Sandy Larsen Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/9/2017 at 9:33 PM, Paul Trejo said: I will ask those who have insulted Michael Walton so harshly to recognize the likelihood that he probably regards his own negative remarks as self-defense -- because I have seen some horrible insults hurled at Michael Walton (out of the blue, I thought). Paul, I believe that Michael Walton may be the worst insult thrower here on the forum. As for insults he receives, my observation is that he reaps what he sows. You may not have recognized this because there are so many members insulting you, and you're preoccupied with those insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Bernie HATES THIS. PLEASE DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE!! THINK OF BERNIE!!!! Seriously...you need professional help! I often expect to see Jim's face splattered all over the tabloids. Which school will it be Jim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Since you continue to invoke Mr. Parker as if he matters here, let me offer up the following analysis of Mr. Parker's work from my e-pal of many years. My e-friend thinks Mr. Parker is nothing but a fraud. My e-friend's YouTube commentary is presented here with the express permission of the original poster. Here is what he said about Greg Parker: You have to have a total grasp of where Parker is coming from in order to understand the exact flaws in what he is trying to do... I'm glad however that you once again sussed out the critical flaws in his approach without any understanding of the "Harvey & Lee" background of this issue... Greg is the first person to demand precise methodology and evidence when he is dodging someone else's good claims, but typical of his ROKC group does not demand the same from himself..."Grandiose" might be one way of describing Parker's approach... I have some other words to add.... Because you haven't participated in the general debate you are not aware that Parker is trying to hide symptoms of Lee Oswald being doubled-over by the CIA double "Harvey" behind pseudo analyses of psychiatric conditions.... Parker is trying to portray the anti-social secretive behavior of a CIA spy as being due to Asperger's syndrome, but as you cleverly figured out it doesn't wash according to common sense and Oswald's real profile that Parker avoids by drawing you to his bogus lectures... What Parker isn't being honest about is the fact Lee probably showed those psychiatric quirks because he was part of a CIA program that went back to his childhood and may have even murdered his father.... Because Lee was raised in this intel bubble in a dysfunctional family he exhibited mental traits equal to such an average southern boy in such a situation.... Maybe even Marguerite too.... Parker ignores the true cause and interpretation of this diagnosis in order to contrive his specious Asperger's theory...A wise observer would realize that Parker is making up this Aspergers explanation exactly because he is aware that Oswald's learning of Russian has no good explanation if it was just Oswald alone... Also, Parker is not honestly mentioning that Oswald had no time to learn Russian according to his Marine schedule... Moreover the Asperger's Parker refers to is an extreme condition that displays overt symptoms that military doctors and overseers would not miss... The savant aspects of Aspergers exist in an inverse relationship where the worse the condition the more the individual is able to perform the intuitive skill he focuses on... So just like you said, this would leave the individual unable to perform in the normal range and the Marines do not miss such defects...But even further, in his response Parker seems to confuse what Moorek is saying.... This is typical of Parker because he avoids information he can't give an honest answer to.... Moorek was not talking about Oswald's learning of Russian she was talking about the fact that the Oswald heard in the police station and on radio shows did not have the noticeable southern accent of Lee Harvey Oswald and that it was not linguistically normal to 'unlearn' such a core language feature under Oswald's circumstances... This is what John Armstrong was also saying in his book 'Harvey & Lee' and the explanation for it is that the Oswald you are seeing in those scenes is a CIA double from Manhattan whose family had a background in Russian language through Hungary... Mr Parker is not explaining why his language savant Oswald did not pick-up Spanish in his interactions with the Cuban exiles?...Oswald also showed skill in concealing his covert activities for an alleged Asperger's victim.... Why do you continue to invoke Mr. Parker to defend the Warren Commission? Why is Mr. Parker always endorsed by Warren Commission apologists like you? Do you think any of us believe him? Explain to us why Mr. Parker was banned from this forum, and the Deep Politics forum, and why we should believe you that we should believe him. Why should we consider him to be anything but yet another shill for the Warren Commission, just like you? Just askin'. And is this what you also think Jim? Because if so, one has to ask why a 'grown man' would want to spend so much of his life refuting what an "idiot savant" has to say. See the problem you've made for yourself here? Is it a good use of one's time to constantly try and critique an "idiot"? Why don't you try critiquing someone who isn't an idiot? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time?. Or is it that Greg REALLY gets under your skin because of his major contribution in completely destroying your ridiculous fantasy and the big cash windfall you all hoped would come with it? If not, then we just have to assume that you are the sort of person who seeks out idiots with idiotic ideas and obsessively taunts and goads them. Even better when you know they have no recourse to reply! Not only does Hargrove only feel safe talking to "idiots", he prefers it if those "idiots" can't even answer back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Paul, I believe that Michael Walton may be the worst insult thrower here on the forum. As for insults he receives, my observation is that he reaps what he sows. You may not have recognized this because there are so many members insulting you, and you're preoccupied with those insults. Sandy if you believe truth and rebuttals to fantasy stories like the Hardly caper are insults from me, then that's your interpretation of it. It is important to remember that all far-fetched stories like Hardly must be rebutted vigorously by those with a good dose of plausibility. Otherwise the Kennedy case will be overrun with misinformation like the Hardly story has always been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: 8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Paul, I believe that Michael Walton may be the worst insult thrower here on the forum. As for insults he receives, my observation is that he reaps what he sows. Sandy if you believe truth and rebuttals to fantasy stories like the Hardly caper are insults from me, then that's your interpretation of it. Michael, The only interpretation I have of your so-called rebuttals is that you don't know what a rebuttal is. Your opinion is not a rebuttal. Nor is it truth. Edited December 11, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Sandy the entire Hardly story is fictional so it's important for us who rebut it to do so. There are many people here like Team Hardly who fall too easily for fictional stories. It's similar to the old carnival days and tent shows where they had the Snake Lady. Team Hardly is like the ones who go into the tent eyes wide and mouths agape. They'll be talking about all night on the drive home. Those who rebut Hardly are those who would never even bother stepping into the tent. We know better LOL. Like Barnum said there's a sucker a minute and never has this proven true with Team Hardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/10/2017 at 7:22 AM, Jim Hargrove said: Clearly, though, no amount of "homework," and no amount of evidence would lead Mr. Trejo to publicly admit that there were two "Lee Harvey Oswalds" involved in a U.S. Intel operation when Harvey "defected" to the U.S.S.R. and around the time JFK was assassinated. He just will not admit this sort of thing... No amount of evidence will be sufficient for Mr. Trejo if it points to the fact that the "Oswald Project" was a creature of the CIA. Mr. Hargrove, You are incorrect to say -- and to repeat -- that no amount of evidence is enough to convince me of John Armstrong's H&L CT. I can be persuaded by evidence. That's why I'm on this Forum. Yet the evidence you present is faulty. For example, I challenge the notion that every document that the Texas DPS produces with the name of Lee Harvey Oswald has to be the same Lee Harvey Oswald that was charged in the JFK Assassination. Instead of showing a Texas phone book, you showed a New Orleans phone book, with no Lee Oswald's at all. Then, you again raised the bogus claim of John Wilcott, the accounting clerk. You do understand that we only have his word for his claim; nothing else. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 40 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Sandy the entire Hardly story is fictional.... (Who are you to declare it fictional?) No Michael, the story is entirely true. (Gee, I can do the same thing Michael does.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 11, 2017 Author Share Posted December 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said: Seriously...you need professional help! I often expect to see Jim's face splattered all over the tabloids. Which school will it be Jim? Bernie REALLY doesn’t want to discuss the evidence that the Oswald Project was a creation of the CIA, which is kind of strange since he is willing to imply that I may be a potential mass murderer. He doesn’t seem to be shy. So what’s the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 11, 2017 Author Share Posted December 11, 2017 Multiple witnesses at the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department said that a Texas driver’s license in the name “Lee Harvey Oswald” was returned to their office a few days after the assassination. It was worn and stained bown, as if carried in a brown wallet. Mr. Trejo seems to believe there were more than two "Lee Harvey Oswald's" in and around Dallas in 1963, so let's see if anyone else saw the driver's license and identified it as from one of our boys. Interestingly enough, Fred Moore at the Jiffy Store in Dallas told the FBI he saw “Lee Harvey Oswald” pull a driver’s license out of his wallet when he asked for identification to sell Oswald two beers the morning of November 22, 1963. He also said that this Oswald was wearing a light colored shirt. John Armstrong is able to track the probable movements of the two Oswalds on assassination day in part by noting witness descriptions of their shirt colors; Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald in a dark shirt, American-born Lee Oswald in a light or white colored shirt. See it here: Harvey and Lee on November 22, 1963 Here’s the FBI report on Fred Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 55 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: I can be persuaded by evidence. That's why I'm on this Forum. Paul, The evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald attended both Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans and Public School #44 in New York City simultaneously, during the fall semester of 1953. Do you believe that Oswald had supernatural powers? Or do you believe there were two young Oswalds, with each attending one of the classes? Please do not use Michael Walton's method of rebuttal, which would be merely stating a contrary opinion while ignoring the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Sandy the entire Hardly story is fictional.... Yes you can too Sandy. But we know better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Do you believe that Oswald had supernatural powers? Or do you believe there were two young Oswalds, with each attending one of the classes? Hi Sandy according to Team Hardly it's actually you guys who think Lee O had special powers LOL And maybe they were concocted by the CIAs version of a super secret DR X lab? LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 15 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Why do you continue to invoke Mr. Parker In this case, I thought that he raised a good point and that is why I mentioned it. It is apparent that you are preoccupied with his work against the H&L theory. The fact is that despite your attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with the H&L theory as a WC apologist, there are many CTs who don't believe the H&L theory. Since you are so concerned with Parker, perhaps you should go over to his forum and debate him as Dr. Norwood has done. As far as his being banned here and what tactics he and his followers use, that is his business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 47 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Please do not use Michael Walton's method of rebuttal, which would be merely stating a contrary opinion while ignoring the evidence. Sandy to the contrary on the GEMS thread many many excellent rebuttals were posted. Team Hardly is just too committed to admitting they're right LOL 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