David Josephs Wrote:

Jose Corral Wrote:

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:GP was hear because he wouldn't be civil. Jose, there are some very strong disagreements that go on here. But name calling and rude behavior is not tolerated. Acting like a Greg Parker stand in isn't a good idea.

Just state your position without name calling, and let's see how things go.

I suggest you re-read the rules here Jose, or take your leave. It appears your purpose here is to shill for GP. Proxies, like trolls, are not tolerated on these pages.

Dawn

It seems like unfounded accusations of being a shill, proxy and/or troll are tolerated Dawn. Or is there a rule that states all members of this forum must rally behind David Josephs when he is being mercilessly pummeled for his lunacy? I must have missed reading that one.
I've done nothing against YOUR rules other than give my personal insight and opinion without offending, threatening or accusing anybody of anything. If that is not within the rules then may I suggest you take your leave and make sure that this basic human right is covered in your terms and conditions of your rules and regulations. It may increase your membership and inspire more participation in the future. Do you think you can tolerate doing that, Dawn?

hey there Jose...

Anything that can be shown to be wrong in the evidence presented is always welcome...

What isn't are empty opinions with references to sources that do not discuss the topic....

I'm sure Lifton's idea of surgery prior to the autopsy was considered lunacy for a time as well... To many it still is. But there are little other options to explain what was left behind in the Evidence.

Anna Lewis puts her meeting Lee Oswald in Feb 1962 in New Orleans when he was in Minsk...
Gorsky has Lee exiting the marines in March as opposed to Harvey's leaving in Sept

There are numerous examples of conflicts... CA1961 and CE1962 contradict each other... on for Lee, One for Harvey...

If you can rebut the evidence please do so... the difference Jose, is whether you can present an argument with corroboration so that it can be accepted as an option as opposed to needing to pummel us with opinions without sources and simply yell the same things louder until we say enough...

Show us what you have Jose... if you think H&L is lunacy, you must have sound reasons for thinking so... right?

Albert Doyle Wrote:Very weak Jose. Like Greg you tend to come up short when confronted directly.

Jose Corral Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Very weak Jose. Like Greg you tend to come up short when confronted directly.

Confront your own fears about this ridiculous theory, Albert. Don't ask others to do it for you.

Jose Corral Wrote:Confront your own fears about this ridiculous theory, Albert. Don't ask others to do it for you.

David Josephs Wrote:

Jose Corral Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Very weak Jose. Like Greg you tend to come up short when confronted directly.

Confront your own fears about this ridiculous theory, Albert. Don't ask others to do it for you.

Jose,

We assume you've mastered the use of words in explaining your thoughts, feelings, emotions and reasoning.

we assume you have studied the WCR and it's evidence and conflicts ...
and those who have taken it further... who uncovered info which the WCR framers would rather they hadn't.

Your mastery of this vast amount of information leads you to conclude the first 200 pages do not convince you because..... what??


Surely you can type out one or two conclusions offered in those 200 pages that you believe are "lunacy" and proceed to prove it.
(As if 1 or 2 examples can possibly represent the magnitude of the work)


You're expected to come here prepared Jose... don't those at your job expect the same? This is my part-time job...
What do you have?

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Jose Corral Wrote:Confront your own fears about this ridiculous theory, Albert. Don't ask others to do it for you.

I haven't read Harvey & Lee but I've read extensive discussions of it on these sites.



However in this case I was referring to Greg Parker's never attempting to answer how Bogard could confuse a date where he had a very specific out of town trip he remembered that was associated with the event. Parker tries to correct Bogard and say the test drive happened the next weekend on the 16th.


How many people have you ever heard of who went out and bought an expensive car in order to take a driver's license test?


Which does Oswald's allegedly saying he was about to come across a large amount of money fit? All the other set-ups where Oswald was posed as a maniac or the poor Oswald who never had any money?


Why would Oswald set himself up? And what exactly made Oswald sure he was going to come across a large amount of money?

Albert Doyle Wrote:Jose isn't doing too good on his lunacy claim.