Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Well, that poll is meaningless.

Its quite a negative achievement to revive Tracy Parnell, I mean he is an Oswald did it guy from years and years ago.


Pat Speer and Graves are Ok, and they sometimes do good work, but they are quite conservative in their approach.

I mean, please do not tell that that the Carroll guy is Ray Carroll? The guy who said he had a tape of Mark Lane backing down from him at the Wecht Conference? But never produced it? I mean please say it is not him.

Ya it's Ray Carroll. And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L. He was going to find some after we got off the phone and email it to me. Oh well. I guess he must be reading the stuff over there. (I forgot to ask).

David Josephs Wrote:

Vanessa Loney Wrote:Thanks moderator. Although I can't help feeling the warning about attacks on individuals could have come quite a few posts earlier.

All I'm proposing is a fair debate on neutral ground.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14945-Trolls-and-proxy-posts-against-Harvey-and-Lee&p=100336#post100336

Let's take this off this EF thread and see what you got to offer Ms. Loney...

DJ

Don Jeffries Wrote:What's truly incredible are all the good researchers who continue to ignore Greg Parker's irresponsible allegations. He has blatantly accused Jack White of doctoring an Oswald photo, and no one outside of David, Jim H. and I even objected to that. I guess he is confident that none of Jack's survivors are lawsuit-happy. I'm not an attorney, but that borders on slander imho.

Robert Charles-Dunne is a supporter of Parker's, as is Sean Murphy. They are both top-notch researchers, in my view. What is it they're seeing? As I just posted on the EF, almost everything Greg posts serves to dilute the case for conspiracy. I realize he's obsessed with destroying Harvey and Lee, but to reject all the obvious Oswald impersonations, including Sylvia Odio?

I would urge Jim DiEugenio, Albert Doyle, Peter Lemkin and any other interested parties here to rejoin the EF. The management is different now, and they desperately need new voices of reason.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:The thing that bugs me about this is that John's book is something like 982 pages of text.

I mean how many of these people have actually really read it? And the accompanying CD.

Maybe about as many as have read RH?

But unlike with RH, there is a lot of valuable information in John's book. To this day, I think his treatment of the rifle issue is the best in the literature. And his 100 page chapter on Mexico City is up there with the Lopez Report and John Newman's work on the subject. And that is just two points among many of distinction.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Dawn Meredith Wrote:Why should John waste his time arguing with Parker?

You're right. Anyone who tries to get away with saying Oswald's driver's license was an application is a pathetic troll. And any room that doesn't call him on it isn't credible.


I realize from Parker's response that it is a mistake to feed a denial troll any opportunity to practice his deceit. Armstrong obviously isn't giving the dignity of attention to a pathetic troll. Driver's application - sheesh. The reason Parker isn't credible is because while accusing others of not entertaining other options he ignores that the Oswald dopplergangers seen driving around in cars would need a driver's license. This is why David Josephs pretty much beat him in debate and why the EF deniers have to resort to polls to overcome it. Parker's obviously desperate for attention for his blowhard bully skepticism which equals Lone Nuttery. Last post on this since Parker's drivers application bs and the lack of anyone calling him on it should be enough to convince serious researchers to not take him seriously. There's no way the professionals at the Texas Safety & Highway Dept who were trained to identify those things would miss the difference. Both Armstrong and Josephs are quite safe from this creep.


FYI: I didn't open his sycophant troll link.


.

Albert Doyle Wrote:Anyone who tries to get away with saying Oswald's Driver's License was an application is a troll. I remember the paper card type license I first got when I learned to drive. I think there was a temporary permit paper card they issued while you were learning to drive, but that was only for a few months at best so I doubt it would have turned brown from wear or being in a wallet. There was never any "application" card that you carried like a paper driver's license. Parker simply isn't credible on this and is being allowed to get away with bogus excuses he himself would never allow others to get away with. He's dodging recognizing that the Texas Safety and Highway Department employees were trained to notice the difference and would never have made such a basic mistake. Parker is also ignoring the many witnessings of driving Oswald's including Mr Chester at the garage, the many witnesses in Alice Texas, Mrs Whitworth and Mrs Hunter, and many more. I doubt those Oswald's were winging it in Texas with no license. But Parker doesn't have to worry about this because he just denies them all and says you don't have proof. A very Lone Nut tactic.

The only reason Parker is saying it is an application card is because he's trying to make it fit his bogus Bogard scenario where Oswald, who only made peanuts, was going to buy a brand new car in order to take a driver's test when he could have just borrowed Mrs Paine's. These theories are obviously laughable and would get anyone else laughed out of the room, yet Parker regularly gets away with them. Also Parker contradicts the real witness, Bogard, and corrects him telling him he was wrong about which date it occurred. Once again the motive here is for Parker to make the facts fit his theory. Except Bogard says he remembers it was the 9th because that was the day he had to go out of town. Parker ignores this, gives no answer to it, and gets away with it with nobody calling him on it. The Wayne January Oswald and Oswald who left his wallet and wedding ring was not any Oswald who intended to come back and buy a car in order to domesticate with Marina. Parker is the worst violator of his own rules because his need to deny is so strong.

You're not answering the point Vanessa, which is the real site rules violation here. Your proxy trolling for Parker doesn't relieve you of having to do that.


.

Albert Doyle Wrote:The bottom line is Parker is offering something that is overwhelmingly disproven by the facts. My last post was off the top of my head but verified on the money. The only reason Parker is saying it was an application (I think he means temporary permit card) is because he must make it fit his Bogard theory. But Parker is trying to get away with contending the 6 Texas Public Safety & Highway employees couldn't tell the difference between a learner's permit and Driver's License even though they were well-versed in knowing the difference. Also if this temporary permit explained the Bogard incident then why didn't FBI reveal it? Why did they disappear it instead?

This shows that Parker knowingly offers false information in order to get around evidence he knows he can't admit. This is otherwise objectively known as a "liar".