W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 As I pointed out before, many CT researchers believe that LHO was impersonated. However, they do not buy the H&L scenario and realize that type of extreme position is not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 28 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said: You can lose Bolton Ford and still live to fight another day. Lose? LOSE? Hah-hah-hah-hah-hah! See.... The Bolton Ford Incident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: You are EXACTLY RIGHT, Mr. Laverick. There are at least three different ways to explain the mastoidectomy. A fourth, of course, is discussed by DJ when he wonders why a steel reinforced concrete burial vault would fail in less than two decades. Now give me one possible way that "Lee Harvey Oswald's" missing front tooth could grow back in his grave. You ALWAYS forget to mention that! Steel reinforced concrete eh?? Failed?? What does this imply? Does it imply some sort of foul play by unseen hands? That someone broke into the vault to carry out the procedure? (But didn't copy his dental status at the same time? Comedy gold!) So now this explains the identical mastoid? Jim jumps from explanation number 1 to explanation number 3 in record time. Just three posts! But is there any evidence offered...? Any proof? Any documentation? Did any of the exhumation staff go missing? Have you even checked? Shameless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 18 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: As I pointed out before, many CT researchers believe that LHO was impersonated. However, they do not buy the H&L scenario and realize that type of extreme position is not necessary. And as is customary for you, Bernie and others; vague generalities, pronouns, and adjectives... News flash Tracy... that which is "not necessary" is not by definition (other than your own), incorrect. Finally, "belief" has nothing to do with the evidence which supports the two men's existence. One needs to partake in "believability" when one has so little to offer in support of one's position... FACT: LHO was impersonated. FACT: The records disclose the existence of two men whose pasts were merged into one story to explain away the newly minted LONE NUT explanation. FACT: You have not done a fraction of the work nor spoken to a fraction of the people Armstrong did over the course of this 10-year project. You jump to conclusions, you offer little to no supporting documentation or evidence for you position, Bottom line Tracy, you are simply not qualified to offer opinionated criticism... Stick with the exhumation and Asperger's as your pillars... The rest of us will continue to deal with the reality of the evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 Just now, Jim Hargrove said: Lose? LOSE? Hah-hah-hah-hah-hah! See.... The Bolton Ford Incident The point I'm making Jim is this isn't just A N other piece of your jigsaw. Failure to provide even a coherent explanation for the mastoid dooms the entire charade. Disproving the Bolton Ford incident doesn't per se disprove H&L. Not finding an explanation for how 'Lee's' body came to be in Harvey's' grave does. Game over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 12 minutes ago, David Josephs said: And as is customary for you, Bernie and others; vague generalities, pronouns, and adjectives... News flash Tracy... that which is "not necessary" is not by definition (other than your own), incorrect. Finally, "belief" has nothing to do with the evidence which supports the two men's existence. One needs to partake in "believability" when one has so little to offer in support of one's position... FACT: LHO was impersonated. FACT: The records disclose the existence of two men whose pasts were merged into one story to explain away the newly minted LONE NUT explanation. FACT: You have not done a fraction of the work nor spoken to a fraction of the people Armstrong did over the course of this 10-year project. You jump to conclusions, you offer little to no supporting documentation or evidence for you position, Bottom line Tracy, you are simply not qualified to offer opinionated criticism... Stick with the exhumation and Asperger's as your pillars... The rest of us will continue to deal with the reality of the evidence... It doesn't matter how much work Armstrong did if the conclusions reached from that work are nonsense, which they are. And who decides who is "qualified" to offer opinions-you? BTW, Asperger's is Greg Parker's theory, you're getting your H&L critics mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 20 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said: The point I'm making Jim is this isn't just A N other piece of your jigsaw. Failure to provide even a coherent explanation for the mastoid dooms the entire charade. Disproving the Bolton Ford incident doesn't per se disprove H&L. Not finding an explanation for how 'Lee's' body came to be in Harvey's' grave does. Game over! Game over for you, Mr. Laverick, because you ALWAYS forget to mention the Magic Tooth. How did LEE Oswald's missing front tooth grow back in HARVEY Oswald's grave? Why do you always forget to explain that? Here's a reminder about what you always forget. On 10/16/2017 at 7:46 PM, Jim Hargrove said: To my H&L critic friends.... Sworn WC testimony referring way back to the fall of 1954.... Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. Soon after the fight, Voebel took a famous photograph of LEE Oswald that he eventually sold to LIFE magazine after the assassination. It appears to show LEE Oswald with a missing tooth. Here’s a quick guide to “Oswald’s Lost Front Tooth” for vision impaired H&L critics. This will help you see LEE Oswald’s missing front tooth even if you’re nearly blind. First, get yourself a copy of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. You can borrow mine if you can’t find one. Here’s a picture of the cover I took with my cell phone. Second, and this may be a difficult part for you, open up LIFE magazine to pages 70 and 71. Here is what you will see.... Third, get your nose close to pages 70 & 71 and look towards the left side of the big two-page spread. Despite your obvious disabilities, you should see something like this…. Here’s a closer look at that missing upper front tooth: I'll post a brightened version of the same LIFE halftone from the late, great Jack White in a couple of days.... In the meantime, H&L critics, can you find the missing tooth in “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” original exhumation dental photos, currently in the possession of John Armstrong? I didn’t think so. Here’s an LHO exhumation dental photo…. WHERE IS THE MISSING FRONT TOOTH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 I have answered you countless times. It was never missing in the first place. See the corpse! Are they still there? That's the proof. Swapped explanations yet Jim it's been nearly an hour since the last one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Pitiful, Mr. Laverick, just pitiful.... How did the Magic Missing Tooth regrow in Harvey's grave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Does anyone reading this wonder why Ed Voebel’s LIFE magazine picture (see above) of LEE Harvey Oswald’s missing front tooth is such obvious proof there were TWO OSWALDS? ANSWER: Because Voebel sold the picture directly to LIFE! It wasn’t “processed” by the United States government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 14 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: On 10/26/2017 at 5:44 PM, Sandy Larsen said: Tracy, The phony HSCA thing has nothing to do with H&L. All CTers -- even those who reject H&L -- know the HSCA was just more of the same WC bullxxxx. As far as CTers relying on certain HSCA, WC, FBI, and CIA information... just because they all modified and misrepresented some of the evidence doesn't mean they lied about everything. Check Armstrong's book. It is full of references to work done by the HSCA. You can't credibly pick and choose what information you believe and what you don't believe. We all do it, Tracy. Even LNers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Jim, Do you know how I can find the original page that the above snippet is cut from? I consider this to be good evidence that Oswald indeed had CIA ties. But the above snippet is not convincing. It doesn't show that Helms's answer was redacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 10 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said: 10 hours ago, Michael Cross said: We don't even have a debate on this topic. We have the H&L group posting evidence, fact, their RESEARCH, and the detractors posting opinion and misinformation/purposeful misinterpretation. It's pathetic. Josephs and Hargrove have the patience of saints. Correct. There is no debate here. The [H&L] "research" and "evidence" you are alluding to has all been debunked over and over and over again. If the H&L evidence has been debunked as you say, then why don't we ever see that debunking? If you can't prove what you say then STFU. The ONLY evidence you anti-H&L folks have going for you is that the exhumation findings show that Oswald had a mastoidectomy scar. Which supports the theory that there was only one Oswald. Unfortunately for you guys, the exhumation findings ALSO show that Oswald had no missing front teeth. Which supports the theory that there were two Oswalds. The net exhumation findings, therefore, favors neither point of view. All the other evidence supports the two Oswald theory. And we never see anything debunking it from your side. Just your fancied allegations of debunking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said: How do YOU explain the mastoid operation scar found on the corpse? The one that is consistent with the operation we know 'Lee' had. Bernie, Was Lee the only person in the world to have had a mastoidectomy? Isn't it possible that other people had this operation? Maybe even Harvey? Kindly present evidence that Harvey did not have this operation as a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said: I have answered you countless times. It was never missing in the first place. See the corpse! Are they still there? That's the proof. You are again using circular logic, Bernie. 2 + 2 = 5 The proof for that is that the equation says it equals 5. Edited October 28, 2017 by Sandy Larsen 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