Armstrong on Oswald's Employment at Tujagues

[Greg Parker]

I do not admit anything.

Fact is, Jack, you don't have to. The contrast between these statements:

Having known Kudlaty briefly in 1949 and not having seen him for more than 50 years IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When John Armstrong found and videotaped Kudlaty many years later John was unaware that I had known Kudlaty in 1949,

so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When Kudlaty was interviewed by John, Kudlaty was unaware that in the intervening 50 years I had become interested in

the JFK case, so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Because Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that) IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

and the following statement could not be starker:

Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

Either you lied when you said he "has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate", in which case, your credibility is shredded, or you are lying now

when you say that you only knew "Kudlaty briefly in 1949" and did not see him "for more than 50 years" in which case you credibility is shredded and there was a conflict of interest. The only other option is that you have a huge problem in writing with clarity, but that can be discounted through the evidence provided in your other writings.

Your attacks are transparent. "Get Jack" is your motive. This has gone on for years with others. Now you.

I know you love having people think everyone is out to get you, Jack. But it is your own words that bring you grief. What is transparent is your constant attempts to deflect away from this issues I have raised in this and other threads.

Maybe we could conduct a poll? Who wants to put their credibility on the line by agreeing with Jack that there is no difference between saying you knew someone briefly in 1949 and didn't see them again for 50 years and saying you have been a friend of that person since the '40s when you were classmates and therefore can vouch for their honesty?

Jim Marrs' use of "we" apparently referred to Armstrong...a generic "we" as in "we know that JFK was killed in Dallas".

As in "we" will be happy to believe this if someone will corroborate it?

No threads on this forum are private, proprietary, or owned by the originator. All members are free to post on any thread.

Yay! We agree on something. But what you forget is that there is an expectation placed on the poster to be on topic. "Harvey and Lee" was not the topic of my threads back then and you were asked to start your own threads on that topic if that is what you wanted to discuss. THis and other threads I've started since then ARE on the subject of "Harvey and Lee" but for some reason, you suddenly don't want to discuss that subject.

Who is my "mate" Doug? My only mate is my wife Sue.

Playing dumb now. Okay.

Your attacks are without merit.

They are not attacks, and there is merit in making you, on the one hand, accountable for what you say, and on the other, getting you to discuss the evidence I Have provided which shows Armstrong's theory is built on sand.

Come on. Humor me. We'll take baby steps just one issue at a time. How about we start with this one?

According to Armstrong, DiBenetto described Oswald as "well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair." Armstrong also described DiBenetto as Oswald's supervisor - which makes it sound like he worked closely with Oswald and would therefore remember him fairly well. However, DiBenetto told the FBI back at the time that he had no contact with Oswald in or outside of work http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=12

p.s.

I do find it hard to swallow that you never mentioned to Armstrong prior to the publication of the book that you had known Kudlaty in college. Normal human behaviour would have been to mention it as soon as you learned that Armstrong "found" Kudlaty.

That one too hard, Jack?

How about we try this one:

Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=15

[Greg Parker]

I do not admit anything.

Fact is, Jack, you don't have to. The contrast between these statements:

Having known Kudlaty briefly in 1949 and not having seen him for more than 50 years IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When John Armstrong found and videotaped Kudlaty many years later John was unaware that I had known Kudlaty in 1949,

so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When Kudlaty was interviewed by John, Kudlaty was unaware that in the intervening 50 years I had become interested in

the JFK case, so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Because Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that) IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

and the following statement could not be starker:

Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

Either you lied when you said he "has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate", in which case, your credibility is shredded, or you are lying now

when you say that you only knew "Kudlaty briefly in 1949" and did not see him "for more than 50 years" in which case you credibility is shredded and there was a conflict of interest. The only other option is that you have a huge problem in writing with clarity, but that can be discounted through the evidence provided in your other writings.

Your attacks are transparent. "Get Jack" is your motive. This has gone on for years with others. Now you.

I know you love having people think everyone is out to get you, Jack. But it is your own words that bring you grief. What is transparent is your constant attempts to deflect away from this issues I have raised in this and other threads.

Maybe we could conduct a poll? Who wants to put their credibility on the line by agreeing with Jack that there is no difference between saying you knew someone briefly in 1949 and didn't see them again for 50 years and saying you have been a friend of that person since the '40s when you were classmates and therefore can vouch for their honesty?

Jim Marrs' use of "we" apparently referred to Armstrong...a generic "we" as in "we know that JFK was killed in Dallas".

As in "we" will be happy to believe this if someone will corroborate it?

No threads on this forum are private, proprietary, or owned by the originator. All members are free to post on any thread.

Yay! We agree on something. But what you forget is that there is an expectation placed on the poster to be on topic. "Harvey and Lee" was not the topic of my threads back then and you were asked to start your own threads on that topic if that is what you wanted to discuss. THis and other threads I've started since then ARE on the subject of "Harvey and Lee" but for some reason, you suddenly don't want to discuss that subject.

Who is my "mate" Doug? My only mate is my wife Sue.

Playing dumb now. Okay.

Your attacks are without merit.

They are not attacks, and there is merit in making you, on the one hand, accountable for what you say, and on the other, getting you to discuss the evidence I Have provided which shows Armstrong's theory is built on sand.

Come on. Humor me. We'll take baby steps just one issue at a time. How about we start with this one?

According to Armstrong, DiBenetto described Oswald as "well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair." Armstrong also described DiBenetto as Oswald's supervisor - which makes it sound like he worked closely with Oswald and would therefore remember him fairly well. However, DiBenetto told the FBI back at the time that he had no contact with Oswald in or outside of work http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=12

p.s.

I do find it hard to swallow that you never mentioned to Armstrong prior to the publication of the book that you had known Kudlaty in college. Normal human behaviour would have been to mention it as soon as you learned that Armstrong "found" Kudlaty.

That one too hard, Jack?

How about we try this one:

Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=15

Bumped for Doug who might see his way clear to help Jack out with formulating some answers.

[Jack White]

Parker apparently has not read HARVEY & LEE.

Jack

I do not admit anything.

Fact is, Jack, you don't have to. The contrast between these statements:

Having known Kudlaty briefly in 1949 and not having seen him for more than 50 years IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When John Armstrong found and videotaped Kudlaty many years later John was unaware that I had known Kudlaty in 1949,

so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When Kudlaty was interviewed by John, Kudlaty was unaware that in the intervening 50 years I had become interested in

the JFK case, so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Because Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that) IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

and the following statement could not be starker:

Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

Either you lied when you said he "has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate", in which case, your credibility is shredded, or you are lying now

when you say that you only knew "Kudlaty briefly in 1949" and did not see him "for more than 50 years" in which case you credibility is shredded and there was a conflict of interest. The only other option is that you have a huge problem in writing with clarity, but that can be discounted through the evidence provided in your other writings.

Your attacks are transparent. "Get Jack" is your motive. This has gone on for years with others. Now you.

I know you love having people think everyone is out to get you, Jack. But it is your own words that bring you grief. What is transparent is your constant attempts to deflect away from this issues I have raised in this and other threads.

Maybe we could conduct a poll? Who wants to put their credibility on the line by agreeing with Jack that there is no difference between saying you knew someone briefly in 1949 and didn't see them again for 50 years and saying you have been a friend of that person since the '40s when you were classmates and therefore can vouch for their honesty?

Jim Marrs' use of "we" apparently referred to Armstrong...a generic "we" as in "we know that JFK was killed in Dallas".

As in "we" will be happy to believe this if someone will corroborate it?

No threads on this forum are private, proprietary, or owned by the originator. All members are free to post on any thread.

Yay! We agree on something. But what you forget is that there is an expectation placed on the poster to be on topic. "Harvey and Lee" was not the topic of my threads back then and you were asked to start your own threads on that topic if that is what you wanted to discuss. THis and other threads I've started since then ARE on the subject of "Harvey and Lee" but for some reason, you suddenly don't want to discuss that subject.

Who is my "mate" Doug? My only mate is my wife Sue.

Playing dumb now. Okay.

Your attacks are without merit.

They are not attacks, and there is merit in making you, on the one hand, accountable for what you say, and on the other, getting you to discuss the evidence I Have provided which shows Armstrong's theory is built on sand.

Come on. Humor me. We'll take baby steps just one issue at a time. How about we start with this one?

According to Armstrong, DiBenetto described Oswald as "well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair." Armstrong also described DiBenetto as Oswald's supervisor - which makes it sound like he worked closely with Oswald and would therefore remember him fairly well. However, DiBenetto told the FBI back at the time that he had no contact with Oswald in or outside of work http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=12

p.s.

I do find it hard to swallow that you never mentioned to Armstrong prior to the publication of the book that you had known Kudlaty in college. Normal human behaviour would have been to mention it as soon as you learned that Armstrong "found" Kudlaty.

That one too hard, Jack?

How about we try this one:

Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=15

Bumped for Doug who might see his way clear to help Jack out with formulating some answers.

[Greg Parker]

Parker apparently has not read HARVEY & LEE.

Is that all you can say Jack?

I know what I won't find in it: anything about your longstanding friendship with Kudlaty.

But maybe you can tell me if it contains anything about:

Oswald working at JR Michels?

DiBenetto telling the FBI he had nothing to do with Oswald?

Further, were these former Pfisterer dental lab workers interviewed for the book? If not, why not?

Paul Fiorello

Lionel Slater

John Ulmer

All three contradicted the memory Palmer McBride

What statements by Robert Oswald and Lillian Murret support Armstrong's claims about LHO working at Tujagues from July '55 to the Spring or Summer of '56?

[Greg Parker]

Jack,

in light of your offer to answer questions relating to Harvey & Lee,

I again invite a response to this:

Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=15

[Greg Parker]

Jack,

in light of your offer to answer questions relating to Harvey & Lee,

I again invite a response to this:

Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferre...mp;relPageId=15

bumped in the hope that one of the Two Oswald theorists will have a go at responding to the evidence I presented in this thread. Anyone?

[Greg Parker]

Jack,

in light of your offer to answer questions relating to Harvey & Lee,

I again invite a response to this:

Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferre...mp;relPageId=15

bumped in the hope that one of the Two Oswald theorists will have a go at responding to the evidence I presented in this thread. Anyone?

Bumped again.