing herself and her followers along similar lines. But they are less visible, preferring for the most part to stay behind locked doors. It's all rather creepy, imo. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, So... there were no riots in FW in 1956. The FBI planted those stories and destroyed the evidence that they really occurred in 1958? So tonsils never ever grow back? So Bennerrita Smith made up the name Bobby Nuemann out of whole cloth. The little nerdy guy she described as hanging out with Voebel was really "Harvey"? So John Pic's memory of Ekdahl's height trumps actual documentary evidence that he was actually 3 inches shorter? So the Frankenstein image was correctly labelled as NOT the one used by the newspaper? And on and on... And of course, Hargroves has not been forced to change anything at his shrine. That's just a figment of my imagination. Don, the first rule in maintaining credibility in a debate is to debate with honesty and integrity. Don't fall back on logical fallacies. Don't make stuff up out of whole cloth. Don't misrepresent the arguments and positions of your opponent. You guys should try resisting all of those things. I know. It would make it tough, but at least you will be able to hold your collective heads up. despite all your claims of victory, Examples where I have claimed anything of the sort. See above about misrepresentation. the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. One man's laughing stock is another's sane environment for research which does not rely upon 50 different fonts, sizes and colors surrounded by dancing emoticons to deflect from its myriad flaws. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. "Serious" researchers don't use 50 different fonts, colors and sizes surrounded by dancing emoticons. They don't employ the whole gamut of logical fallacies to defend their positions. They don't shoot the messenger. I have the case for conspiracy, Don. Last I looked, the statutes on conspiracy didn't require the need to prove the existence of a CIA doppelganger program. You might want to check that with your very busy loyer friends. Nothing, Don? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, Jack smeared his own reputation by giving 3 different versions of the nature of his relationship to Armstrong star witness, Frank Kudlaty. You're just shooting the messenger. without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, The evidence is right here on this forum. It came straight from the horses mouth and via Armstrong himself who claims White gave him a third version. You guys are just willfully blind. you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. Brian has an identity crisis. As usual, you have this entirely the wrong way around. He's the one that needs to explain why he calls himself Albert. Of course I refer to the other forum as FooFoo? No, Don. Deep FooFoo. It's gotta be deep, otherwise it's just meaningless Foo. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I never gave him the name "Brian". His parents did. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, I thought you had no connection to him. Now you you can see inside his head? Remarkable! compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't. I need to explain it because.... why? Let him explain his peccadillos. Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. Obsession would be hosting a website/shrine to it for how long? 15 years and running for the lapdog? It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. My interest is in getting the case reopened. Part of that is clearing the decks of all the garbage that discredits the case for conspiracy. I have also gone after JVB, Fetzer, Cinque and others. The effort expended by me on any of them is commensurate with the resistance offered. As has been pointed out, H & L is a well-organized group which acts very much in the same way as a cult. To that extent, it's a special case. JVB is learning. She is organizing herself and her followers along similar lines. But they are less visible, preferring for the most part to stay behind locked doors. It's all rather creepy, imo. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, So... there were no riots in FW in 1956. The FBI planted those stories and destroyed the evidence that they really occurred in 1958? So tonsils never ever grow back? So Bennerrita Smith made up the name Bobby Nuemann out of whole cloth. The little nerdy guy she described as hanging out with Voebel was really "Harvey"? So John Pic's memory of Ekdahl's height trumps actual documentary evidence that he was actually 3 inches shorter? So the Frankenstein image was correctly labelled as NOT the one used by the newspaper? And on and on... And of course, Hargroves has not been forced to change anything at his shrine. That's just a figment of my imagination. Don, the first rule in maintaining credibility in a debate is to debate with honesty and integrity. Don't fall back on logical fallacies. Don't make stuff up out of whole cloth. Don't misrepresent the arguments and positions of your opponent. You guys should try resisting all of those things. I know. It would make it tough, but at least you will be able to hold your collective heads up. despite all your claims of victory, Examples where I have claimed anything of the sort. See above about misrepresentation. the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. One man's laughing stock is another's sane environment for research which does not rely upon 50 different fonts, sizes and colors surrounded by dancing emoticons to deflect from its myriad flaws. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. "Serious" researchers don't use 50 different fonts, colors and sizes surrounded by dancing emoticons. They don't employ the whole gamut of logical fallacies to defend their positions. They don't shoot the messenger. I have the case for conspiracy, Don. Last I looked, the statutes on conspiracy didn't require the need to prove the existence of a CIA doppelganger program. You might want to check that with your very busy loyer friends. Nothing, Don? Except of course continuing to mischaracterize my positions in a forum in which I cannot respond. You are so brave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 Ralph says hiker asked if he knew the Carousel Club or Jack Ruby. This is strong indicator it was the known hitchhiker, Larry Crafard. Ths also states that Yates was the one who initiated discussion about possible assassination. http://www.maryferre...eId=44&tab=page // PARKER QUOTE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOLLY NO Mr. Parker you are wrong for the the hitchhiker (could be LHO since you believe he couldn't drive) asks Ralph Yates about Ruby not Ralph Yates asking hitchhiker. You have it backwards !! SEE PREVIOUS PAGE of FBI DOC you linked yourself see below BELOW // GAAL Does your church know you go around dropping the G-Bomb everywhere, Steve? What's wrong is just your comprehension. Read it again. Sloowwwwly this time. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95672&search=%22ralph_leon+yates%22#relPageId=43&tab=page +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This also states that Yates was the one who initiated discussion about possible assassination. // Parker Quote GOLLY NO Mr. Parker you are wrong for the the hitchhiker uses the word assassination. Ralph Yates says there would be trouble like ADALI STEVENSON. Even Neiman of Neiman Marcus said the same thing that JFK shouldn't come to Dallas because of what happened to Stevenson. Once again, you guys just don't think things through in any sort of logical way. So Ralph was part of the plot because if he doesn't mention the Stevenson incident the Milli Vanilli CIA doppelganger dude has no segue into his assassination riff and the whole thing is for naught. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As to sate of mind DOC you quote ,well Mr. Parker that was months later. Who knows what pressures Mr. Yates was under since the assassination. The FBI agents at the time of getting his report don't mention mental instability which you suggest RE YATES.ALSO Mr. Parker in Yates DEC 10 FBI interview he mentioned the package length..so what if he didn't mention the specific length to other people ?? SO ? CANT LEAVE you alone MR. Parker , Your post above is a prime example of why that can't happen. GAAL His health was a long-standing issue. I mention what he told his work colleague only because YOU GUYS have been saying he told that guy everything PRIOR to the assassination that he told the FBI AFTER the assassination. But the documentary evidence does not bear that out. Since you claim it does not matter, maybe YOU can be the voice of reason and get your colleagues to stop misrepresenting the evidence. Then I won't have to draw attention to the abuse you lot subject the evidence to. Got it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Greg, You continue to act as if when I post on DPF that I am somehow running away from you, and saying things that I don't say on this forum, where you can directly respond. I don't say anything on other forums that I wouldn't say here. Do you really think I've been shy about confronting you? Geez, how much confrontation do you want? At this point, I think it's obvious that you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Once again, you guys just don't think things through in any sort of logical way. So Ralph was part of the plot because if he doesn't mention the Stevenson incident the Milli Vanilli CIA doppelganger dude has no segue into his assassination riff and the whole thing is for naught.// Parker ============================== Hitchhiker already mentioned man part of plot (RUBY) right off . (AND) Hitchhiker was going to riff anyway ,he had incriminating photo ready to show right off. (JUST GOT LUCKY FOR SAID TROUBLE & JFK MEME WAS IN THE AIR). GAAL ============= He mentioned == assassination/package/Oswald PRIOR (exact size package of little import) the U GUYS of H & L got the emphasis right. Once again, you (anti H & L guys) guys just don't think things through in any sort of logical way. GAAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Once again, you guys just don't think things through in any sort of logical way. So Ralph was part of the plot because if he doesn't mention the Stevenson incident the Milli Vanilli CIA doppelganger dude has no segue into his assassination riff and the whole thing is for naught.// Parker ============================== Hitchhiker already mentioned man part of plot (RUBY) right off . (AND) Hitchhiker was going to riff anyway ,he had incriminating photo ready to show right off. (JUST GOT LUCKY FOR SAID TROUBLE & JFK MEME WAS IN THE AIR). GAAL ============= He mentioned == assassination/package/Oswald PRIOR (exact size package of little import) the U GUYS of H & L got the emphasis right. Once again, you (anti H & L guys) guys just don't think things through in any sort of logical way. GAAL Package (not otherwise described was discussed prior - assassination only because the geberal subject of JFK's safety was raised by Yates. Greg, You continue to act as if when I post on DPF that I am somehow running away from you, and saying things that I don't say on this forum, where you can directly respond. I don't say anything on other forums that I wouldn't say here. Do you really think I've been shy about confronting you? Geez, how much confrontation do you want? At this point, I think it's obvious that you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. Just stop putting words in my mouth and making up what my position is on any given thing. Can you do that much? I don't particularly care about changing your mind - only your mindset where you think what you stated below is acceptable. It's not. on Jeffries, on 19 Jun 2015 - 06:08 AM, said: Greg, In addition to a continuous campaign to smear the name and reputation of deceased researcher Jack White, Jack smeared his own reputation by giving 3 different versions of the nature of his relationship to Armstrong star witness, Frank Kudlaty. You're just shooting the messenger. without any shred of evidence beyond your own suspicions, The evidence is right here on this forum. It came straight from the horses mouth and via Armstrong himself who claims White gave him a third version. You guys are just willfully blind. you now feel comfortable in referring to Albert Doyle as "Brian." One of your devoted followers has adopted this curious name for Doyle as well, over at the DPF. Which, of course, you refer to as "Foo Foo" with no recriminations from the other moderators here whom you and your followers seem to feel are looking to reign him in. Brian has an identity crisis. As usual, you have this entirely the wrong way around. He's the one that needs to explain why he calls himself Albert. Of course I refer to the other forum as FooFoo? No, Don. Deep FooFoo. It's gotta be deep, otherwise it's just meaningless Foo. I don't have any connection to Albert Doyle. I'm sure you'll provide some of your sterling "evidence" to substantiate this new name you've given him. I never gave him the name "Brian". His parents did. I realize this is a mild annoyance for Doyle to bear, I thought you had no connection to him. Now you you can see inside his head? Remarkable! compared to the juvenile nicknames some of us have been christened with over at your forum, but you should at least provide some explanation as to how you know what his real first name is, when apparently he doesn't. I need to explain it because.... why? Let him explain his peccadillos. Your obsession with Harvey and Lee is beyond all reason. Obsession would be hosting a website/shrine to it for how long? 15 years and running for the lapdog? It's as if you have a vested interest in discrediting John Armstrong. My interest is in getting the case reopened. Part of that is clearing the decks of all the garbage that discredits the case for conspiracy. I have also gone after JVB, Fetzer, Cinque and others. The effort expended by me on any of them is commensurate with the resistance offered. As has been pointed out, H & L is a well-organized group which acts very much in the same way as a cult. To that extent, it's a special case. JVB is learning. She is organizing herself and her followers along similar lines. But they are less visible, preferring for the most part to stay behind locked doors. It's all rather creepy, imo. You've "proven" nothing here to any person who is knowledgeable with the subject matter, So... there were no riots in FW in 1956. The FBI planted those stories and destroyed the evidence that they really occurred in 1958? So tonsils never ever grow back? So Bennerrita Smith made up the name Bobby Nuemann out of whole cloth. The little nerdy guy she described as hanging out with Voebel was really "Harvey"? So John Pic's memory of Ekdahl's height trumps actual documentary evidence that he was actually 3 inches shorter? So the Frankenstein image was correctly labelled as NOT the one used by the newspaper? And on and on... And of course, Hargroves has not been forced to change anything at his shrine. That's just a figment of my imagination. Don, the first rule in maintaining credibility in a debate is to debate with honesty and integrity. Don't fall back on logical fallacies. Don't make stuff up out of whole cloth. Don't misrepresent the arguments and positions of your opponent. You guys should try resisting all of those things. I know. It would make it tough, but at least you will be able to hold your collective heads up. despite all your claims of victory, Examples where I have claimed anything of the sort. See above about misrepresentation. the blind support of your rooting section, and the poll you started. Instead, you're starting to make this place a laughingstock. I'm sure that Tracy Parnell is not the only lone nutter to approve of your work here. One man's laughing stock is another's sane environment for research which does not rely upon 50 different fonts, sizes and colors surrounded by dancing emoticons to deflect from its myriad flaws. John Armstrong produced a huge volume that unearthed a great deal of important information. Serious researchers understand this, even if they don't agree with the overall theory. You, however, are absolutely obsessed with trying to destroy his work. You may have a few loyal followers to continue to yell "Attaboy." but you are simply discrediting yourself as a researcher. However you look at it, everything you write seems to be an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy. "Serious" researchers don't use 50 different fonts, colors and sizes surrounded by dancing emoticons. They don't employ the whole gamut of logical fallacies to defend their positions. They don't shoot the messenger. I have the case for conspiracy, Don. Last I looked, the statutes on conspiracy didn't require the need to prove the existence of a CIA doppelganger program. You might want to check that with your very busy loyer friends. But your convictions apparently don't imbue you with enough courage to even stand up for them Edited June 20, 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