Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[Greg Parker]

I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. I wasn't alone. This isn't something Greg Parker or anyone else recently came up with. The same thing goes for Lee Farley questioning Oswald's alleged bus ride. I questioned that, along with every other aspect of Oswald's supposed post-assassination actions, long before he even started researching this case. And again, there were others who felt the same way.

The original band of critics missed some things, but overall they did a remarkable job of exposing the impossible nature of the official story.

Yeah, I'm sure you did.

The same as they all did. Questioning the timing.

The only early critics worth a dime were Weisberg and Meagher. And neither of those denied it ever happened either.

Your rose-colored revisionist history is bolox.

[Greg Parker]

Jesus, Greg…

…

You were on to the lunchroom thing LONG before I was and, to your eternal credit, have never let up on the issue. – Sean Murphy

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t406p30-the-ed-forum-and-deep-politics-forum

Sean,

The idea that the second floor lunchroom encounter was contrived is not a new theory, but one that has been previously proposed by Greg Parker, one of the best researchers who I have worked with on many areas of the assassination and have the highest respect for....

Advantage: Parker.

Don seems to have forgotten that I was a member of the dellarosa forum prior to 2004 when I joined here. It was around that time in the early 2000s that i was most prolific in posting about this issue. If Don is recalling people posting about it at that forum, it was me doing it. I don't recall anyone else discussing it, or anyone pointing out that there were already discussions about it in past threads. Like Jim, I believe he is confusing questioning the timing issue with saying flat out it never happened. I not only started saying it 12 or 13 years ago, I backed it up with truckload of evidence.

[David Von Pein]

I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. I wasn't alone. This isn't something Greg Parker or anyone else recently came up with. The same thing goes for Lee Farley questioning Oswald's alleged bus ride. I questioned that, along with every other aspect of Oswald's supposed post-assassination actions, long before he even started researching this case. And again, there were others who felt the same way.

And the contortions a CTer needs to go through in order to believe that ANY of those facts are false are staggering in number.

Liars, liars everywhere.

That seems to be the CTer motto.

And the list of liars includes all kinds of non-Government people too -- like Cecil McWatters, William Whaley, Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, Gladys Johnson, Earlene Roberts, Johnny Brewer, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, Helen Markham, Ted Callaway, William Scoggins, and God knows how many more.

Shouldn't at least a few Internet CTers see how utterly preposterous it is to believe that all of the above citizens were lying through their teeth about things relating to 11/22/63?

Well, even if CTers can't see it, I sure as hell can.

Edited July 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. I wasn't alone. This isn't something Greg Parker or anyone else recently came up with. The same thing goes for Lee Farley questioning Oswald's alleged bus ride. I questioned that, along with every other aspect of Oswald's supposed post-assassination actions, long before he even started researching this case. And again, there were others who felt the same way.

The original band of critics missed some things, but overall they did a remarkable job of exposing the impossible nature of the official story.

Yeah, I'm sure you did.

The same as they all did. Questioning the timing.

The only early critics worth a dime were Weisberg and Meagher. And neither of those denied it ever happened either.

Your rose-colored revisionist history is bolox.

The only early critics worth a dime were Weisberg and Meagher. And neither of those denied it ever happened either. Greg, I have to disagree with you on that statement. I'm not going to mention many specific persons because there have been so many, I'd probably leave someone out. But I was around back then, being 23 in 63. I have never believed that one person did the assassination alone. Too many stories that came out immediately, that they tried to refute and cover up in the WCR, just made it impossible. The Warren Report itself was contradictory. It's seemed impossible. But first there was Rush to Judgement, followed by 6 seconds in Dallas. Both of these books didn't have all the answers, but it could hardly, legitimately still be argued that JFK was killed by a Lone Nut. So can you legitimately say Lane and Thompson "weren't worth a dime"? Considering the answers they had vs the answers that are known today, I'd say they were very valuable and raised legitimate issues early. I can see no reason to say someone wasn't 'worth a dime' just because they didn't have the answers that we still don't have today, 52 years later.

[Don Jeffries]

Weisberg and Meagher the only worthwhile early critics? That's ignoring a lot of important people. Without Mark Lane's WC testimony, early support from the likes of Bertrand Russell, and his best-selling book, it's doubtful that the critical community would have received much attention from the mainstream media. Vincent Salandria, without writing a book, remains the dean of the research community in my view. Do you cavalierly dismiss him, too? Shirley Martin, as a simple housewife, devoted untold hours to sifting through the morass that is the official record, and clearing the way for the rest of us to follow, decades later. Their names and their contributions will be remembered long after you've gone. There were plenty of others.

Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your admiration of Weisberg, which I share, is fitting. Your personality seems very close to his. Of course, you haven't written lots of important books on this subject, or trudged every day into courtrooms in order to extract documents from unwilling government agencies, like he did. But you are just as enthusiastic as he was about demeaning the contributions of others, and like him yearn to claim credit for yourself where it isn't warranted.

[Jon G. Tidd]

The diary topic is, "Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?"

The discussion has devolved into a typical fight among persons on the CT side of the fence.

It appears to me that DVP rattles fewer cages here than Greg Parker, for example. That's interesting. If the chief perp were one of my clients, I'd back criticism of Greg Parker and ignore DVP. That's just me and my view.

[Kenneth Drew]

The diary topic is, "Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?"

The discussion has devolved into a typical fight among persons on the CT side of the fence.

It appears to me that DVP rattles fewer cages here than Greg Parker, for example. That's interesting. If the chief perp were one of my clients, I'd back criticism of Greg Parker and ignore DVP. That's just me and my view.

Nothing wrong with that philosophy, and of course if you don't like what anyone says, you can always ignore them. On the one hand, Greg does sometimes try to discuss the actual evidence whereas all DVP wants to do is 'Claim the WCR is 'real' evidence and anything the CTer's produce is lies. His philosophy is that whether it makes any sense at all, if the WR said it, it is gospel.

[Ray Mitcham]

The diary topic is, "Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?"

The discussion has devolved into a typical fight among persons on the CT side of the fence.

It appears to me that DVP rattles fewer cages here than Greg Parker, for example. That's interesting. If the chief perp were one of my clients, I'd back criticism of Greg Parker and ignore DVP. That's just me and my view.

Nothing wrong with that philosophy, and of course if you don't like what anyone says, you can always ignore them. On the one hand, Greg does sometimes try to discuss the actual evidence whereas all DVP wants to do is 'Claim the WCR is 'real' evidence and anything the CTer's produce is lies. His philosophy is that whether it makes any sense at all, if the WR said it, it is gospel.

Hallelujah, it's in the good book!

[Greg Parker]

Weisberg and Meagher the only worthwhile early critics? That's ignoring a lot of important people. Without Mark Lane's WC testimony, early support from the likes of Bertrand Russell, and his best-selling book, it's doubtful that the critical community would have received much attention from the mainstream media. Vincent Salandria, without writing a book, remains the dean of the research community in my view. Do you cavalierly dismiss him, too? Shirley Martin, as a simple housewife, devoted untold hours to sifting through the morass that is the official record, and clearing the way for the rest of us to follow, decades later. Their names and their contributions will be remembered long after you've gone. There were plenty of others.

Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your admiration of Weisberg, which I share, is fitting. Your personality seems very close to his. Of course, you haven't written lots of important books on this subject, or trudged every day into courtrooms in order to extract documents from unwilling government agencies, like he did. But you are just as enthusiastic as he was about demeaning the contributions of others, and like him yearn to claim credit for yourself where it isn't warranted.

Firstly, I should have been clearer. I had in mind authors only. Shirley Martin was very good as was ray Marcus.

Re the baker incident - you questioned the timing only. And did you not read the snippet I provided from reclaiming parkland? Jim said twice on one page that no critic ever questioned that it happened. You are right. It's not about me.. But my work has been cited in 7 or 8 books and used uncited in twice as many other cases. In one instance, it's almost a straight copy and paste from this very forum. That says a lot more about those writers than it does me. Readers have a right to know where information is coming from, wouldn't you agree?

It's not hard to do. I found a piece of information posted by someone to FB that was useful to my work. I could easily have pretended I found it myself, but I didn't. I contacted the finder and advised him that i intended to use it giving him credit in my upcoming book. I have likewise for instance given credit to jim Olmstead for the huge influence he had on my work pertaining to the defection. I have also given him credit as coauthor of a defection timeline I put together since I used a number of his points of interest.

Finally, your continued determination to psychoanylise me is noted. Have you misdiagnosed Harold as passive-aggressive as well, or have you finally bothered to learn what it means?

How's the autobiography going by the way?

Edited July 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

My doubts about the Baker story had nothing to do with timing. As I said, I always found it strange that he would have seen something in Oswald's very innocuous behavior to cause him to pull his gun and confront him. Baker also appeared to be the only law enforcement officer in Dealey Plaza to concentrate on the TSBD initially, while everyone else was focusing on the knoll. You should be credited for your research- I assure you that I would credit you in such cases.

We have steered this thread off-course, as was mentioned earlier. And I agree that Greg Paker rattles a lot more cages than DVP, or any other lone nutter does.

[James DiEugenio]

Greg:

You quoted yourself from 2010. As if I saw that.

My original essay on this was from at least 2-3 years before that.

And, I agree, I should have named Weisberg as the only early critic who questioned it. But I probably did not since he did not have Baker's two first day affidavits in his book. I found them on my own.

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

You quoted yourself from 2010. As if I saw that.

My original essay on this was from at least 2-3 years before that.

And, I agree, I should have named Weisberg as the only early critic who questioned it. But I probably did not since he did not have Baker's two first day affidavits in his book. I found them on my own.

No jim, you were right not to name him. Weinberg never claimed it didn't happen. Do we really have to around again on that point? All he did was question the timing.

Maybe I saw your essay? Can you link to it to refresh my memory?

[Greg Parker]

Weisberg and Meagher the only worthwhile early critics? That's ignoring a lot of important people. Without Mark Lane's WC testimony, early support from the likes of Bertrand Russell, and his best-selling book, it's doubtful that the critical community would have received much attention from the mainstream media. Vincent Salandria, without writing a book, remains the dean of the research community in my view. Do you cavalierly dismiss him, too? Shirley Martin, as a simple housewife, devoted untold hours to sifting through the morass that is the official record, and clearing the way for the rest of us to follow, decades later. Their names and their contributions will be remembered long after you've gone. There were plenty of others.

Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your admiration of Weisberg, which I share, is fitting. Your personality seems very close to his. Of course, you haven't written lots of important books on this subject, or trudged every day into courtrooms in order to extract documents from unwilling government agencies, like he did. But you are just as enthusiastic as he was about demeaning the contributions of others, and like him yearn to claim credit for yourself where it isn't warranted.

Firstly, I should have been clearer. I had in mind authors only. Shirley Martin was very good as was ray Marcus.

Re the baker incident - you questioned the timing only. And did you not read the snippet I provided from reclaiming parkland? Jim said twice on one page that no critic ever questioned that it happened. You are right. It's not about me.. But my work has been cited in 7 or 8 books and used uncited in twice as many other cases. In one instance, it's almost a straight copy and paste from this very forum. That says a lot more about those writers than it does me. Readers have a right to know where information is coming from, wouldn't you agree?

It's not hard to do. I found a piece of information posted by someone to FB that was useful to my work. I could easily have pretended I found it myself, but I didn't. I contacted the finder and advised him that i intended to use it giving him credit in my upcoming book. I have likewise for instance given credit to jim Olmstead for the huge influence he had on my work pertaining to the defection. I have also given him credit as coauthor of a defection timeline I put together since I used a number of his points of interest.

Finally, your continued determination to psychoanylise me is noted. Have you misdiagnosed Harold as passive-aggressive as well, or have you finally bothered to learn what it means?

How's the autobiography going by the way?

Greg,

My doubts about the Baker story had nothing to do with timing. As I said, I always found it strange that he would have seen something in Oswald's very innocuous behavior to cause him to pull his gun and confront him. Baker also appeared to be the only law enforcement officer in Dealey Plaza to concentrate on the TSBD initially, while everyone else was focusing on the knoll. You should be credited for your research- I assure you that I would credit you in such cases.

We have steered this thread off-course, as was mentioned earlier. And I agree that Greg Paker rattles a lot more cages than DVP, or any other lone nutter does.

None of your claims amount to denying it ever happened, let alone offering any evidence to back it up.

Instead of worrying about who is rattling cages, I'd be more worried about why you're in one to start with, and why you're content to stay in one. No wonder so many of you have such limits on your thinking.

[Ed LeDoux]

Greg, never tell the zoo animals they are caged.
Natural Enclosure is the correct term.

No wonder DVP is from Indiana. That is where the Indy 500 is run, you know, going in circles all day. It fits him.
As long as he keeps the zoo animals chasing their tails he wins the race!

If anything Greg is rattling your cages trying to wake you up.... H & L

Edited July 26, 2015 by Ed LeDoux

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

Again your responses have the unique ability to ignore what the person you're responding to actually said. My doubts about the Baker encounter obviously do center around it never happening, as indicated by my 1990s-era questioning of why Baker would stop a decidedly non-suspicious-acting Oswald, or why he happened to be the only police officer concentrating initially on the TSBD, while everyone else was rushing to the knoll area. I never mentioned anything about timing.

It's laughable that someone welded so firmly to his own beliefs, and his own curious mission to destroy someone else's theory, can refer to those who disagree with him as being in cages. In over 40 years of researching this subject, I've never encountered anyone else outside firmly committed LNers that is more entrenched in his own cage/box than you.