+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? (/thread-5051.html)
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Dawn Meredith - 19-10-2015
Are people from Parker's forum coming here with an agenda?
Really easy to trash a dead cop who is a hero to me. (Scully).
Roger Craig tried to do the right thing and paid for his courage with his life. I have not ever believed it was suicide.
As for all the criticism of JA, John is the first person to say "prove me wrong". Do your own research and if the dots he's connected don't add up, show how and why.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Tom Scully - 19-10-2015
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Tom....
I'm not quite sure what your points are ......
Albert Doyle Wrote:Tom Scully Wrote:My point about the driver was that Craig described that person as negro, latin, and a white man. IMO, presenting Craig at all is worse than not mentioning him, and presenting him as "never changed his account," is obnoxious or just irresponsible.
In my opinion it is irresponsible to ignore the multiple other witnesses who confirmed the event.
I don't understand you Tom. You don't seem to be practicing sound analysis. .
I couldn't make it any plainer. John Armstrong makes statements through Jim Hargrove that depart from the actual record of Roger Craig's statements, which I also provided. In response, Jim quotes author James Douglass's quotes of others and Doyle quotes nobody.
John Armstrong describes Roger Craig as a rock solid source. Jim and Doyle are fine with that. I'm not, and I shared why I am not. It is not about me, as I presented Roger Craig in his own words, I excerpted the report of his autopsy, and I posted an opinion of Craig attributed to his daughter. I did not bring Roger Craig up. He was featured by John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove. If you embrace Roger Craigs claims because you believe he never changed what he said, it is difficult to take you seriously.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Tom Scully - 19-10-2015
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Are people from Parker's forum coming here with an agenda?
Really easy to trash a dead cop who is a hero to me. (Scully).
Roger Craig tried to do the right thing and paid for his courage with his life. I have not ever believed it was suicide.
As for all the criticism of JA, John is the first person to say "prove me wrong". Do your own research and if the dots he's connected don't add up, show how and why.
Dawn, I responded to this, ("Roger Craig never changed his account") and I included quite a bit of evidence of why I think it is unreliable. If you think your reply is fair and adequate, hinting that I must be siding with Parker and disrespecting the memory of a "dead cop," it seems it would be best for me not to post here, anymore.
I only know one way to participate, it is transparent, and sincere. I apologize if I've failed to convince you of that. I know
the drill when what I post is taken in a way other than being about the facts. I am always prepared for the consequences,
so I am surprised at your choice of wording in your post, because I assumed you knew that, about me.
Quote:Robert Charles-Dunne - Posted 16 June 2013
.....The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum's raison d'etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be......
Jim Hargrove Wrote:John has made a number of major revisions and additions to the Harvey and Lee Depart the TSBD page of our website. My favorite new material, which actually comes after the "Harvey Oswald at DPD Headquarters" heading, is the following about Roger Craig.
============== QUOTE ON ==================
..........................
THE FATE OF ROGER CRAIG
Roger Craig never changed his account of what he witnessed and experienced on Friday, November 22, 1963.
.............
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jim Hargrove - 20-10-2015
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Dawn Meredith - 20-10-2015
Thanks Jim. Scully I have no objections to you being here, but it seems you often have the need to just trash people. You have a right to your opinion. Be it about Craig, John Armstrong, Peter Janney. And I have the right to disagree. Truce ok?
Dawn
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Mark A. O'Blazney - 20-10-2015
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Thanks Jim. Scully I have no objections to you being here, but it seems you often have the need to just trash people. You have a right to your opinion. Be it about Craig, John Armstrong, Peter Janney. And I have the right to disagree. Truce ok?
Dawn
Did you spell "truce" wrong, Dawn? With all due respect, it seems everyone clings to their old ways of thinking. Osanic has his Prouty, Burnham has his Hemming, MacRae has his Prayerwoman, you have your Craig. The same with the Armstrong contingent. Why do we continue to believe 'original sources' that have been proven defective?
I can forgive Mr. Scully for sounding cynical at times, as this has been going on for 52 years. The dividing line(s), it seems, are there with all of us. Is there no wiggle room anymore? Is everyone's brain so fossilized that they cannot or will not change their views in the face of blinding evidence to the contrary?
But, to paraphrase Mr. Henry, Dawn, I shall defend with my life your right to disagree, fair? But Tom's responses are quite mild compared to other responses by other members on other threads from other days, months, years. As well as on other forums. May we all find what we are looking for. Thanks for your time.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jonathan Nolan - 04-02-2016
Jim Hargrove Wrote:There is a two or three page letter from Judge Daniels to Mr. Fensterwald in the Armstrong Collection at Baylor, but it makes no mention of intelligence connections. It's mostly about the feud Fensterwald talked about. I didn't keep a copy because I don't think it is the letter that prompted Mr. Fensterwald's note to Blakey. My guess is that either John A. didn't find it at the National Archives, or Blakey or someone at HSCA pulled yet another fast one.
Is it relevant that the driver's licence for Mrs. Oswald lists her middle initial as C and the death certificate gives it as F(rancis)?
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Jonathan Nolan - 08-02-2016
There is a pattern with people saying something along the lines of "the person I knew as Lee Harvey Oswald" rather than just saying "Lee Harvey Oswald" - as though none of them feel or felt that they actually knew him at all, or at least they aren't sure whether they knew the same person as someone else or as was described.
Example:
Buell Wesley Frazier: (Men Who Killed Kennedy, 'The Patsy'): "the individual I know as Lee Harvey Oswald I don't think had it in him to be a person capable of er committing such a uh crime as uh murdering the President of the United States. Um, I'll always believe that. The side I saw to him was a very kind and loving man."
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Albert Doyle - 16-02-2016
It sounds like the wording someone would use when they couldn't say straight out that there were two Oswald's and the one he knew was being framed.
Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE? - Albert Doyle - 03-03-2016
Laverick is just a straight Harvey & Lee denier. Which is why he dwells in rumination instead of looking at the evidence.
Imagine a person who is ignoring evidence calling for the ignoring of evidence.