+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? (/Thread-The-Magic-Tonsillectomy-or-Armstrong-s-Voodoo-Science)
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Greg R Parker - 03-04-2014
Lauren Johnson Wrote:In post #139, GP refers to his position about LHO vs. to what I will call the H&L School. Can someone summarize these two schools of thought?
The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!
The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.
But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Albert Doyle - 03-04-2014
I find it hard to believe there woud be a motive for either Marguerite, the Insurance man, or FBI to fabricate a tonsillectomy claim on the form.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Lauren Johnson - 03-04-2014
Greg R Parker Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:In post #139, GP refers to his position about LHO vs. to what I will call the H&L School. Can someone summarize these two schools of thought?
The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!
The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.
But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.
Actually, Greg, you didn't spell out what you think about LHO in any positive sense. You compare the H&L school to the WC. That is an insult.
From my POV, you have made it clear that you have no respect for the H&L school. And yet at the same time, you do not put forth the kinds of things that are in your book. Why? In an IM, you told me, nobody asked. I asking. Greg, start your own thread and put forth your own theses.
To everyone: I wish at times, we functioned like an online journal in the JFK Forum. People submit articles that make an argument with supporting evidence with a conclusion. Respondents are invited to comment by pointing out strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Like Marlene and Dawn have said, these flame wars are just not acceptable.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Greg R Parker - 03-04-2014
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Greg R Parker Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:In post #139, GP refers to his position about LHO vs. to what I will call the H&L School. Can someone summarize these two schools of thought?
The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!
The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.
But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.
Actually, Greg, you didn't spell out what you think about LHO in any positive sense. You compare the H&L school to the WC. That is an insult.
From my POV, you have made it clear that you have no respect for the H&L school. And yet at the same time, you do not put forth the kinds of things that are in your book. Why? In an IM, you told me, nobody asked. I asking. Greg, start your own thread and put forth your own theses.
To everyone: I wish at times, we functioned like an online journal in the JFK Forum. People submit articles that make an argument with supporting evidence with a conclusion. Respondents are invited to comment by pointing out strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Like Marlene and Dawn have said, these flame wars are just not acceptable.
No, Marlene. I compared the fact that on the one hand, the WC dismissed all "double" LHO sightings as in error, while Armstrong seems to have embraced every single one one of them -- and that both positions are extreme, with the truth usually found somewhere in between. The obstinance of heels dug in in the face of justified criticism is a trait of both.
The two areas in common I share with Armstrong are that I believe Oswald was taken to New York City for a purpose outside anything we have been told, and that Oswald never went to Mexico City.
What I have no respect for is people who claim a theory to be fact. Especially so when the theory in question is all smoke and mirrors and large colorful fonts. If this case is to be progressed, it will not do so by everyone being obliged to embrace every conspiracy theory that anyone ever came up with. If I am ever to be part of a Unified Front, it will be because I have "test driven" the vehicle carrying us all and have found it to be mechanically sound.
Yes, you have invited me to post about my book. What I am waiting for are specific questions, otherwise there appears to be no interest.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Greg R Parker - 03-04-2014
Albert Doyle Wrote:I find it hard to believe there woud be a motive for either Marguerite, the Insurance man, or FBI to fabricate a tonsillectomy claim on the form.
This is a perfect example, Marlene, of what I am talking about. This poster is working on the premise that there was a 2nd Marguerite when no such thing has ever been proven.
The premise is largely based on the mistaken belief that John Pic accurately recalled Edwin Ekdahl as being over 6' tall. He was no such thing, and I have provided the documentary evidence here to prove that. As a young man (early 20s) his height was recorded on various documents as 5' 10", 5' 10[SUP][SUB]1/2" [/SUB][/SUP]and 5' 11". It is a medical fact that people shrink with age, so by the time he married Marguerite, he was probably only somewhere between 5'9" and 5'10". Marguerite was only in her 30s so would be at around her peak height. She was likely also wearing heels being as how it was her wedding day. All this other stuff used to support this claim is so mind-numbingly insipid as to merely draw yawns. One was "frumpy" and one was "well dressed"? And that can't be the same woman? Give me a break. She put on weight and took off weight as she aged, as well as shrunk a little. And her manner of dress depended on what work she did. She dressed well for her weddings obviously. As she did when managing various shops. Other photos show here dressed her her "practical nurses" uniform with flat heels.
There was no "second" Marguerite. If people want to speculate about such a possibility, that's fine, but it is wrong (and annoying in the extreme) to talk about this as if a proven historical fact. It is anything but.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Don Jeffries - 03-04-2014
I would also like to know Greg's take on the question of "fake Oswald" sightings. You've noted that you accept he was impersonated in Mexico City, but that wasn't really in the same category, as he was being impersonated there in name only. My question is: which of the best-known "fake Oswald" sightings do you think were real?
I believe you said before that you don't think the Sylvia Odio incident involved someone impersonating Oswald. What is your alternative explanation for that incident? How about Albert Guy Bogard's encounter with a wild-driving, trash-talking "Oswald?"
I'm asking a serious question, and I'm sincerely looking for an answer. Other than Mexico City, which of the "fake Oswald" encounters do you suspect were legitimate instances of conspirators framing him?
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Bob Prudhomme - 03-04-2014
Don Jeffries Wrote:I would also like to know Greg's take on the question of "fake Oswald" sightings. You've noted that you accept he was impersonated in Mexico City, but that wasn't really in the same category, as he was being impersonated there in name only. My question is: which of the best-known "fake Oswald" sightings do you think were real?
I believe you said before that you don't think the Sylvia Odio incident involved someone impersonating Oswald. What is your alternative explanation for that incident? How about Albert Guy Bogard's encounter with a wild-driving, trash-talking "Oswald?"
I'm asking a serious question, and I'm sincerely looking for an answer. Other than Mexico City, which of the "fake Oswald" encounters do you suspect were legitimate instances of conspirators framing him?
If the conspirators had gone with Plan B ( the "let's go bomb the everloving sh*t outta Cuba cuz they killed our president" plan) there would have been crystal clear photos of Oswald in Mexico City.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Lauren Johnson - 03-04-2014
Don Jeffries Wrote:I would also like to know Greg's take on the question of "fake Oswald" sightings. You've noted that you accept he was impersonated in Mexico City, but that wasn't really in the same category, as he was being impersonated there in name only. My question is: which of the best-known "fake Oswald" sightings do you think were real?
I believe you said before that you don't think the Sylvia Odio incident involved someone impersonating Oswald. What is your alternative explanation for that incident? How about Albert Guy Bogard's encounter with a wild-driving, trash-talking "Oswald?"
I'm asking a serious question, and I'm sincerely looking for an answer. Other than Mexico City, which of the "fake Oswald" encounters do you suspect were legitimate instances of conspirators framing him?
If Greg takes up your request, Don, this should be done in a new thread.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Albert Doyle - 04-04-2014
Greg R Parker Wrote:This is a perfect example, Marlene, of what I am talking about. This poster is working on the premise that there was a 2nd Marguerite when no such thing has ever been proven.
No, that isn't at all what I was thinking. What I meant was it was unlikely a tonsillectomy would be mistakenly claimed on the insurance form. What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim? There is a chance that Laza misunderstood Marguerite's explanation of a osteopathic tonsil massage but somehow I doubt it. Greg is ignoring that David spoke to the pharmacist and he said tonsillectomy surgery was a regular part of Dr Philben's practice.
The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science? - Greg R Parker - 04-04-2014
Albert Doyle Wrote:"What is the motive for either Marguerite..." Again, you are working on the premise of there having been 2 Marguerites. I was making no comment whatsoever about the gist of your post, but about how you (and others) depict these assumed doubles as historically proven. They are not.Greg R Parker Wrote:This is a perfect example, Marlene, of what I am talking about. This poster is working on the premise that there was a 2nd Marguerite when no such thing has ever been proven.
No, that isn't at all what I was thinking. What I meant was it was unlikely a tonsillectomy would be mistakenly claimed on the insurance form. What is the motive for either Marguerite, Laza the insurance salesman, or FBI to fabricate such a claim? There is a chance that Laza misunderstood Marguerite's explanation of a osteopathic tonsil massage but somehow I doubt it. Greg is ignoring that David spoke to the pharmacist and he said tonsillectomy surgery was a regular part of Dr Philben's practice.
As for the pharmacist... let's quote him accurately, okay? According to David, the pharmacist said surgery "would have" been a part of his practice. "Would have" is not the same as "was". It indicates a degree of assumption.