W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 52 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Oh, brother. First I was told that Mr. Parker was voluntarily staying away from this forum because he felt he had been mistreated. Now you guys say he was banned, no doubt unfairly, because he’s such a stand-up fellow and all. He is still a member here, but he can no longer post-just read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 I'm sure Tom Graves would have given the HL gang a run for their money as well. He started this thread but knew from the start the whole story was just that...a story. I'm not sure if he was banned here as well or just quit. Jim - does it really matter if Greg Parker cannot debate here? He's posted more than enough great rebuttals to the whole HL caper on his own forum, including one that I don't think has ever been mentioned here - that the one and only LHO had roundworm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 I see. And you guys just aren't smart enough to paraphrase his "great rebuttals" here, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 This was added yesterday to the Harvey and Lee website.... One of the FBI's first objectives in the assassination of President Kennedy should have been to determine whether or not other members of government were targeted by friends and associates of Oswald or members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. After Lincoln's assassination in 1865 government authorities focused their attention on possible co-conspirators who were soon identified, arrested, and brought to justice. After the events of 9/11 senior government officials were moved to safety in case a broader attack against the United States was in progress. According to Vice President Cheney, “I got on the telephone with the President, who was in Florida, and told him not to be at one location where we could both be taken out.” Mr. Cheney kept President Bush flying in the air on 9/11 while he and his wife Lynn left on a helicopter for a secure and still undisclosed location. But after President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 the FBI did not launch an investigation to determine if other senior government officials were assassination targets. They did not launch an investigation to determine if Oswald had accomplices, but within 24 hours were preparing a written report to show that he acted alone. This rush to judgment soon became the guiding principle for almost all major U.S. news outlets. Less than a month after the assassination, in a document withheld from the American people for more than 50 years, FBI personnel noted that the policy of the NBC network "will be to televise only those items which are in consonance with Bureau report." The clear implication was that other evidence, potentially conflicting with the FBI's version of events, would be withheld by NBC. Immediately after the assassination, the FBI did not launch an investigation to determine if Oswald visited Mexico City and attempted to secure visas to Cuba and the Soviet Union (they finally began investigating Mexico City in March, 1964). And they did not launch an investigation to determine the possibility of foreign involvement. How could FBI director Hoover, whose priority had always been to protect the reputation of the Bureau, risk criticism by not conducting these investigations? The answer was likely because Hoover knew, as early as 1960 when HARVEY Oswald was in Russia and LEE Oswald was in the USA, that both young men worked for the CIA. And on 11/22/63, when HARVEY Oswald was accused of assassinating President Kennedy, Hoover probably knew or strongly suspected involvement by the US government agency who created the two Oswalds. The full article is available here: Manipulated, Fabricated, and Disappearing Evidence The Harvey and Lee home page is here: HarveyandLee.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Not exactly sure what you mean by that Jim. Evidence is evidence whatever the source. Don't you basically do the same thing? I mean, if you're really a guy named Jim Hargrove and not Armstrong in disguise, aren't YOU paraphrasing JA's own work to support the HL caper? Don't you even paraphrase the Warren testimony, which according to you and many other paranoids on this forum is supposed to be 100% false? Yet, you pull bits and pieces from it to support your story? You know, the "fitting the round peg into the square hole?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said: This was added yesterday to the Harvey and Lee website.... One of the FB So see - there you go again, Jim/John. Paraphrasing the testimony of the so-called false Warren Commission papers. I mean, what else is there to create a murder case...or to create this phony HL story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 This from Greg Parker concerning a possible debate: I can set up a forum here in which no one can post except myself, Jim and any moderator he wants to use. I assume the Ed Forum could do the same, but of course, they would have to lift the ban... I'm happy either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 14 hours ago, Michael Walton said: t's disingenious of Larsen to say that other researchers are flakes when he and others who believe in this fake story are the biggest flakes of all. When did I say anybody was a flake? Never. 14 hours ago, Michael Walton said: In other words don't call someone a flake when you're a flake yourself. This should be directed at yourself. You're the one calling people flakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: EDIT: One suggestion-if you do go ahead with the debate it would probably be better to start a new thread, so it would be easy for folks to find. Another suggestion: Reserve the first to posts. Use the first post for an introduction. Use the second post for a table of contents. So you don't have to read the whole debate to get to the part that interests you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Oh, brother. First I was told that Mr. Parker was voluntarily staying away from this forum because he felt he had been mistreated. Now you guys say he was banned, no doubt unfairly, because he’s such a stand-up fellow and all. And I’m supposed to go over to his obscenity-filled site that he controls and debate him there? The same site where he copied a picture of a respected Ed Forum moderator/author and smeared the copied image of his face with what appeared to be mud... or something even dirtier. Really? About the only time I was there he seemed to be interested more in scatological insults than real debate, declaring that my “face is in my feces” or something like that. You guys are free to wallow in his dirt for as long as you like. I no longer follow any of your links there. Perhaps Mr. Parker can apologize to the moderators here and work something out if he desires to debate me. I hope he does. COWARD!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 So so predictable. Jim cannot do without Sandy and Mr Creepy Angry Man, butting in and confusing the issue. This is the cover he hides behind. Switching topics, tacking and weaving, slipping and sliding and making it up as he goes along. Knowing that his little lieutenants will squawk up to confuse and derail the isuue. You have been offered to debate this under more structured conditions so it can't be side tracked, which apparently you "welcomed""! You've been asked to provide a moderator of your own choosing. You would have had first choice on topics to debate. You have been given a rock solid guarantee that no one else will intervene. Just you and Greg. And yet...we all knew you would try and sneak your way out of it. I thought for a few moments you may have had the guts to go through with it. You didn't rule it out completely but I saw the seeds of your pathetic excuse germinating in your first answer. It's cowardly beyond belief. And it really shows you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the garbage you throw on here every day. I've known for ages that you don't believe in any of this nonsense. It's a job. Like selling real estate. (You actually remind me of the archetypal forked tongue estate agent...) Most independent readers of this forum will take from this that Jim doesn't have the confidence to debate the book he's been trying to sell on here for many years. That's why he's here. To sell books. He will almost certainly dismiss this and point to how few books he's actually sold... ...and with not a hint of irony. Coward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/29/2017 at 2:14 AM, Bernie Laverick said: I propose that Jim and Greg, and Jim and Greg alone, have a structured debate around aspects of the H&L theory, to give them both room to develop their points and counterpoints. I know for a fact that Greg would more than willing to do this and has even suggested that Jim propose someone to moderate, as long as he isn't a full on supporter obviously. Clearly it couldn't be done on this forum, as we have no right or power to prevent other members from joining in if they so wished. Now hear me out here, I have a proposition. This debate could be carried out on ROKC as long as Jim has a strict assurance.... FIXER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 9 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: This from Greg Parker concerning a possible debate: I can set up a forum here in which no one can post except myself, Jim and any moderator he wants to use. I assume the Ed Forum could do the same, but of course, they would have to lift the ban... I'm happy either way. Great! I'm looking forward to this debate, either here or on a neutral site. Let's ask the Education JFK Forum moderators if they would like to work something out so Mr. Parker and I can debate one-on-one right here. Otherwise, we can consider neutral sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: Great! I'm looking forward to this debate, either here or on a neutral site. Let's ask the Education JFK Forum moderators if they would like to work something out so Mr. Parker and I can debate one-on-one right here. Otherwise, we can consider neutral sites. Consider something like this: http://www.debate.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/27/2017 at 4:17 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said: 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. I decide Tracy... And if you don't read the book and don't bother to follow things up... why should I give your opinion any weight? As for Parker's Asperger's theory... exactly... a working theory for which he offer anecdotes... no evidence. As for John's conclusions... again... who the eff are you? How many of the same witnesses did YOU talk to? How visits to the archives to do research for YOUR rebuttals? Ever even SEEN the CD that comes with the book? Tracy... like so many here all you care about it your little bit of attention... the only way to get that attention it appears is to critique others rather than offer your own research time and effort and conclusions up for scrutiny... What do you bring to the table that we've not already heard ad nausea in rebuttal to the mountain of evidence showing the conflicts brought on by the existence of these two men? Nothing Tracy... A bit fact prayer - and as addressed by Sandy... a poorly presented prayer at that... Without H&L and Armstrong... you think anyone would give your postings or Parker's books a second look? As many here have noticed... I've posted and published on virtually every subject in this case... I take the time necessary to research a thing then present it... I've had a great number of authors/researchers whom you probably know send kudos for the Mexico City work I published proving the FBI and the Gobernacion manipulated evidence to supply proof of a journey that was never taken. H&L claims this person was "LEE". After my research I find that this assumption was correct as of the evidence available at the time. The extreme compartmentalization of the project caused conflicts in the way the "evidence" was constructed.... but at no time do I conclude this was LEE... At the same time Tracy... how do you explain all the Alice TX and South Texas sightings of Oswald with a foreign wife and 2 children during the same time? Never mind Tracy... again... rhetorical question... your opinion-based responses truly hold no interest for me... 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