Quote:Anthony,

You don't have to accuse someone of being part of COINTELPRO to question their arguments.

Quote:Mr Thorne... when someone comes here TELLING us what are facts and what are not... and has yet to be right once...
while making it a point to discuss tonsils ad nauseum on a forum dedicated to the deep political implications of what and why the FBI produced reams of fraudulent data with regards to the assassination of the president..

Don Jeffries Wrote:Try googling "fake tonsillectomies." No relevant results come up. I'm sorry, but postulating that a doctor faked an operation, as evidently the only way to explain a set of tonsils that shouldn't have been there, is about as credible as inventing a "bunched up coat" theory to explain an inconvenient wound location. Not far behind is suggesting the extremely rare phenomenon of tonsils growing back.

I am at a loss to understand what Dr. Philben's motive would have been, to pretend to remove tonsils when he actually didn't. Greg's premise smacks of desperation, not logic.

Again, I question some of Armstrong's theory. But I have always respected his invaluable research, and there should be no question, in any legitimate researcher's mind at this point, that someone put time and effort into impersonating Oswald in an incriminating way, in the time period just before the assassination. Trying to diminish the significance of these reports does nothing but help keep the impossible official fairy tale on life support.

There are too many researchers, who profess to disbelieve the lone-nut narrative, who nevertheless insist upon questioning the witnesses who first provided the best evidence for conspiracy, and were the impetus for all the original critics who destroyed the official case. If we can't rely on these witnesses, then we have to look at the official "evidence," which was largely mishandled or destroyed. The witnesses who insisted upon reporting information that contradicted the Oswald-did-it myth provided some of the best indicators of conspiracy.

In recent years, many supposedly pro-conspiracy types have tried to repudiate the witnesses who reported seeing the limo slow down or stop, those who saw a bullet hole in the windshield, the medical staff at Parkland who described a huge wound in the back of JFK's head, as well as individual witnesses like Roger Craig, Richard Carr, James Worrell and others who gave testimony that conflicted with the official story. Many even believe Steven Witt is the umbrella man, and downplay any significance this enigmatic figure might have had. Lots of researchers completely accept that both Weitzman and Boone mistakenly identified the rifle found on the sixth floor. It's this kind of collective swing in the research community that I call "neo-con," or neo-conspiracy belief.

I didn't mean to derail this thread, but in my view Greg Parker's curious postulation of a "fake" tonsillectomy to explain unwanted anomalies in the record is vintage "neo-con" thinking. There is no reason to cast aside the credible reports of someone impersonating Oswald, and if you're trying to debate Armstrong's theories, you need to come up with something at least semi-plausible, and not quite this ridiculous.

Quote:There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:


1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.


As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are


the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;




mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;




by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

Albert Doyle Wrote:I think Parker is back on his heels now that David has shown Philben was licensed, did have training in surgery, and was claimed to have done tonsillectomies as part of his pediatric practice by a fellow pharmacist. It seems to me that if Philben was an ideological osteopath he would not have become the staff chief of a hospital that did surgeries as its normal routine. This points towards Philben also doing surgeries back in 1945 as well.

Anthony Thorne Wrote:Don J.

Quote:Anthony,

You don't have to accuse someone of being part of COINTELPRO to question their arguments.

I agree with you. Hence I have no problem with people in this thread questioning, debating or countering Greg P.'s arguments. Equally, I don't think people need to drag accusations of cointelpro into the discussion to do so.

David J.

(deleting the comedy gifs and the bit where David tells me to 'F' off - seriously, isn't DPF better than this?)

Quote:Mr Thorne... when someone comes here TELLING us what are facts and what are not... and has yet to be right once...
while making it a point to discuss tonsils ad nauseum on a forum dedicated to the deep political implications of what and why the FBI produced reams of fraudulent data with regards to the assassination of the president..

Greg P has a longer history in JFK research than just this thread, and your accusation of cointelpro would need to coherently address that to be taken seriously. I'd outline it for you but I don't appreciate being told to f. off or being called a kiss-ass after I simply requested the debate not jump the shark into the final ultimatum of cointelpro dismissals. Also, telling me to go away to another forum is unpleasant to read after I've made any number of useful and constructive posts at this site. (My lengthy reconstruction of the Elinoff saga a year or more ago - frankly a bitch to write and research, and unique to the DPF - was validated in my eyes when the subject under discussion contacted me privately and told me my thread here was very accurate as to what happened). All of this is very easily fixed though. Please stick to disagreeing with or refuting Greg's posts (which, again, I'm fine with if you do), rather than terminating the debate with a cointelpro accusation.

Greg R Parker Wrote:My very first post here in the JFK section was a valid, polite and sensible request for David Josephs to delineate the meaning of his rather odd term "false minutia" and to explain how "minutia" could be left out - or else exactly how it might fit - in the type of "detailed discussion and analysis of H & L evidence" that he was calling for in that particular thread. I can say in all honesty, all I wanted was to know what his limits were so that I could give him that very discussion he wanted.

That post however, was immediately categorized by Jim Hargrove as a "dramatic debut" and an attempt to start a fight.

I admit I don't take the type of shit that's been thrown lying down and have hurled some back... but since attempting to discuss various claims made by Armstrong, I have been told I am a bully (really? One person is able to bully a mob as tight as the James gang?), that I have not produced any evidence, only opinion, that I am an idiot and, that I am part of some cointelpro operation.

I have also been taken to task by a mod - not for anything near as shitty as any of the above - but for daring to point out that a moronic statement was... well... moronic.

I have also had Don Jeffries doing what he does best - miss-characterizing my posts and then seeing a real voice of reason (instead of Jeffries piss-poor impersonation of one), Anthony Thorne, attacked in the usual vile and cowardly manner DJ seems to relish producing.

Meanwhile the only thing cutting through all the bluster from the "other side" has been their occasional laughable attempts to claim some sort of victory. It seems to happen in every other post. The reality is that the ONLY piece of worthwhile information to come from "the other side" has been DJ's belated find that Nut Country lived up to it's name by accrediting these medical charlatans from the early 20th century.

Good man DJ, you got me.

I was relying on this story from '72 and the line saying osteopaths are "no longer being blackballed by the AMA..."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0QpbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ik4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=902%2C1779246

But it is not the end of the story.

This from a pediatrics website

What is a Pediatric Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO)?
A pediatric doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) is a pediatrician who has studied medicine at an osteopathic medical school and has gone on to complete a pediatric residency.
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/health-management/pediatric-specialists/pages/What-is-a-Pediatric-Doctor-of-Osteopathic-Medicine.aspx

So Philben had to complete a residency in order to be called a Pediatric Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.

According his obit, he left Dallas in 1939 or thereabouts in order to complete his residency at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathy. His obit continues that he did not return to Dallas until 1947 - 2 years AFTER the alleged surgery.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24833435

Greg R Parker Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:I think Parker is back on his heels now that David has shown Philben was licensed, did have training in surgery, and was claimed to have done tonsillectomies as part of his pediatric practice by a fellow pharmacist. It seems to me that if Philben was an ideological osteopath he would not have become the staff chief of a hospital that did surgeries as its normal routine. This points towards Philben also doing surgeries back in 1945 as well.

You think? When?