Robert Prudhomme Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This place is fast dealing itself out has having any relevance. It is just you and very small band of others giving it any credibility at all. Otherwise it is just becoming a receptacle for doppelganger theories, and endless discussions about bunched shirts and Badge Man, topped off by whatever tabloid excrement Caddy has managed to scrape off the soles of his shoes. Hostility to the physical evidence! JOB #1 of the cover-up. suppression of the physical evidence. Someone hip Mr. Parker to the fact that all murder cases start with examination of the physical evidence. What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? All the posers hate that question. .02% of research material addresses the central issue of the case. They'd rather go chasing red herrings like Oswald... I've actually tried presenting quite reasonable and, I believe, NEW theories as to what became of those two bullets; mostly the back wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 It seemed to me that the posts. (I read them as they were being posted), were promotional padding slanted with a double purpose that is reasonably taken as yet another attack on the forum which I can understand the management reacting to. This is nothing new. People have done it before. Regarding rehashes of things. This is not a scientific journal. With new members and new ways of looking at old stuff it's inevitable that things will be repeated. That's nothing new either. To what extent other members encopurage, and do so themselves, referencing older threads sorts that out. There are sections to the education forum that are specifically for members to post their particular research. I'd just take these subtle and not so subtle attempts to control the forum from outside the admin as something that's happened before and will happen again. And your take would be wrong on each count, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This place is fast dealing itself out has having any relevance. It is just you and very small band of others giving it any credibility at all. Otherwise it is just becoming a receptacle for doppelganger theories, and endless discussions about bunched shirts and Badge Man, topped off by whatever tabloid excrement Caddy has managed to scrape off the soles of his shoes. Hostility to the physical evidence! JOB #1 of the cover-up. suppression of the physical evidence. Someone hip Mr. Parker to the fact that all murder cases start with examination of the physical evidence. What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? All the posers hate that question. .02% of research material addresses the central issue of the case. They'd rather go chasing red herrings like Oswald... I've actually tried presenting quite reasonable and, I believe, NEW theories as to what became of those two bullets; mostly the back wound. Your bunched shirt theory may well be true, but it doesn't solve the case and has not moved it one inch to getting reopened, Cliff. And Robert -- I wasn't talking about theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Greg, I welcome your new look at LHO. New evidence, or a new view of old evidence? Others can debate that to the death. I prefer to see it as a new set of eyes, or a new point of view, in case the material you are providing has, indeed been presented before. If the new information, or the new revelations of what may be old information, causes us to see the other evidence--new OR old-- in a new way, it just MIGHT bring us closer to solving the riddles that surround the JFK assassination. I'm not quite to the Kindle stage yet; I'm not quite a Luddite, but I don't exactly jump at the latest technology, either. But I welcome your series--do I remember you saying it would be a trilogy?--Mr. Parker, and I believe you might just be on the right track here. One of the biggest problems of the JFK assassination is understanding LHO and his motivations...whether he pulled the trigger, whether he was an uninvolved patsy, or whether he was somewhere in between. The H&L story isn't something I find convincing, and right now the tidbits you've shared seem to be important to deciphering that Oswald wasn't the cipher that the Warren Omission claimed him to be. I still believe that LHO was ONE person, and as the old TV show, "The X-Files," used as a tag line, "The truth IS out there." We simply must discover what the truth is. And I welcome Mr. Parker's revelations...whether they're new, old, or overlooked. Not EVERYONE on The Education Forum wants to spend the remainder of their life arguing old arguments about topics that have been argued to death. [in all honestly, I gave up on the H&L thread awhile back, because I saw nothing new emerging there. I look at Mr, Parker's books as something different than that.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This place is fast dealing itself out has having any relevance. It is just you and very small band of others giving it any credibility at all. Otherwise it is just becoming a receptacle for doppelganger theories, and endless discussions about bunched shirts and Badge Man, topped off by whatever tabloid excrement Caddy has managed to scrape off the soles of his shoes. Hostility to the physical evidence! JOB #1 of the cover-up. suppression of the physical evidence. Someone hip Mr. Parker to the fact that all murder cases start with examination of the physical evidence. What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? All the posers hate that question. .02% of research material addresses the central issue of the case. They'd rather go chasing red herrings like Oswald... I've actually tried presenting quite reasonable and, I believe, NEW theories as to what became of those two bullets; mostly the back wound. Yes you have! I appreciate your work in this area -- although resisting the urge to marry our theories is a challenge for us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) This place is fast dealing itself out has having any relevance. It is just you and very small band of others giving it any credibility at all. Otherwise it is just becoming a receptacle for doppelganger theories, and endless discussions about bunched shirts and Badge Man, topped off by whatever tabloid excrement Caddy has managed to scrape off the soles of his shoes. Hostility to the physical evidence! JOB #1 of the cover-up. suppression of the physical evidence. Someone hip Mr. Parker to the fact that all murder cases start with examination of the physical evidence. What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? All the posers hate that question. .02% of research material addresses the central issue of the case. They'd rather go chasing red herrings like Oswald... I've actually tried presenting quite reasonable and, I believe, NEW theories as to what became of those two bullets; mostly the back wound. Your bunched shirt theory may well be true, but it doesn't solve the case and has not moved it one inch to getting reopened, Cliff. And Robert -- I wasn't talking about theories. I don't have a "bunched shirt theory." I'm debunking the "bunched shirt theory." That's like me saying -- "Greg, your two Oswalds theory may be true but..." It's not the fault of the evidence the case hasn't moved forward. It's the fault of the "experts" who can't competently research it. Edited September 14, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) Greg, I welcome your new look at LHO. New evidence, or a new view of old evidence? Others can debate that to the death. I prefer to see it as a new set of eyes, or a new point of view, in case the material you are providing has, indeed been presented before. If the new information, or the new revelations of what may be old information, causes us to see the other evidence--new OR old-- in a new way, it just MIGHT bring us closer to solving the riddles that surround the JFK assassination. I'm not quite to the Kindle stage yet; I'm not quite a Luddite, but I don't exactly jump at the latest technology, either. But I welcome your series--do I remember you saying it would be a trilogy?--Mr. Parker, and I believe you might just be on the right track here. One of the biggest problems of the JFK assassination is understanding LHO and his motivations...whether he pulled the trigger, whether he was an uninvolved patsy, or whether he was somewhere in between. The H&L story isn't something I find convincing, and right now the tidbits you've shared seem to be important to deciphering that Oswald wasn't the cipher that the Warren Omission claimed him to be. I still believe that LHO was ONE person, and as the old TV show, "The X-Files," used as a tag line, "The truth IS out there." We simply must discover what the truth is. And I welcome Mr. Parker's revelations...whether they're new, old, or overlooked. Not EVERYONE on The Education Forum wants to spend the remainder of their life arguing old arguments about topics that have been argued to death. [in all honestly, I gave up on the H&L thread awhile back, because I saw nothing new emerging there. I look at Mr, Parker's books as something different than that.] Thank you, Mark. Originally 3, but now likely to be 4. New information is streaming in and some it you just couldn't make up. I pay homage to the band of fellow misfits and cussers at my forum. This last charge to the end has been a real team effort. And the end really is nigh... What's coming includes (in no particular order): The mission Oswald had to Moscow (conjecture based on certain hard facts) The identity of the kid in Shasteen's barber shop (enough evidence to sink a battleship as my mother would have said) The possible CIA agent stand-in for LHO in Moscow (Priscilla's good looking 6 footer...) The truth about the Marxist pamphlet allegedly given to Oswald at 15 (it never happened, and I explain how I know that) The truth about why Oswald had to be at the Texas Theater (believe it or not, the reason he had to be at the TT is related to the item directly above) Two major clues to an aborted earlier attempt along the route The identity of someone with the motive, means, right contacts ans ability to carry this hit out, and the identity of the major witness he was related to and which has been concealed all these years (checked by two genealogists independently on my behalf) Just who else is the family tree of this witness (absolutely astonishing) There's a lot more besides that... so much, I have trouble keeping track... but what it should add up to is the most accurate and complete picture of LHO yet done, along with a more complete and airtight case against certain individuals then has been put for any individual or group. and lest I forget... PM as the icing on the cake... Edited September 14, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 This place is fast dealing itself out has having any relevance. It is just you and very small band of others giving it any credibility at all. Otherwise it is just becoming a receptacle for doppelganger theories, and endless discussions about bunched shirts and Badge Man, topped off by whatever tabloid excrement Caddy has managed to scrape off the soles of his shoes. Hostility to the physical evidence! JOB #1 of the cover-up. suppression of the physical evidence. Someone hip Mr. Parker to the fact that all murder cases start with examination of the physical evidence. What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? All the posers hate that question. .02% of research material addresses the central issue of the case. They'd rather go chasing red herrings like Oswald... I've actually tried presenting quite reasonable and, I believe, NEW theories as to what became of those two bullets; mostly the back wound. Your bunched shirt theory may well be true, but it doesn't solve the case and has not moved it one inch to getting reopened, Cliff. And Robert -- I wasn't talking about theories. I don't have a "bunched shirt theory." I'm debunking the "bunched shirt theory." That's like me saying -- "Greg, your two Oswalds theory may be true but..." It's not the fault of the evidence the case hasn't moved forward. It's the fault of the "experts" who can't competently research it. Whatever, Cliff. It has still taken us nowhere and doesn't solve the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 It's not that the evidence has taken us no where. "We" haven't done anything of note with the evidence, which, btw, takes me to the gates of Fort Detrick in the search of Persons of Interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I think it's great that Greg has a second book out with new research. A bit of a problem with the threads that were made in frustration, though... We have had a few authors complain that their books weren't discussed. And if I wrote a book, I'd probably feel the same way. Being so tied in with my work, and having others pass it by, or my perception of them passing it by would make me think that there can be no headway in solving what happened, and it would also make me feel horribly unappreciated. But, posting 4 forum threads to show your frustration is a tad excessive. I don't understand the purpose. You know they are going to be hidden, and there will be the resultant drama. There are probably a thousand people who have learned a lot from you, but they don't post a response. Some folks are afraid to ask questions or some maybe think you said it all and a response is unnecessary. That makes sense. Think of it as a class. Sometimes the teacher just teaches, and the students just learn. Also, a lot of folks didn't get into this as early as many of the others did. To them Badge Man, Tum, H&L, etc are interesting, and they want to talk about it. They may not be "there" yet. Let them ask, and let them post. Some of the JFK stuff is, pardon the expression, heady, and some folks just find the lighter concepts more interesting. I'm not complaining, Kathy. I am yielding to the majority. What was excessive was the removal of those threads and then quoting out of context while inserting words that were never said or intended. As should be clear, I have been happy to discuss it with the few who have shown an interest. I am just as happy not to post any new material here. It's not about the book. It's not about sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) From my understanding, Simkin originally opened up this forum for the purpose of authors trading ideas about their books. Or at least one of the reasons was for that purpose. If Greg, or anyone else, has a book out, then he should try and promote it. I mean we all know how hard it is to get a book on the JFK case out there so people can see it and maybe read it. BTW, who was the Stone aficionado who was trying to trash your book Greg? That's interesting. Because as I just wrote over at DPF, I am beginning to outline an article about this phenomenon of the "LBJ did it cycle". Edited September 16, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 From my understanding, Simkin originally opened up this forum for the purpose of authors trading ideas about their books. Or at least one of the reasons was for that purpose. If Greg, or anyone else, has a book out, then he should try and promote it. I mean we all know how hard it is to get a book on the JFK case out there so people can see it and maybe read it. BTW, who was the Stone aficionado who was trying to trash your book Greg? That's interesting. Because as I just wrote over at DPF, I am beginning to outline an article about this phenomenon of the "LBJ did it cycle". Peter Russo. I'd never heard of him. I was tagged into a FB discussion on my book - and then he turned up trying repeatedly to change the subject to a bunch of LBJ books. I gather from other comments that he had a habit of doing this. He eventually got booted from the group and took it out on my by leaving multiple comments at amazon. Your memory on the origins of this are similar to mine. But it was a question of who was using who and for what. Yes, that's a bit cryptic. 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