Bernie Laverick Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 16 minutes ago, David Josephs said: 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... Trot along Mr Creepy Angry Man. You're not included in this. This is about the big boys, the ones who have done the appropriate research. It is precisely why I suggested there should be no interruptions in this proposed debate. You absolutely idolise yourself don't you? You see in the mirror an uncompromising warrior single-handedly taking on the entire might of the American intelligence services with your inherent ultra superior knowledge. We see a man in a tin foil hat with quite profound issues... So trot along trouble causer and go check out the alien/lizard moon landing theory instead of wasting everyone's time here with your ill-informed amateur 'research'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) Anyone who doubts DJ's bona fides as a serious JFK researcher should review his work at Jim DiEugenio's KennedysandKing.com. Here is a link to David's articles: The Evidence IS the Conspiracy Edited October 30, 2017 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Question for Ed Forum moderators: A number of members here have expressed interest in seeing a debate between myself and Greg Parker. Would it be possible to have Mr. Parker un-banned, at least temporarily, so he could participate in a one-on-one debate with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Also to moderators.... If above doesn't seem advisable, would any of you suggest a neutral site, and perhaps a moderator, for the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 38 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said: Trot along Mr Creepy Angry Man. You're not included in this. This is about the big boys, the ones who have done the appropriate research. It is precisely why I suggested there should be no interruptions in this proposed debate. You absolutely idolise yourself don't you? You see in the mirror an uncompromising warrior single-handedly taking on the entire might of the American intelligence services with your inherent ultra superior knowledge. We see a man in a tin foil hat with quite profound issues... So trot along trouble causer and go check out the alien/lizard moon landing theory instead of wasting everyone's time here with your ill-informed amateur 'research'. Bernie, that you can even read is amazing. That you understand nothing you muddle thru on these pages is obvious. You haven't been included in any BIG BOY conversations as you wind up wetting yourself, screaming like a child and then holding your breath as you scratch your head in wonder.... you've not contributed one addition thing to these forums other than illustrating yourself as the uninformed, opinionated buffoon you remain after all these years. You and Tracy remain the only ones babbling on and on about work you truly cannot grasp... about evidence that eludes you, about a history you simply don't like or want to accept... Babble on buddy - your representation of the antithesis POV so illustrates the level of thought and consideration you boys put into your work.... At least Tracy and Greg DO SOMETHING... WTF do you do..... other than criticize that which remains so far above your comprehension ? You do nothing Bernie, add nothing but the parroting of your betters while patting yourself on the back for being so "insightful"... maybe a little less self-pleasuring and some actual research and you wouldn't come off on these pages as a complete fool. Go back to the stage... sing your melodies and rock on forever... the tunes you pitch here are worthless... always have been. Until you learn what it means not to be so "half-assed" about the little research in which you do engage and maybe do your homework BEFORE you insert foot into mouth... you'll forever be a lost little boy tugging at the apron strings of understanding this case. but hey... it's all in good fun and for the cause of learning... Love ya buddy... keep up the great "work" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 29 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Bernie, that you can even read is amazing. That you understand nothing you muddle thru on these pages is obvious. You haven't been included in any BIG BOY conversations as you wind up wetting yourself, screaming like a child and then holding your breath as you scratch your head in wonder.... you've not contributed one addition thing to these forums other than illustrating yourself as the uninformed, opinionated buffoon you remain after all these years. You and Tracy remain the only ones babbling on and on about work you truly cannot grasp... about evidence that eludes you, about a history you simply don't like or want to accept... Babble on buddy - your representation of the antithesis POV so illustrates the level of thought and consideration you boys put into your work.... At least Tracy and Greg DO SOMETHING... WTF do you do..... other than criticize that which remains so far above your comprehension ? You do nothing Bernie, add nothing but the parroting of your betters while patting yourself on the back for being so "insightful"... maybe a little less self-pleasuring and some actual research and you wouldn't come off on these pages as a complete fool. Go back to the stage... sing your melodies and rock on forever... the tunes you pitch here are worthless... always have been. Until you learn what it means not to be so "half-assed" about the little research in which you do engage and maybe do your homework BEFORE you insert foot into mouth... you'll forever be a lost little boy tugging at the apron strings of understanding this case. but hey... it's all in good fun and for the cause of learning... Love ya buddy... keep up the great "work" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 David Josephs, I have both the book and CD and I'm unimpressed by the arguments as are many others. I don't care if Armstrong made 10,000 trips to the national archives. That doesn't give him the right to create something out of thin air which is what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) On 10/30/2017 at 10:09 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said: David Josephs, I have both the book and CD and I'm unimpressed by the arguments as are many others. I don't care if Armstrong made 10,000 trips to the national archives. That doesn't give him the right to create something out of thin air which is what he did. WTP, Your personal level of "un-impressiveness" is literally the last thing anyone here cares about.... if at all. Your claim about "thin air" only applies to your rebuttals... if you paid any attention at all you'd know that the wall of evidence supporting H&L and "air" have nothing at all in common. You can't BS your way out of those witnesses to Oswald at Stripling or at 2220 Thomas... You can't claim it was "thin air" when the Marine's own Diaries offer the timing conflicts You can't rebut Allen Felde's timeline You obviously can't add to 127, 200 or 210 You know nothing about school records You probably buy Judyth Baker's story... ======================== Let's revisit "unimpressed" for a second... from you blog: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html you write: "The height in inches of the known object is divided by the same object’s size in the photo. This gives a “ratio” by which the questioned object may be multiplied to find its true height." You believe that the physical measurement on a photo tells you something about the actual distance within the photo? I posted this as reference... So you're claiming that from the 4'6" notch between his nose and mouth, to the top of his head is another 10" to reach 5'4"? Do you realize how big that makes his head? yep, about the same size as the Marine photo below... 13"... once again Tracy you prove yourself incapable of an honest presentation of information or a thorough job. The measurements on a photo are ESTIMATES at best. It works with the Bronx zoo photo since his shoulders and the railing are just about in line with each other... Your "estimation" of this boy at 5'4" is simply indicative of the work you put out and the underhanded manner in which you try to debunk that with which you are so unfamiliar. You do the same to Palmer... do you post the letter back to Lifton? of course not... yet you so easily claim victory Let's actually follow your work thru to its conclusions.... Even a cursorysearch into body ratios tells us that an ADULT HEAD is on average 9" long. That this length is reached by age 15 or so. and an adult's height is 7.5x to 8x the length of the head... at age 10 the head is 7.5" and the child is about 7 heads tall. Look it up... 1st thing that should strike you is the 13" head of the OSWALD MARINE PICTURE. This photo is a deception. Oswald is standing well in front of the wall behind him causing his head to be way over sized... why in the world would THAT photo need to be a forgery? lol. This person with a 13" head and normal ratios (you like ratios) would be over 8 feet tall. and in this instance the measurement is given... just not the deception. So you see Tracy... wading thru the swamp you call a blog for no more than a couple steps I find the same lack of follow-through as you post here. You want so badly for H&L not to affect your buddy's book deals that you throw junk science and bad math at it repeatedly... ============================================ Let's take one more look at this "work"... The report of social worker Evelyn Strickman Siegel is one of the most perceptive assessments of the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald and his mother Marguerite ever produced. The report was prepared by Siegel as a part of LHO’s treatment program after he was remanded to Youth House in New York City for truancy in 1953. Siegel was particularly critical of Marguerite who she found to be a “defensive, rigid, self-involved person.” You go on and on about this report.... how in your "professional" opinion: Siegel is one of the most perceptive assessments of the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald and his mother Marguerite ever produced ?? yet she finds the historically upbeat and happy Marguerite somewhat different - and so much more like the historic descriptions of this other woman taking care of Harvey. but put that aside; So we agree that this boy was at YOUTH HOUSE in Apr/May 1953 for 17 days in fact... yes? He started school on March 23, 1953 and went into YOUTH HOUSE on April 15th. He started school again on May 8 missing 17 school daysThere are only 70 TOTAL DAYS available between 3/23/53 and 6/26/53 for this boy to go to school There are 54 days of summer between Monday 6/29 and Friday 9/11/53. He starts again on 9/14/53 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127 days which equals all the school days from 3/23 to 6/26 PLUS all the summer days thru 9/11/53... plus 2. This boy did not attend summer school - the Bronx zoo photo was Aug 1953 according to Robert who supposedly took it. Carro writes that upon returning from YOUTH HOUSE he goes into 9th grade... this is repeated in a number of reports and by Marge as well... If he RE-ENTERS 9th grade... then he STARTED 9th GRADE in Sept 1952.... WTP - how dat? we go back and start to see the pivotal move to NYC and the complete change in both the boy and his mother... Do you even bother to tell your readers there were 3 PS44's? That Pic describes a school in Manhattan. No Tracy, you don't. You do half-way work and post opinions rather than conclusions.... and YOU'RE unimpressed? that's a laugh Now see, this would make sense since LEE was attending PS 44 in Manhattan while HARVEY is in the Bronx... the following record is a snapshot of the NYC attendance records... After YOUTH HOUSE one sees an entirely different boy... and I do mean entirely different as this boy attends class, is well liked and a general leader as LEE was in elementary school - take a look. So not only do you botch the realities of photogrammetry but you can't add or subtract any group of numbers to justify the FBI's creation of copied attendance records. Tracy... At the core I appreciate the opportunity to post the accurate counterpoint to your deceptive offerings. Bernie is obviously worthless to your effort as all he does is get all worked up parroting what you say as he tries in vain to attack me.... squawk !!! So - after showing the first 2 blog entries of yours I looked at and tore apart - I can't see how anyone takes you seriously.... You can't even add..... Edited March 19, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Another "data dump"! First, I don't "BS" my way out of anything. I can't explain every discrepancy in the record and I have admitted that many times. It is unnecessary since we have scientific and common sense evidence that refutes H&L. The methodology refuting your claims about the Bronx Zoo photo is clearly explained in the article. And you drawing a ruler with Photoshop proves nothing. It is a fact that you can measure things in a photo as is explained as long as they are close together as they are in this case. Try it yourself and see what you get using your own 18 reference for the iron railing. Strickman's report is perceptive in my opinion knowing what I know about the one and only LHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 49 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Another "data dump"! First, I don't "BS" my way out of anything. I can't explain every discrepancy in the record and I have admitted that many times. It is unnecessary since we have scientific and common sense evidence that refutes H&L. The methodology refuting your claims about the Bronx Zoo photo is clearly explained in the article. And you drawing a ruler with Photoshop proves nothing. It is a fact that you can measure things in a photo as is explained as long as they are close together as they are in this case. Try it yourself and see what you get using your own 18 reference for the iron railing. Strickman's report is perceptive in my opinion knowing what I know about the one and only LHO. Of course I tried it dude... just look at the image... your "measurement" of Oswald at 5'4" requires the boy to have a HUGE head... YOUR technique produces a child with a 13 inch head. Sorry, not possible... what you call "data dump" the rest call "offering corroboration thru evidence"... only you and little Bernie can't tell the difference. But go ahead Tracy, explain how the boy had a 13" head using that wonderful measuring technique... Or can't you see that 5'4" minus 4'6" equals 10 inches and that's not even to his chin? Here you go again... we can try and go slower if you need..... you wrote: "Try it yourself and see what you get using your own 18 reference for the iron railing"... uh, Tracy... that's what I'm doing here... do you see the 3rd 18" that makes 54" ... 4 feet = 48 inches so 54" = 4'6" Explain to the viewing audience how it's still another 10" to the top of his head from the 4'6" height.... or how that doesn't create a boy with a 13" head... on the other hand... if he is say... 59" tall / 4'11" and from the 4'6" mark represented a 5" distance... we get an 7-8" face (normal) times 7.5 = 52" to 60" Or how the marine Oswald image also shows a 13" head... and why that was created that way... All you have are your opinions which grow out of poor analysis. You can't stand the NYC records cause you can't explain them away beyond "mistakes were made"... Are you claiming that Carro was simply too stupid to do his job properly to know which grade someone was in? Are you claiming that summer school gets counted as "attendance" despite the child not attending? Are you claiming the child's permanent school record should not contain his stay at YOUTH HOUSE? Tracy - after going to your blog and seeing the extremely poor analytics you employ to create your "conclusions" I truly hope everyone gets a chance to chuckle at what is your interesting attempt at analysis and critique. That blog is a monument to the anti-H&L paranoia you live in daily... be hey, at least John's book gave your life some meaning... The great thing is, if you bring attention to H&L the more people get to find out for themselves... which was John's entire point in the first place... Really Tracy, isn't there something better you can be shedding some light on than boring us to tears with each uncorroborated hail mary post in the hope it dents the H&L evidence enough to satisfy some sense of duty you have to the subject? Bernie thankfully has music... I have more interests than you'd care to think about... but you Tracy. I'm reminded of Thoreau “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Using the method I explained in the article, his head is 11.4 inches. You have never explained where you got the blue ruler or what it is based on. It appears to be just something you estimated. My analysis is based on science and described and I stand by it. I also resent your implication that I have no interests since you don't know me and therefore could not know what my interest are. I think this conversation is over for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: I also resent your implication that I have no interests since you don't know me and therefore could not know what my interest are. I think this conversation is over for now. No, Tracy, the conversation is not quite over. In scrolling through this page, it is obvious that David and Jim are presenting compelling evidence about the discrepancies in height of the two Oswald boys. The evidence includes both photos and documents, and it is only the tip of the iceberg that may be found in the articles on the "Harvey and Lee" website. You are entitled to your opinion that this is a "data dump." But why you don't allow the readers of the forum to make up their own minds? Your only rebuttal is short, unconvincing rejoinders with no evidence to uphold the Warren Commission's findings. The question about your range of "interests" is valid, based on your limited range of understanding of the JFK assassination and the amount of time you spend sowing discord on this forum. When pressed for a demonstration of your own research, your lame response is typically that you don't have the time to delve into a topic. For those readers interested in probing the story of the two Oswalds in depth, please be sure to read the articles at:http://harveyandlee.net/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Kelly Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 John Armstrong's work is impressive and thoughtful. It seems there exists a concerted effort to push back persistently on Jim Hargrove (127 posts later) with no sign of ending. The critique and counterpoints consist mainly of ad hominem attacks. I've read every inch of Harvey and Lee, and try to occasionally learn something new from these threads. This particular thread leaves me with the impression that Armstrong was onto something important here ... and (to quote the Bard's Hamlet) "methinks thou dost protest too much" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 10 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Using the method I explained in the article, his head is 11.4 inches. You have never explained where you got the blue ruler or what it is based on. It appears to be just something you estimated. My analysis is based on science and described and I stand by it. I also resent your implication that I have no interests since you don't know me and therefore could not know what my interest are. I think this conversation is over for now. Tracy, How can you possibly stand by your analysis when it requires a boy's head to be 11.4" in height? The average height of an adult male's head is only 8.4". (Source) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 5 hours ago, James Norwood said: No, Tracy, the conversation is not quite over. In scrolling through this page, it is obvious that David and Jim are presenting compelling evidence about the discrepancies in height of the two Oswald boys. The evidence includes both photos and documents, and it is only the tip of the iceberg that may be found in the articles on the "Harvey and Lee" website. You are entitled to your opinion that this is a "data dump." But why you don't allow the readers of the forum to make up their own minds? Your only rebuttal is short, unconvincing rejoinders with no evidence to uphold the Warren Commission's findings. The question about your range of "interests" is valid, based on your limited range of understanding of the JFK assassination and the amount of time you spend sowing discord on this forum. When pressed for a demonstration of your own research, your lame response is typically that you don't have the time to delve into a topic. For those readers interested in probing the story of the two Oswalds in depth, please be sure to read the articles at:http://harveyandlee.net/ Brilliant!!! At last!!! Some answers. Really pleased you've re joined the conversation, we've not heard from you since, well, since you were challenged to a debate... So someone is now, at last, going to explain how 'Lee's' body ended up in 'Harvey's' grave. Was the exhumation faked, as Jim has hinted at countless times? Or was it just the findings, also hinted at by Jim countless times? Or was the mastoid operation performed on Harvey in NY in 1952/3 like Jim has told us countless times? Or did he just coincidentally have the same operation as a boy when he was in Hungary or Russia, as Jim has told us countless times? Do you not see our problem here? I know it's all about piffling little details like this, and we are just being trouble causers asking for them. What right do we have anyway to question an event that you are 100% sure happened but cannot provide any evidence for? Why won't we just take your word for it? Who needs evidence anyway? It's such good fun and so intoxicating being a "part" of this fantastic story if only the "non believers" (as we are creepily labelled!) would just butt out and leave us to enjoy ourselves. So, once and for all, maybe James would like to offer his opinion as to how the above scenario came to be. I'm not expecting any answers. Abuse? Oh, there'll be plenty of that.... 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