W. Tracy Parnell Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 18 minutes ago, James Norwood said: Charles-Dunn, Stevens, et al. haven't studied the evidence, and it's more fun for them to engage in harassment, as opposed to a civilized discussion. Nobody's "harassing" anyone as evidenced by the fact that your compliant to the moderators produced no expulsions or even warnings as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 35 minutes ago, James Norwood said: Jim, Everything you wrote above is spot on. And, by the way, why can't Charles-Dunne and the other naysayers even make a stab at answering the question raised by David Josephs: Why did the WCR steer clear of the 54-55 school year? ANSWER: Charles-Dunn, Stevens, et al. haven't studied the evidence, and it's more fun for them to engage in harassment, as opposed to a civilized discussion. My apologies, I work, have a life with hobbies and stuff, and at the moment have a person with a fairly serious condition I'm caring for. While I have browsed and have been a member of this forum for over 15 years, I rarely post (although I am feeling more comfortable to post more). I am currently working on some things as far as "reply" goes, but with my "free time" being what it is, it could very well be next week. Never fear sir, your bated breath will not be in vain. That aside, if it's clear I haven't studied the evidence and don't really know what I'm talking about and am only harassing you, why don't you take all of 5 minutes to refute my statements regarding the witnesses? Are you stating some evidence speaks for its self and doesn't require further examination, but other things we need to look closely at? Do you have like a color palette of what requires examination and what doesn't so I know what evidence to just believe without question, and what evidence I should question and look at with a critical eye and apply something even close to a type of "scientific method" to? Does it look something like FBI=question, "witness"=believe without question? Instead of just repeating it, prove it. If I'm wrong, use my examination to prove me wrong. Prove how what I said regarding the witnesses is incorrect. I believe my examination proves that you are incorrect, and have shown it repeatedly. Can you do the same? Or, you could just say it again. The more you say it, the more real it is...I guess... With your comments in mind, why did Josephs come in and copy and paste basically the same thing Hargrove has copy pasta'd on every page, instead of taking as stab at answering some of the questions raised by Mark Stevens? Why did he declare basically the same you did, we're right, your'e wrong "'nuff said,",he knows more than anyone so behold the purveyor of knowledge while also stating he didn't really care what this topic was about, but since he knew more we were going to talk about what he wanted to discuss. I guess, we could discuss topics which have multiple threads dedicated to that very topic, or we could discuss items you have never discussed or looked at critically. To add, lastly, why is it that you all don't have to answer questions you actually raised "if you don't want to," yet here you are demanding I answer questions? 2020 is one weird year. 15 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Nobody's "harassing" anyone as evidenced by the fact that your compliant to the moderators produced no expulsions or even warnings as far as I know. I have not yet been banned, nor have I received any warnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Hi, David, Good to see you posting again! I’ve waited more than 24 hours to respond to your note hoping that Mark Stevens, or Jeremy Bojczuk, or RCD, or any other H&L critic would DARE to respond, but every one of them appears to have run away. My bet is that ALL of them simply HATE looking at Real Evidence®, speaking of which.... Gil Jesus put together a marvelous three minute collection of Mark Lane interviews with Dealey Plaza witnesses showing how the FBI lied about their observations. Short and bittersweet: RIP, Mark Lane I don't disagree that the FBI altered the railroad workers testimony. They did that to a lot of witnesses. Mark Lane was just glad to have witnesses saying there was another shooter over on the Grassy Knoll. He didn't look to close at his evidence. The 10 railroad workers lied. They were not on the railroad bridge contrary to Altgens 7 and later scenes in the Bell film. They said they were on the bridge, but really they were just off the bridge (possibly) and kept off the bridge by Officer Foster. There are 6 examples of the Triple Underpass showing who was on the bridge. You can see that no one was on the bridge (Officer White was on the west side and not visible) in the following: 1. The Towner photo 2. The Bell film 3. Couch film 4. Hughes film 5. Martin film 6. Weigman film They may have lied about being on the bridge, but may have told the truth about what they saw. They were in a location where they could see the Grassy Knoll. Here is where I locate Officer Foster and the 10 railroad men (if they were there and I have some doubt on that). I would guess you could say this was part of the railroad bridge, but this is not what the slow talking, Stetson wearing witness said. He said he was on the bridge about where Altgens 7 places the railroad worker. I doubt the railroad men's testimonies for the following reason. They were railroad workers and would have probably said what their bosses required. The railroad and train companies wanted nothing to do with the assassination. A train there and a possible shooter on the train? That's plenty of reason to get railroad workers near the Triple Underpass to say shooting came from somewhere else. There was a train on the tracks and moving off just prior to the assassination. Officer White said he could not see anything about what was happening in Dealey Plaza when shots were fired. There was a train in the way. This calls into question the testimony of other witnesses over on the Stemmons and sidelines of the railroad. Shots may have been fired from this train. Some thought that. Jesse Curry was one thinking something was happening on the Triple Underpass. He wanted officers to find out what was happening on the Triple Underpass. Again, the railroad workers may have told what they saw truthfully. On the other hand, there is some suspicious concerning their behavior at the moment of the assassination. They were not on the Triple Underpass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 lol...in my haste I forgot why I even came to the thread....I saw that I was thooper scared to answer questions and lollerskated right out of the room! I wanted to pose a thought experiment for anyone willing to participate, whether you have contributed to the discussion thus far or not. I wasn't sure whether to pose it here, another thread, or one dedicated to the question, but... My question is this.... If a Warren Commission lawyer sat down with Robert Oswald, Marina Oswald, Marguerite Oswald (whichever one they talked to ) or any other witness on Tuesday evening, discussed the case with them, presented items "they weren't aware of," and introduced conspiratorial facts, and then interviewed them on Wednesday evening regarding what they recalled, what would be the value of this testimony to you, individually? If anyone wants to make assumptions as to what I'm referring to and start trying to defend people I guess you can do that too, but I am really just curious as to what other peoples position is regarding this type of activity. I personally view it one way, but maybe it's just me...so I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said: DJ has distinguished the difference between the composition of the brick, and the wall. Thanks for that. If the wall is not part of Stripling school, it is irrelevant. Why can you guys never stay on topic? Why is it "you guys" can't follow a logical argument? Stripling's attendance occurs when the WC is supposed to know where he was... 8th grade at BJHS New Orleans. The physical evidence of his attending BJHS in 54-55 conflicts with itself... The pattern is followed 3 years in a row We already have in evidence the conflict with his leaving the marines in March 59 and Sept 59.... There is evidence of 2 different people in a multitude of places... and we've already proven via the dental records that the man buried did not have LEE Oswald's teeth. Is it truly that much of a mental stretch for you to see this duplicity running rampant thru his life starting as early as 1947. If so, again... no skin off me buddy, we're all entitled to conclude what we want... be nice though if you took some time to address the many anomalies I pointed out already like why the 1954/55 BJHS grade cards don't match the permanent record? or the housing location order from Lillian to Myrtle to Exchange Place? The photo from 1954 and 1956 not being the same Marge? The reason why Kudlaty would lie or embellish such a vivid memory (you saying you cannot think of any other occasions where the FBI takes something without record or the altering the record? - Minox Camera remind you of anything? I'm glad you got the brick and wall reference... but you are still microscopically looking at the brick... you can't see a wall... understand?Take a step back and compare what the WCR offers for those years and what independent research does... if you feel BJHS evidence precludes a boy named Harvey Oswald from attending Stripling for 6 weeks in the fall of 1954... so be it... move on already Robert... this inability to see the big picture and then argue the brick's molecular composition as a way of disproving there is a wall... can be seen as a tactic to derail the discussion... what answer would satisfy? The FBI destroyed evidence... Is that a surprise to you? WHY do you think his 7th, 8th and 9th grades are so important? Did they do this deep dive on James Earl Ray? Sirhan? I've looked, no, they didn't. They couldn't have cared less..... But not with the man accused here... the FBI created a thud weight report that said everything BUT Oswald could have done it... As with so much of the "contrary to the gov't report" evidence found by researchers, are you just bothered by molecules or do you actually care about the H&L journey? Peace, DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stevens Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 34 minutes ago, David Josephs said: WHY do you think his 7th, 8th and 9th grades are so important? Did they do this deep dive on James Earl Ray? Sirhan? I've looked, no, they didn't. They couldn't have cared less..... I just wanted to comment on this. Did they have an assignable motive for Oswald? For Ray? For Sirhan? Did any of these 3 people confess to the killing(s) for which they were suspected? Did they need an in-depth study of Oswald to determine what motivated him to kill Kennedy because he denied it? Was he murdered before he stood trial? Did he take the stand and state why he did it, or deny involvement in it? Did they need an in-depth study of Ray to determine what motivated him to kill King because he denied it? Was he murdered before he stood trial? Did he take the stand and state why he did it, or deny involvement in it? Did they need an in-depth study of Sirhan to determine what motivated him to kill Kennedy because he denied it? Was he murdered before he stood trial? Did he take the stand and state why he did it, or deny involvement in it? Are these all fruits, but not all apples? I'm pretty sure I see 2 oranges and 1 apple, but for you it might just be bananas. I mean see bananas.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 17 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said: I just wanted to comment on this. Did they have an assignable motive for Oswald? For Ray? For Sirhan? Did any of these 3 people confess to the killing(s) for which they were suspected? Did they need an in-depth study of Oswald to determine what motivated him to kill Kennedy because he denied it? Was he murdered before he stood trial? Did he take the stand and state why he did it, or deny involvement in it? Did they need an in-depth study of Ray to determine what motivated him to kill King because he denied it? Was he murdered before he stood trial? Did he take the stand and state why he did it, or deny involvement in it? Did they need an in-depth study of Sirhan to determine what motivated him to kill Kennedy because he denied it? Was he murdered before he stood trial? Did he take the stand and state why he did it, or deny involvement in it? Are these all fruits, but not all apples? I'm pretty sure I see 2 oranges and 1 apple, but for you it might just be bananas. I mean see bananas.... Nice tactic Mark.... But nothing to do with why the FBI included in evidence just about every possible worthless item they could get their hands on and then offer no index while spreading the information around so haphazardly as to make it virtually impossible to follow.... I'm sorry you do not see the glaring conflicts with the year 1954 and Oswald's life... As I don't remember seeing an answer, or if I even asked you, Also not sure how a MOLE HUNT thread gets to Stripling... which is why I may have used info used previously.... I'll take some time now and read back to find your questions... I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here... simply to point out the evidence from which conclusions are rendered... What's most sad is someone, anyone, taking the time to question but not the time to research.... this conversation can be picked up on a new thread... We should leave this thread for its intended purpose.... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 4 hours ago, James Norwood said: Charles-Dunn, Stevens, et al. haven't studied the evidence, and it's more fun for them to engage in harassment, as opposed to a civilized discussion. 3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Nobody's "harassing" anyone as evidenced by the fact that your compliant to the moderators produced no expulsions or even warnings as far as I know. On the contrary, Dr. Norwood’s complaint resulted in the complete removal of at least one post written by an H&L critic that contained nothing but personal attacks. I was surprised at the time because all those attacks prompted me to write THIS POST, which began, “I’m not interested in arguing with anyone who just wants to pick personal fights and make ad hominems.” I remember thinking at the time that, with the removal of the offensive post, the context of my follow-up post was gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) To the Attention of: Jeremy Bojczuk Mark Stevens W. Tracy ParnellRobert Charles-Dunne You have been asked a question about why the Warren Commission skated around the issue of Oswald's education in the academic year 1954, and no response has been forthcoming. The reason why this question is important is that Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles insisted on a lengthy biographical overview of Oswald as part of the 888-page final report. Here is the pertinent information that the Commission included about this portion of Oswald's life:"Oswald's inability or lack of desire to enter into meaningful relationships with other people continued during this period in New Orleans (1954-56). It probably contributed greatly to the general dissatisfaction which he exhibited with his environment, a dissatisfaction which seemed to find expression at this particular point in his intense desire to join the Marines and get away from his surroundings and his mother." (384-85) In this passage, the report locates Oswald's in 1954-56 in New Orleans. But if it turns out that he attended school in Fort Worth during the academic year 1954-55, there is yet another gaping hole in the Warren Commission's biography of Oswald. After identifying Oswald's whereabouts in 1954-56, the Warren Report narrative neatly passes on to Oswald enlisting and serving in the Marines, bypassing the precise time frame we are discussing in this thread. Researcher Walt Brown wrote an excellent book called The Warren Omission, in which he demonstrates how the factual information omitted by the Commission should alert us to a pattern of deception and the flawed nature of the report. The omission of coverage of Oswald's education in 1954-55 is one of those omissions, which is why Bojczuk, Stevens, Parnell, and Charles-Dunne have been working overtime to obscure the truth about the facts pointing to Oswald having attended Stripling Junior High School in the academic year 1954-55. Edited July 10, 2020 by James Norwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) One last tidbit for the fearsome foursome.... y'all act as if this kind of thing didn't happen with virtually all of Oswald's "records" when we see duplicity everywhere we look. Below are pages from the Tarrant county permanent school records of all the children who attended school in Tarrant... they're online where with a little patience and some skill you can find most anything you look for...Where is Lee (who hated to be called Harvey) and who is 7 year old Nancy Lee Oswald with Lee's Bday plus a day and why do we not see a LEE OSWALD thru 6th grade? Furthermore, Marge was divorced in MAY 1947 and requested her name revert to Oswald. Wonder where they got EKDAHL for 48-49...??? It sure would be great if people could do just a little research before challenging what they obviously know so little about... Thanks James 49-50 50-51 51-52 Edited July 10, 2020 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Tracy Parnell writes: Quote Nobody's "harassing" anyone as evidenced by the fact that your compliant to the moderators produced no expulsions or even warnings as far as I know. Indeed. Why is this guy so thin-skinned? He seems to be frightened of having his beliefs questioned. Being asked to justify your claims is harassment now, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 John Butler writes: Quote I'm not sure it's a good idea to continue using this [Fort Worth Star-Telegram] newspaper article. ... This article in all probability was retyped sometime in the mid to late 1990's with MS Word. What is important is the small script printing error in this 1963 Fort Worth Star-Telegram material. It is an anachronism. News papers didn't make that kind of mistake in the 60s. The only entity that I know of that did was MS Word from the 1990s. It was either MS Word for Windows 1995 V.7 or Ms Word 1997. This pretty much sums up a large part of the 'Harvey and Lee' methodology. Look for apparent anomalies in every item of evidence you come across. Don't look for alternative, everyday explanations for those apparent anomalies. Don't even explain exactly what the anomalies are meant to signify. I mean, what's the problem with that newspaper article? Why would anyone want to retype it in Word? Even if anyone did retype it in Word, so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 John Butler also writes: Quote the FBI altered the railroad workers testimony. ... The 10 railroad workers lied. They were not on the railroad bridge contrary to Altgens 7 and later scenes in the Bell film. All the films and photographs which show the railroad workers on the bridge are faked now, are they? How were the films and photographs faked? When did this happen? Why would anyone bother? How did the bad guys find the time to fake all of these films and photographs? Weren't they busy enough faking some obscure article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram? Perhaps Mr Butler would kindly fill us in on some of these important details. This is another feature of 'Harvey and Lee' methodology: claim that documents are faked, but fail to give any reasons beyond "those bad guys faked that other thing, so they must have faked this thing too." We saw this with Jim Hargrove's claim earlier in this thread that the FBI "altered a document or two" to cover up a mastoidectomy operation that he imagined was carried out on imaginary doppelganger A instead of imaginary doppelganger B. That was how we ended up with this Stripling embarrassment: Jim repeatedly failed to provide any justification for his claim, and instead changed the subject to the imaginary doppelganger at Stripling, which he seemed to think was his trump card. That tactic doesn't seem to have worked out too well, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 James Norwood writes: Quote You have been asked a question about why the Warren Commission skated around the issue of Oswald's education in the academic year 1954, and no response has been forthcoming. I presume James is referring to David "I may know more about H&L across the entire spectrum than anyone other than John Armstrong himself" Josephs' word-dump on page 29. I'm impressed that James has managed to make sense of it. A few elements of the word-dump stood out for me: "the totality of the evidence ... piece together for you the anomalies ... this school record has been doctored ... a combined record of both Lee and Harvey." It's standard 'Harvey and Lee' stuff: quantity over quality, anomalies, unsupported claims of document fakery, and begging the question by assuming the existence of 'Harvey' and 'Lee'. Robert Charles-Dunne did respond to the word-dump. He reminded the 'Harvey and Lee' believers: Quote When you learn to answer direct questions, such as I've posed - as have at least three others - I'll be here. Until you're prepared to meet that obligation, this thread has been and will remain a disaster for H&L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 James Norwood also writes: Quote the [Warren] report locates Oswald's [sic] in 1954-56 in New Orleans. But if it turns out that he attended school in Fort Worth during the academic year 1954-55, there is yet another gaping hole in the Warren Commission's biography of Oswald. And if, as we have seen, an imaginary Oswald doppelganger didn't attend school in Fort Worth, the gaping hole vanishes. So what? Greg Parker has replied to James's comment. I don't want to quote Greg, or I might get reported to teacher, but James can read the reply here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2215p25-fao-mark-stevens#33849. James is still, I believe, a member of Greg's forum, and will no doubt be keen to defend his beliefs there. I think it's time for yet another massive copy-and-paste of all the 'Harvey and Lee' Stripling stuff. Over to you, Jim! 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