Michael Walton Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Leaving conflicting memories in witnesses minds is one of the main rules in these duality plans... Oh Dave for goodness sake. Where in the world is your citation for this?! This statement of yours is one of the most ridiculous ones yet right up there with your it's CONTRAST and the SLOPING SHOULDERS nonsense. The more fibs and silliness you and others mention about Hardly Lee the more you and others look foolish. So I've gotta ask when will the foolishness end? Do you not realize that the good work others have done on the case is lessened with thid ridiculous story, just like Fetzer did with his craziness? Edited December 4, 2017 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) Hi Lance, You posted my statement below out of context and the effect was to alter my intended meaning: “I think Mr. Armstrong’s article has highlighted how the best and brightest assassination planners in the world appear to have designed the framing of Lee Oswald in such an absurdly inept manner that The Three Stooges should be green with envy.” Perhaps I should have put the word “APPEAR” in quotes. I go on to suggest that the reason that the individual framing elements are so filled with absurd contradictions is that Oswald and his crew, while appearing to follow the instructions from above that would have made it an open and shut case against Oswald, were actually double crossing the assassination planners by creating enigmas for all of us to notice. As far as I can tell, this is not Mr Armstrong’s point of view, but it’s mine. I agree with Mr. Armstrong that there were two Oswald's, but I think the two of them were secretly working together, creating a Banister/Phillips/Hoover/Dulles, nightmare. Tom Edited December 4, 2017 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Oh Dave for goodness sake. Where in the world is your citation for this?! This statement of yours is one of the most ridiculous ones yet right up there with your it's CONTRAST and the SLOPING SHOULDERS nonsense. The more fibs and silliness you and others mention about Hardly Lee the more you and others look foolish. So I've gotta ask when will the foolishness end? Do you not realize that the good work others have done on the case is lessened with thid ridiculous story, just like Fetzer did with his craziness? Who ARE you and why do you keep posting here? When you finally leave this forum to those who actually have something to say... the foolishness stops... But then you come back.... Not since PM and CL have we had posters as lost and uninformed as you... and yet you just keep going a confused and lost little boy who just can't grasp why adults have serious conversations... run along little boy... we're all so sorry this is too tough for you... but it's best to know one's limits.... now, let the adults get back to our regularly scheduled discussions... bu bye now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Who ARE you and why do you keep posting here? When you finally leave this forum to those who actually have something to say... the foolishness stops... But then you come back.... Not since PM and CL have we had posters as lost and uninformed as you... and yet you just keep going a confused and lost little boy who just can't grasp why adults have serious conversations... run along little boy... we're all so sorry this is too tough for you... but it's best to know one's limits.... now, let the adults get back to our regularly scheduled discussions... bu bye now There goes David Josephs again, resorting to insults as he often does. Michael Walton has as much right to post here as you do. If you want to have a discussion with him or refute his arguments go ahead, but please stop the tactics of personal insult. Edited December 4, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 There are any number of reasons to disbelieve the H&L theory and Lance and Michael have provided some good ones. As far as the new article, debunking that mess would take more time than I an prepared to spend right now. But one quick example is the list of people who thought "Lee" could drive. Armstrong does not rely on people like Marina or the Paines who knew the one and only LHO or even the Russian community for his information. He apparently believes all of these very credible witnesses to LHO's history are in on the CIA plot or being paid to lie. He instead relies on a group of people who for the most part had a single "experience" with LHO or think they did. And this is where much of the information for the theory comes from-unconfirmed and non-credible witness statements. So, this new article is a microcosm that demonstrates the problems of the overall theory. BTW, I challenge the H&L followers to document every report about LHO that exists and then make each and every one fit into their theory. If they can not do that, will they then postulate several Oswalds or finally admit the theory is nonsense and you can't believe every report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) On 12/4/2017 at 9:50 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said: BTW, I challenge the H&L followers to document every report about LHO that exists and then make each and every one fit into their theory. It's been done... The book is called HARVEY AND LEE and is available to download for free. It's got footnotes to the sources... relates to the BAYLOR POAGE collection with all of John's notebooks, and there's a CD with thousands of images and docs.... There is a website that Jim H runs with quite a lot of information and repeated thread where people like you Tracy put forth your rebuttal arguments... "Keep It Simple S...." There are more than enough marine records proving Oswald went to Ping Tung There are more than enough medical records for Atsugi for Oswald at the same time. There is no dispute that Oswald was in Ping Tung and did take the ships there and back There is no dispute that Lee Oswald was treated for STDs in Atsugi during the same period There is no dispute that the DoD lied and tried to claim that Oswald NEVER WENT to the Philippines. There is no dispute that GORSKY stated that Oswald left the marines in March 1959 and that all his records were taken to DC... There is no dispute that ALLEN FELDE was with one man while other Marines traveled and bunked with the other There is no dispute that the bio John Ely compiled conflicts with the memories of a great many men who were stationed with Lee Oswald.... and needed extensive alteration and omission before it could be published... The H&L crowd is sick to death of those with just enough info and knowledge to THINK they understand posting like they lived with the man and know his inner thinking... But hey... without Armstrong these people would have nothing to say... and since the whole point was to GO READ THE BOOK YOURSELF... go follow the sources YOURSELF I find it amazing that those like you can continue to deny 98% of the work since 2% is not to your liking... Maybe one's time would be better spent promoting the theories you have... do you have any that don't hinge on H&L? Start a thread and put forth YOUR work for scrutiny... let's see how you do... Or is forging a path where others haven't been just too much for ya? Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 4, 2017 Author Share Posted December 4, 2017 In one short paragraph above, Mr. Parnell completely mangles John's write-up on the driver's license of "Lee Harvey Oswald". To see what John REALLY has written, click on the link below. It only takes a few minutes to read. THE MAN WHO COULD--AND COULDN'T--DRIVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Maybe one's time would be better spent promoting the theories you have... do you have any that don't hinge on H&L? Start a thread and put forth YOUR work for scrutiny... let's see how you do... Or is forging a path where others haven't been just too much for ya? Oh my work is out there for scrutiny and has been for years. I guess you haven't seen my work on Veciana-Bishop. I indeed "forged a path" where others hadn't been. It seems nobody had ever seen Fonzi's original Veciana interview notes or if they had they "forgot" to mention them since they don't support what Fonzi has been saying all of these years. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/gaeton-fonzi-and-veciana-allegations.html I also did extensive research on the LHO exhumation and not just to refute Armstrong but for the sake of clarity. So. I have done plenty of original research, but i suspect you already knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 10 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: In one short paragraph above, Mr. Parnell completely mangles John's write-up on the driver's license of "Lee Harvey Oswald". To see what John REALLY has written, click on the link below. It only takes a few minutes to read. THE MAN WHO COULD--AND COULDN'T--DRIVE I'm not "mangling" anything. The point is, he relies on questionable witness statements to make his points and ignores those who knew the one and only Oswald. Except, of course, when he cherry picks their statements even though he believes they were in on the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 14 minutes ago, David Josephs said: It's got footnotes to the sources.. And BTW, Lance is correct. Many of the sources are incorrect (in other words do not say what he claims) or nonexistent. I checked them myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: And BTW, Lance is correct. Many of the sources are incorrect (in other words do not say what he claims) or nonexistent. That's BS and you know it Tracy.... Many are to sources that could only have been found at the Archives or in his notebooks FROM the Archives.... Thousands of footnotes... and you couldn't find sources? "MANY"? how many is that Tracy? 5%? 2%? 50%? How many of the thousands of footnotes did you check and come up empty or non-corroborative... Please post the work you did... or a link to your blog where you surely made a big deal out of each and every one... by my count you challenge a half dozen concepts... but have nothing to say about GORSKY... or ELY other than "mistakes were made".... You claim to have done the work... show it. Edited December 4, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: ...As far as the new article, debunking that mess would take more time than I an prepared to spend right now. But one quick example is the list of people who thought "Lee" could drive. Armstrong does not rely on people like Marina or the Paines who knew the one and only LHO or even the Russian community for his information. He apparently believes all of these very credible witnesses to LHO's history are in on the CIA plot or being paid to lie. He instead relies on a group of people who for the most part had a single "experience" with LHO or think they did. And this is where much of the information for the theory comes from-unconfirmed and non-credible witness statements. So, this new article is a microcosm that demonstrates the problems of the overall theory... Tracy, Well put. I agree that Michael Walton posts some important objections to the Harvey & Lee CT, and that David Josephs, unable to respond to them, resorts to personal insult. I hope that Michael Walton can regard the personal insult as a compliment -- because it is a failure of David Josephs to respond politely. In any case, I like your example. The many WC witnesses who said that Oswald couldn't drive all knew Oswald personally -- some for years. The few WC witnesses who said that Oswald could drive had never seen Oswald before in their lives -- and their guesswork amounts to "mistaken identity." You and I apparently agree that the Harvey & Lee CT is basically founded on the "mistaken identity" WC witnesses. If (and only if) one carelessly jumbles all WC testimony without careful scrutiny, one comes up with the ridiculous notion of an Oswald who "could and couldn't drive." This then becomes jibber-jabber intended to sell articles by pretending to expose a CIA plot. This CT is embarrassing to the whole JFK CT community, IMHO, and so I am unsurprised that it began with the discredited Probe Magazine back in the 1990's. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited December 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: You and I apparently agree that the Harvey & Lee CT is basically founded on the "mistaken identity" WC witnesses. Thanks Paul and yes we agree that mistaken witnesses (and misread documents etc.) are the core of the theory. The H&L people don't seem to realize that in any complicated case, there will be those that say one thing and those that say another and this is common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Thank you Paul and Tracy I really do liken this Hardly Lee story to the OJ case. Despite all the evidence proving his guilt the jury was either too biased, blind or worst to comprehend the merits of the case. And the biggest thing of all that's missing from the Hardly Lee garbage is a good healthy dose of plausibility and common sense. When you throw those two out with the bath water all bets are off LOL. Paul interesting about the PROBE article. Do you have the link to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 I see that the usual grumblers are here. Contributing nothing, debunking nothing. Carry on. 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