David Josephs Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos: So glad you brought that up Dave... Check the shadows on the nose... why so different with identical shadows on the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 So what up ... You chastise then disappear? I addressed your assumptions again... May need to go back a page since Dave wants to talk shadows and stance... Your story never changes. Assumptions and belief become your facts and then you want these facts addressed. Ya gotta prove something for it to even be considered a fact... When do you get to the substance after all your fluff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos: Quite a difference when the perspective is corrected. don'tcha think, Dave? And still the nose shadow remains straight down. Edited August 18, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) I have proved that Lee's letter to McBride was written in early September 1956. Bull... You proved no such thing... what, your "riots" thoughts proves something? only in your mind mate... both you and Lifton are so tied to your beliefs that the corroborated statements of the Pfisterer's employees hold no weight... only what YOU think counts... right mate? Hard data trumps old and manipulated memories every single time. There were no reported riots in FW in 1958. They happened in Aug/September, 1956 because of federally enforced integration. That is what I proved. And that shows unequivocally that the letter was written in early September, 1956. No historian apart from the likes of David Irving, would stoop to trying to trump that with a bunch of old, tainted memories, cobber. On top of that, you are relying on wishful thinking that there were UNREPORTED riots in 1958 -- riots that had no apparent cause. I have proven that tonsils can grow back. And I showed that only 6% of 5-7 years-olds showed tonsil regrowth within 3 years. I also specifically agreed with you that a 0% chance of regrowth does not exist. I also showed that the regrown tonsils are tiny by comparison... In Russia, Harvey's tonsils were quite normal... how dat? "Normal" as in not inflamed. And you are again relying on wishful thinking that one paper trumps all the other evidence about the regrowth risks. You compound that by trying to use language to fool readers into believing that a small risk is the same as no risk. I have proven that you guys have completely misread the school records. Greg - the only thing you've shown here is you can't add or know what the months of a school year look like. You argue that 12 absent days added to 168 days equals the entire school year... but that 168 is not the # of days he attended? That in the same column as "168" is "89" and "90" and per your own argument, when added back to the 5 (4 + 1) 53-54 absences give us 184 total school days in that year... it was YOU who made this argument yet "89" is now NOT the # of attendance days... ok, whatever. I see you are up to old tricks of completely mangling what you are told in order to knock it down, China. The re ad figure for 54-55 of 168 does indeed represent the days attended. But that is only because he was enrolled the whole year. For that reason, it doesn't work in the 53-54 school year - which is when you actually do need the re ad figure to equal days attended. Bad luck. In counting the days attended for 53-54, you start from the date of enrollment - not the start date of the school year. Your "Harvey was at Beauregard while Lee was at PS 44 in New York" is dead in the water right there. And you knew it back on Oct 6, 2012 when you wrote: "It was you who showed me the records for FALL 1953 at BJHS were really LEE's so thank you for that if I hadn't already posted that (believe I did)... that doesn't make Myra's story any less interesting or the other details of H &L both being in NOLA in 54, 55...." Unfortunately for your own credibility, you took your newfound sane outlook to Armstrong who apparently reminded you that like George Michael, all you need is faith. Did he also threaten you with excommunication unless you started toeing the party line? "I informed Armstrong and have discussed 1953 and HARVEY... he too is reconsidering that one section as it all hinged upon those grades and the 89 days.... so pat yourself on the back IN THIS ONE AREA and keep on bringing it elsewhere..." More later. Edited August 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) reposting Edited August 18, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Unlike Armstrong, I was able to identify the two described as "father" and "uncle". Since they were not related, I tend to think the caller had been drinking too much of the cooking sherry. But I don't entirely dismiss her (though I DO dismiss what Armstrong tried to make of it)/ I explain here http://reopenkennedy...ppit-phone-call I wanted to return to this pile of misunderstanding Parker once again fosters on everyone as FACT... unlike Armstrong, you can't read a report correctly. The two names you get into at your link, "WEINSTOCK" and "(edit M KARDOS"), have nothing to do with the "father" or "uncle". Weinstock as you can read, is an editor at Woman's World while Mardos is the "head of the communists"... she doesn't say that these two are the "father and uncle" she is describing at all... she claims "both were unemployed" kind of eliminates Weinstock, no? you wrote at your link: "The mystery woman mentioned two names, "Weinstock" and "Emile Kardos", said to be Oswald's father and uncle who were Hungarian Communists. She also kept mentioning, without clarification, the term, "brother-in-law"." So once again you go off half-cocked with your assumptions about what is said, when what is actually said has nothing to do with your explanation which you now will forever present as FACT... The reference to "Woman's World" is probably a resullt of two distinct memory lapses (or one memory lapse and one mishearing) Key word being "PROBABLY" as in another of your assumptions without proof. (edit M Kardos), head of the communists, could not be the one supplying these men money... right? At least in her mind? If she knew their names, can we assume she would use them when discussing these two men? Disgraceful Greg. Every time anyone looks at your "sources" or your interpretation of the actual evidence, it's a joke. You then head off into the wrong direction with more assumptions and beliefs which become your "facts to be refuted" - yet still prove nothing. Maybe this woman and the Oxnard woman are related - what with your belief in Radionics and all Assuming that the phone call has any validity at all, I believe this may have been a reference to one of John Pic's brothers-in-law, either George Clifford Parishor John Ebel. "I believe" Greg? and you then offer a silly closed loop corroboration of the info by claiming there are connections where none exist. Link your reader to the document you are paraphrasing so they can see what you are doing Greg... you don't like doing that since you are wrong every single time... Can others read this and come to the conclusion the caller is stating that these two names are the father and uncle... iow your conclusion.... ?? Guess we'll see. Edited August 19, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Unlike Armstrong, I was able to identify the two described as "father" and "uncle". Since they were not related, I tend to think the caller had been drinking too much of the cooking sherry. But I don't entirely dismiss her (though I DO dismiss what Armstrong tried to make of it)/ I explain here http://reopenkennedy...ppit-phone-call I wanted to return to this pile of misunderstanding Parker once again fosters on everyone as FACT... unlike Armstrong, you can't read a report correctly. The two names you get into at your link, "WEINSTOCK" and "(edit M KARDOS"), have nothing to do with the "father" or "uncle". Weinstock as you can read, is an editor at Woman's World while Mardos is the "head of the communists"... she doesn't say that these two are the "father and uncle" she is describing at all... she claims "both were unemployed" kind of eliminates Weinstock, no? you wrote at your link: "The mystery woman mentioned two names, "Weinstock" and "Emile Kardos", said to be Oswald's father and uncle who were Hungarian Communists. She also kept mentioning, without clarification, the term, "brother-in-law"." So once again you go off half-cocked with your assumptions about what is said, when what is actually said has nothing to do with your explanation which you now will forever present as FACT... The reference to "Woman's World" is probably a resullt of two distinct memory lapses (or one memory lapse and one mishearing) Key word being "PROBABLY" as in another of your assumptions without proof. (edit M Kardos), head of the communists, could not be the one supplying these men money... right? At least in her mind? If she knew their names, can we assume she would use them when discussing these two men? Disgraceful Greg. Every time anyone looks at your "sources" or your interpretation of the actual evidence, it's a joke. You then head off into the wrong direction with more assumptions and beliefs which become your "facts to be refuted" - yet still prove nothing. Maybe this woman and the Oxnard woman are related - what with your belief in Radionics and all Assuming that the phone call has any validity at all, I believe this may have been a reference to one of John Pic's brothers-in-law, either George Clifford Parishor John Ebel. "I believe" Greg? and you then offer a silly closed loop corroboration of the info by claiming there are connections where none exist. Link your reader to the document you are paraphrasing so they can see what you are doing Greg... you don't like doing that since you are wrong every single time... Can others read this and come to the conclusion the caller is stating that these two names are the father and uncle... iow your conclusion.... ?? Guess we'll see. Davo, 1. The name of the two gentlemen were Louis Weinstock and Emil GARDOS. It was not Armstrong who discovered the ID of the second man. It was me, 2. You don't know what she said. We are both interpreting her words through the FBI. 3. Yes, I can read, I can also research. Give it a try some day! Despite what the FBI report states, Weinstock was the editor of WORKER'S WORLD not Woman's World. 4. She did use their names. Weinstock and Gardos. She then explained that they were Oswald's father and uncle.She also said the father and uncle lived in Yorkville... a Jewish enclave. Weinstock and Gardos were... what David.... Jehovah's Witnesses? 5. Yes, she claims both were unemployed. Do you believe the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of three is getting paid? What are they putting in the water in Sacramento? It's barely possible he received a small annual stipend, but I would doubt that as well. 6. You don't like qualifiers like "I believe" but then attack when you think something is presented as a fact if you disagree with it. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh, China? I guess you are going to have to phone Armstrong and give him the lecture too. "John Armstrong believes the FBI and the Warren Commission distorted..." "But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover..." "time was of the essence and this material, I believe, was returned ..." "crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe that Westbrook was the person..." therealhardlyleedotnutsitenotthedoppelgangersiteputupbyparker ---------------- I take this as a concession on every other point -- otherwise I'm sure you would have had plenty to say. Not about anything of course. And certainly not directly addressing anything. Just more loud yabber. Edited August 19, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Check the shadows on the nose... why so different with identical shadows on the ground? Are you going to keep pretending you've never seen the Lawrence Schiller 1967 re-enactment video which proves the CTers are nuts when they keep harping on the shadows? Here's the proof you apparently want to forever ignore.... dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/Re-creating The Backyard Photos (1967 Video) ---- jfk-assassination-arguments--The-Backyard-Photographs Edited August 19, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 What Schiller couldn't reproduce was the pose. "LHO": Upper torso vertical. Schiller: slightly angled. "LHO": Right leg angled like it's badly broken. Schiller right leg normal. --------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos: Quite a difference when the perspective is corrected. don'tcha think, Dave? And still the nose shadow remains straight down. Can we be certain that's Lee and not Robert on the left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos: Quite a difference when the perspective is corrected. don'tcha think, Dave? And still the nose shadow remains straight down. Good job, Ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Unlike Armstrong, I was able to identify the two described as "father" and "uncle". Since they were not related, I tend to think the caller had been drinking too much of the cooking sherry. But I don't entirely dismiss her (though I DO dismiss what Armstrong tried to make of it)/ I explain here http://reopenkennedy...ppit-phone-call I wanted to return to this pile of misunderstanding Parker once again fosters on everyone as FACT... unlike Armstrong, you can't read a report correctly. The two names you get into at your link, "WEINSTOCK" and "(edit M KARDOS"), have nothing to do with the "father" or "uncle". Weinstock as you can read, is an editor at Woman's World while Mardos is the "head of the communists"... she doesn't say that these two are the "father and uncle" she is describing at all... she claims "both were unemployed" kind of eliminates Weinstock, no? you wrote at your link: "The mystery woman mentioned two names, "Weinstock" and "Emile Kardos", said to be Oswald's father and uncle who were Hungarian Communists. She also kept mentioning, without clarification, the term, "brother-in-law"." So once again you go off half-cocked with your assumptions about what is said, when what is actually said has nothing to do with your explanation which you now will forever present as FACT... The reference to "Woman's World" is probably a resullt of two distinct memory lapses (or one memory lapse and one mishearing) Key word being "PROBABLY" as in another of your assumptions without proof. (edit M Kardos), head of the communists, could not be the one supplying these men money... right? At least in her mind? If she knew their names, can we assume she would use them when discussing these two men? Disgraceful Greg. Every time anyone looks at your "sources" or your interpretation of the actual evidence, it's a joke. You then head off into the wrong direction with more assumptions and beliefs which become your "facts to be refuted" - yet still prove nothing. Maybe this woman and the Oxnard woman are related - what with your belief in Radionics and all Assuming that the phone call has any validity at all, I believe this may have been a reference to one of John Pic's brothers-in-law, either George Clifford Parishor John Ebel. "I believe" Greg? and you then offer a silly closed loop corroboration of the info by claiming there are connections where none exist. Link your reader to the document you are paraphrasing so they can see what you are doing Greg... you don't like doing that since you are wrong every single time... Can others read this and come to the conclusion the caller is stating that these two names are the father and uncle... iow your conclusion.... ?? Guess we'll see. Davo, 1. The name of the two gentlemen were Louis Weinstock and Emil GARDOS. It was not Armstrong who discovered the ID of the second man. It was me, 2. You don't know what she said. We are both interpreting her words through the FBI. 3. Yes, I can read, I can also research. Give it a try some day! Despite what the FBI report states, Weinstock was the editor of WORKER'S WORLD not Woman's World. 4. She did use their names. Weinstock and Gardos. She then explained that they were Oswald's father and uncle.She also said the father and uncle lived in Yorkville... a Jewish enclave. Weinstock and Gardos were... what David.... Jehovah's Witnesses? 5. Yes, she claims both were unemployed. Do you believe the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of three is getting paid? What are they putting in the water in Sacramento? It's barely possible he received a small annual stipend, but I would doubt that as well. 6. You don't like qualifiers like "I believe" but then attack when you think something is presented as a fact if you disagree with it. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh, China? I guess you are going to have to phone Armstrong and give him the lecture too. "John Armstrong believes the FBI and the Warren Commission distorted..." "But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover..." "time was of the essence and this material, I believe, was returned ..." "crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe that Westbrook was the person..." therealhardlyleedotnutsitenotthedoppelgangersiteputupbyparker ---------------- I take this as a concession on every other point -- otherwise I'm sure you would have had plenty to say. Not about anything of course. And certainly not directly addressing anything. Just more loud yabber. I thought GARDOS WAS DEPORTED FROM THE COUNTRY BEFORE 1950 ??.,gaal. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19360307&id=XRQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1A0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6654,896568&hl=en ============================ Patriots and Proletarians: Politicizing Hungarian ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0773511741 Carmela Patrias - 1994 - History CHAPTER SEVEN 1 Recollections of Emil Gardos, Memoirs of Hungarian Communists Abroad, H-g-i84, IPH (Budapest); Munkas, 21 July 1932. 2 Puskás ... ================= https://archive.org/stream/FBI-Operation-Solo/100-HQ-428091-Serial5916-5985_djvu.txt CGairtel 10/24/66 entitled ^50L0._ IS-C" furnished information indicating that the imminent' return^ of the subject to the United States is anticipated* Chicago should furnish details to Milwaukee and Springfield* Milwaukee and New York should determine if the , subject has returned to the United States. Also determine whether she is working for the Communist Party an<3 in what capacity . Springfield should contact SI 131-S to determine if he has received any information concerning the subject's return but this contact must be made cost discreetly in order to protect CG 5324-S. The Bureau desires to consider some counter- intelligence action against the subject. In this connection, Milwaukee is requested to prepare a blind memorandum setting out all public source data ■ concerning the subject. Handle promptly in order that any counterintelligence action approved by the Bureau will be timely, MA <? A<0h^ £ - Cnlcago NOT Br '"ORBED .X, ig ^55 2 - New York (100-7409) 98 NOV 18 1966 ™ 1 - Springfield (100-9497) _ KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940* s for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 during which she visited her relatives in Los Angeles and Milwaukee, all of whom are active CP members. Her brother is Fred Blair, Milwaukee CP leader. Arrangements were made in late 1964 to take some counter- Edited August 20, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Okay then Greg-O... let's take a look at your supporting evidence. Davo, 1. The name of the two gentlemen were Louis Weinstock and Emil GARDOS. It was not Armstrong who discovered the ID of the second man. It was me, So what Greg... Gardos had nothing at all to do with these men, unless you can post something that connects them 2. You don't know what she said. We are both interpreting her words through the FBI. Yes we are... that you can't undestand what is written in plain english remains our problem as you continue to push your poor understanding of the evidence at every chance. 3. Yes, I can read, I can also research. Give it a try some day! Despite what the FBI report states, Weinstock was the editor of WORKER'S WORLD not Woman's World. Again Greg-O... so what? Connect Weinstck to either "father" or "uncle" with evidence... since this report does no such thing. 4. She did use their names. Weinstock and Gardos. She then explained that they were Oswald's father and uncle.She also said the father and uncle lived in Yorkville... a Jewish enclave. Weinstock and Gardos were... what David.... Jehovah's Witnesses? Please point out below or with some new evidence where she "explains" that these two men are "father" and "uncle"... this report says no such thing 5. Yes, she claims both were unemployed. Do you believe the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of three is getting paid? What are they putting in the water in Sacramento? It's barely possible he received a small annual stipend, but I would doubt that as well. Connect the editor to THIS report about dad and his brother... or post another document that does. At this point, like all points, you are guessing again. Speculating based on incorrect reading of the material... well done mate... 6. You don't like qualifiers like "I believe" but then attack when you think something is presented as a fact if you disagree with it. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh, China? You qualify with "I believe" since you have nothing to PROVE IT. You "believe" since the report tells us something completely different so you must believe, you must have FAITH. Only way to avoid having to prove anything. I guess you are going to have to phone Armstrong and give him the lecture too. Yes grego... as a result of the EVIDENCE OFFERED IN THE BOOK, he believes... when and IF you post the evidence from which YOU BELIEVE we always find you've either misinterprested it or the evidence does not say what you claim it does. why is that? His belief on the other hand is evidence based versus yours which is FAITH based.... Problem being you don't know the difference nor it seems will ever learn there is a difference. "crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe " Tell us Greg-O... where are your crucial pieces of evidence as YOUR reason to believe... you don't ever seem to post those... why is that? "John Armstrong believes the FBI and the Warren Commission distorted..." "But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover..." "time was of the essence and this material, I believe, was returned ..." "crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe that Westbrook was the person..." therealhardlyleedotnutsitenotthedoppelgangersiteputupbyparker ---------------- I take this as a concession on every other point -- otherwise I'm sure you would have had plenty to say. Not about anything of course. And certainly not directly addressing anything. Just more loud yabber. Of course you do Greg. That's what Faith-based believers do. You assume victory since there is nothing evidentiary with which they can defend yourself. And then you go about claiming what you've done is establish FACTS when all you've done is BELIEVE something to be true and present it as such... then get all indignant when confronted with the truth of the situation. So we wind up discussing your faith-based conclusions as if they were ever proven.. And yet, you never seem to actually PROVE anything... do you? Concede this mate... Can provide your rationale for concluding the two names mentioned and the father/uncle are connected?... or we just supposed to have faith in your analysis and word? as well as understanding why you don't post links to the source materials you "explain" to us. Too afraid they'll see you for the "faith-based" researcher you are? Well done Greg-O... two names are given, two relations are mentioned so they MUST be connected, even though that's not what it says on paper, but only in your narrowly focused, preconcluded thought process which pits you against the Evidence at all costs. Well done mate. You've dug a perfectly good and deep hole for yourself here. Keep shoveling it Greg-O, as I BELIEVE from your posts that's all you know how to do... Shovel away. if you forgot already - you're going to offer us the evidence which connects Weinstock and Gardos to the father/uncle mentioned by this report of what she said. Have at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 yeah... exactly as I thought... nothing to say when you're wrong but a flipping mountain when you think someone else is... Have you finally figured out that your arguments are worthless, baseless assumptions which you believe are facts? Then you proceed as if you've proven them as facts and ask us to refute them... You only post Tautology Gregarino... and then have no idea what the word means... like your use of "irony". In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion. I see you posting elsewhere, so related to this topic, You must be busy praying at the alter of your faith-based beliefs and assumptions rather than actually look for supporting evidence or learning how to read (or post for that matter) a FBI report. Take your time... Faith sometimes requires sacrifice... but no worries - it also means never having to explain yourself in the real world again. Just believe and all your assumptions become facts and all arguments against become heresy... Nice new cointelpro tactic Greggie-O... You've established quite a rep for yourself... The old "hit 'em with unfounded Faith and Belief, then run" ploy... Agent 99 would be so proud of you Max... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Wow! Who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, cob? Look, it's quite simple. Armstrong - for what ever reason - decided that the father and uncle were not Weinstock and "Kardos". But the report states that "she knew Oswald's father and uncle..." Are you seriously suggesting that she knew them, went to the trouble of phoning someone to report them, but didn't actually know their names, or decided to with-hold them, and just gave out the names of two random communists? Armstrong is entitled to believe the above scenario, even tho it defies logic. As for the rest, it is your usual MO when you have nothing. Ignore it. Stay away for a while. Come back. Attack me. Project your own shortcomings at 4000 lumins - all while picking one point out to address or completely changing subject. You are as predictable as day following night. 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