When your arguments all hinge on, "Why would they do that?" and "You don't even know what you're talking about"
I see that as grasping at straw men in an effort to derail discussion.
I'm sorry plain english is not plain enough.. let me try to simplify it for you
After all these years of research and analysis... I clearly see that SPONSORS and the JFK assassination have very little to do with one another... That realization minimizes virtually all the work I've done this last decade or so... to a study of false minutia, leading to more false minutia.
One realizes that SPONSORS would also be destroyed with a thermo-nuclear war, and that their planning and expansion of control had been so very successful over the past few hundred/thousand years... one can conclude that the one voice keeping this world from that "Unspeakable" was JFK... that as long as there was anything short of that level of war, the SPONSORS succeed. SPONSORS who used the CFR and Colonel House to enact the Federal Reserve Act following the SPONSOR created panic of 1907... and the incredibly profitable WWI.... The build up of the 20's and early 30's only to result in the engineered Depression to so devalue US assets as to make them easy pickings for those with the foresight to safeguard their capital... leading yet again to FDR and the WWII immense profitability of engineering Pearl Harbor to mobaliize a nation and lift it out of depression. Yet with the end of WWII and the invent of nuclear capabilities, these same SPONSORS now insure each and every "war" was not a war, but a local Military/CIA skirmish - Korea, Vietnam, leading now all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan... when most of the real culprits (and SPONSOR partners: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan for example, remain untouched.
It was my conclusion that the GRANDER PLAN was to point the blame to an entity that was built to weather those types of storms, the CIA, the MUSCLE as I have dubbed them... while the Military Intelligence which had always held the strings, continued to hold them... The CIA was created to defelct attention from the Military... which at the time Ike warned us about... He did not say the CIA/Industrial Complex as he knew as he should have known that it was the Military who spent the money, it was the military's budget from which the CIA operated...
So as we shift now to the JFK assassiantion and the DPF Evica-Drago model... sad to say it's limitations put me, at least, on the path to trying to connect that action to SPOSNORS - rather than understand the whole thing was built on FALSE MINUTIA... Millions of pages of it and thousands of contradictions designed to hide, hide, hide behind... 50+ years later we know some of the mechanics, some of the facilitators... yet what was refered to as "fasle sponsors" were indeed yet another layer of SPONSOR protection.
The only thing this minutia serves to prove is the complexity of the conspiracy to deflect attention from the actual culprits... the Military... which in turn is the big nasty wall behind which the true SPONSORS of this world reside.
-----
With regards to the FBI reports of those who attended BJHS with LEE in 1954-55 as opposed to the more inportant years of 53-54... post the reports Greg... link us to them and let people see for themselves what you prefer to use as evidence to support your arguments. The FBI never asked anyone about 1953-1954... if you can find a report with those dates, post it.
-----
Quote:Moreover, what sort of knuckle-headed conspirators would put two conflicting reports side by side like that?
The ones who knew it would be 30+ years before anyone would put 2+2 together... Asking "WHY?" something that did happen, did.. is non-sequitor. Another tactic those unfamilar with the source information use all the time... As if to way, "because I can't explain it, it must be wrong". G[B]reg, why is it so hard for you to grasp that within the MILLIONS of pages, the lawyers missed things given the deadlines and the assurances that no one would figure it out for decades?
[/B]
Quote: Your reliance on the "memory" of very carefully selected witnesses is noted
Not MY anything Greg... yet another TACTIC used to deflect from the evidence and attack the messenger... careful, your transparency is showing...
----
I know what the CE's say, I brought them up... funny thing... FELDE was not called to testify... ::hush::
Were any of these men? Mack Osborne-NO, Neil Dennis Tessem-NO, Henry Roussel http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/roussel.htm, Robert Allen-NO, and Paul Hickey-NO
If you can find the original signed Roussel document, please post it. He is quoted as saying that the man who left High School in 10th grade with a 103 IQ taught himself German and Russian while in the military...
... from reading books...
-----
Quote: (Note: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with some of the newer thought on this... Since our last discussion I've spent a lot of time digging deeper... Some of the conclusions in H&L have indeed needed to be revised and updated, just as Horne updated Lifton's work as well as his exposing the NPIC Zfilm charade... time and knowledge marches on as layer after layer of the onion gets peeled back)
Have done! I'm impressed that you now believe the likes of Good Ol' Myra were coached. Nothing else explains how this was done on paper and in retrospect only when you have witnesses to "Harvey" all over the place.
That's not all all what I posted... you using yet another TACTIC to imbed conclusions into my words is dishonest at its core Greg... I was sure you were better than that.
but at least you got to provide a shout out to your forum and all its pieces and parts... hoping maybe some of the members will come by, take a look and join so it's not just you posting whatever you want with no discussion or rebuttal over and over...
If anyone was to follow those links they would see your posts are 90+% of each thread.... with your buddy
Hasan Yusuf Admin
brown-nosing you at every turn... THAT is what you want to call debate and detailed discussion, so be it
----
Quote: Well, I haven't been hiding under a bushel!
No you haven't... you've been hiding on your forum posting before a tiny handful of supporters who would agree with anything you say... or be pummeled with you posting over and over in order to justify your point.
----
I'm so glad you finally came out from behind your protective shield and post your "rebuttals" here where anyone can see what you're doing...
I look forward now to your patented, "I just can't talk to you anymore" reply and scurry off to your protected cave for another 2 years of self grandizing...
Rather than step up HERE and provide the source materials you use to come to your tautological arguments...
::moose:: I'm right here Greg... bring the best you have and do it with some integrity please...
LINK to the evidence, POST the documents, build an argument on more than "Why would they do that?"
DJ
btw - for anyone interested in the actual Military Documents, please see FOLSOM EXHIBIT #1 - 131 pages long. One might start with PAGE 1 which states, along side a photo of Oswald showing him just reaching the 5'9" mark, that he is 68" tall and weighs 135 lbs... or maybe page 27 showing a Pfc rank as of March 1, 1959 with 0 dependents and 0 Foreign Languages... yet was able to be (P)roficient in Russian when tested 4 days earlier on Feb 25, 1959 - page 7
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
When your arguments all hinge on, "Why would they do that?" and "You don't even know what you're talking about" I see that as grasping at straw men in an effort to derail discussion.
I'm sorry plain english is not plain enough.. let me try to simplify it for you
Tho my arguments incorporated those things, they far from hinge on them. They hinge on a mountain of evidence which you point blank refuse to acknowledge, let alone engage in any in sort discussion about.
And if plain English meant anything at all to you, you would have been able to answer the simple question on what, in your opinion, defines "minutia" as opposed to "false minutia". It was you, David, who named this thread a "detailed" discussion. By definition, that is going to take in some minutia. I therefore would like to know the difference between every day acceptable-to-you garden variety minutia and false minutia so I know what your boundaries are. It was a simple, reasonable question - but what did I get in response? A scatter-gun full of lecturing and hectoring, dragging as many red herrings across as you can think of to drag.
Quote:That's not all all what I posted... you using yet another TACTIC to imbed conclusions into my words is dishonest at its core Greg... I was sure you were better than that.
Not dishonest at all. If, as you claim now, this thing actually started in '57 or '58 instead of '52, then you have to account for all those alleged "Harvey" sightings between '52 and '57 since they are now no longer part of any operation. What really is your alternative explanation for those witnesses? I'm all ears.
Quote:The ones who knew it would be 30+ years before anyone would put 2+2 together... Asking "WHY?" something that did happen, did.. is non-sequitor. Another tactic those unfamilar with the source information use all the time... As if to way, "because I can't explain it, it must be wrong". G[B]reg, why is it so hard for you to grasp that within the MILLIONS of pages, the lawyers missed things given the deadlines and the assurances that no one would figure it out for decades?[/B]
David, I can explain it, and I did explain it. You are misreading the documents to say that El Toro is different to Santa Ana (only one "n" there btw, sport) and using Felde's fallible memory on timing to further bolster your misguided and erroneous claims. My question regarding why they would put two statements together that are contradictory was rhetorical. That you zero in on an obvious rhetorical question as the only thing you think you can successfully attack, is very telling.
Quote:Not MY anything Greg... yet another TACTIC used to deflect from the evidence and attack the messenger... careful, your transparency is showing...
You (and Armstrong) rely heavily on the memory of carefully selected witnesses. Not sure how you can possibly deny that when the evidence for it is overwhelming. The few exceptions include FBI reports that you think help prop up this tower of meatballs and.......... ? fill in the blank.
Quote:but at least you got to provide a shout out to your forum and all its pieces and parts... hoping maybe some of the members will come by, take a look and join so it's not just you posting whatever you want with no discussion or rebuttal over and over...
If anyone was to follow those links they would see your posts are 90+% of each thread.... with your buddy
Admin
brown-nosing you at every turn... THAT is what you want to call debate and detailed discussion, so be it ::
Dumping on someone not even involved in this discussion is sinking to a whole new level of low on many levels. For the record, Hasan has told me in no uncertain terms that if I interfere in the way he performs his admin duties, he will leave the forum. Some brown-noser.
You are a member of my forum. You have the opportunity to set me straight. You won't because you can't. You have hung out here to gets pats on the back rather than face any difficult questions. You were forced into your epiphany by someone at the Ed Forum (whose not even a researcher!) asking one lousy question. It took you ages to work out how to get around it. Unfortunately for you, your new thinking is flawed beyond belief because you apparently cannot see all those witnesses have now got their integrity in dire straits. Myra could not have interacted with any "Harvey" in the absence of any CIA/Military operation utilizing this "Harvey".
Moreover, I have told you before, the person she remembers was a kid named Bobby Newman. And Newman was not impersonating anyone, nor part of any one's plot.
Quote:No you haven't... you've been hiding on your forum posting before a tiny handful of supporters who would agree with anything you say... or be pummeled with you posting over and over in order to justify your point.
This is too precious for words. Mine is an OPEN forum. You are welcome to come and tear me to shreds. You are a member. Anyone here is welcome to join and take me to task. It is YOU who has been hiding here. Is is the Harvey and Lee people who refuse to debate. You are avoiding debate right here and now. Also take a look at what happened on the Harvey and Lee FB page. Being questioned about the evidence was too much for them. They kicked me out and then made it a CLOSED forum. Very incestuous, imo. So don't EVER - EVER talk to me about hiding - unless you are referring to yourself or your confederates.
Quote:Rather than step up HERE and provide the source materials you use to come to your tautological arguments...
::moose:: I'm right here Greg... bring the best you have and do it with some integrity please...
LINK to the evidence, POST the documents, build an argument on more than "Why would they do that?"
DJ
I have already linked to the evidence, David. Or do you simply want me to copy and paste all the threads here? Everything in them is backed by evidence. Anyone can see that clearly. Even you.
btw - for anyone interested in the actual Military Documents, please see FOLSOM EXHIBIT #1 - 131 pages long. One might start with PAGE 1 which states, along side a photo of Oswald showing him just reaching the 5'9" mark, that he is 68" tall and weighs 135 lbs... or maybe page 27 showing a Pfc rank as of March 1, 1959 with 0 dependents and 0 Foreign Languages... yet was able to be (P)roficient in Russian when tested 4 days earlier on Feb 25, 1959 - page 7
Your failure to understand how to read documents continues unabated. The height shown on the form is one inch out (if we are reading the height correctly as being "68 inches." You are making a mountain out of a molehill. The person who completed the form may simply have miscalculated in converting feet and inches to just inches. But it is also possible the height/weight was self-reported on Oswald's enlistment papers. The military of course, would do their own measurements which may or may not correspond with that. Especially so if - as it appears here - the measuring was done after boot camp.
The paperwork on page 27 is even more clear cut. This is an old form that has been updated in two places (one being his rank and date obtained). That something that happened only 4 days prior has not yet been updated is hardly surprising. The military is like any other bureaucracy. Paperwork takes time to update. [/B]
Here's a novel idea. Rather than talking about Parker's opinions of John Armstrong's research, let's start posting some actual evidence, and discuss that. Let's put the evidence right HERE.
I'll start....
Here's a June 3, 1960 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to the Office of Security in the State Department:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5796[/ATTACH]
As you can see, the last paragraph reads, "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated."
WHAT A STRANGE THING FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI TO SAY!!
Now, is there any EVIDENCE that "Oswald" was active in the U.S. while "Oswald" was in the Soviet Union? Would Greg Parker like to see the evidence, or does he just want to continue pointing elsewhere and giving us his opinions?
Let's talk about the EVIDENCE that we put RIGHT HERE!
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Now, is there any EVIDENCE that "Oswald" was active in the U.S. while "Oswald" was in the Soviet Union? Would Greg Parker like to see the evidence, or does he just want to continue pointing elsewhere and giving us his opinions?
Let's talk about the EVIDENCE that we put RIGHT HERE!
Could Hoover simply be reacting to the fact Oswald was expected to appear at Schweitzer College at the same time he was in the Soviet Union?
Albert Doyle Wrote:Could Hoover simply be reacting to the fact Oswald was expected to appear at Schweitzer College at the same time he was in the Soviet Union?
Doesn't seem likely to me. About nine months later, the State Department was taking action based on a statement that an impostor was using Oswald's IDs.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5798[/ATTACH]
State's Edward Hickey writes in the document above, "it has been stated that there is an imposter using Oswald's identification data and no doubt the Soviets would love to get hold of his valid passport...."
Jim Hargrove Wrote:State's Edward Hickey writes in the document above, "it has been stated that there is an imposter using Oswald's identification data and no doubt the Soviets would love to get hold of his valid passport...."
Jim
Yeah, but that could just be loose reference to Hoover's previous assumption based on the Schweitzer College information.
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Here's a novel idea. Rather than talking about Parker's opinions of John Armstrong's research, let's start posting some actual evidence, and discuss that. Let's put the evidence right HERE.
I'll start....
Here's a June 3, 1960 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to the Office of Security in the State Department:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5796[/ATTACH]
As you can see, the last paragraph reads, "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated."
WHAT A STRANGE THING FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI TO SAY!!
Now, is there any EVIDENCE that "Oswald" was active in the U.S. while "Oswald" was in the Soviet Union? Would Greg Parker like to see the evidence, or does he just want to continue pointing elsewhere and giving us his opinions?
Let's talk about the EVIDENCE that we put RIGHT HERE!
Hear hear, Jim...
You noticed too that Mr Parker did not post a single thing in defense of his MOUNTAIN of evidence.. even when I was specific as to which evidence to post...
Quote: They hinge on a mountain of evidence which you point blank refuse to acknowledge
BJHS years encompass Sept 1953 thru June 1955... post your evidence that the FBI asked anyone about 8th grade, 1953-54... we can get to 1957/58 later...
What I said in my "Backward facing" thread was that it is much easier to recreate evidence in the past than to be concerned with how it will come together in the future... yet we both know that evidence was manufacturere in all CIA/FBI areas on a forward timeline... If you were familar with the evidence you'd see at least two paths, from 52 forward and from 63 backward... but then again you'd have to actually read his book, look thru his notebooks and try to grasp what the EVIDENCE as opposed to John or I am saying...
And while you're at it please explain to the interested viewer how the records of those years are pertinent and vitally important to Hoover and to the investigation of the dead man accused of killing JFK...
Quote: David, I can explain it, and I did explain it. You are misreading the documents to say that El Toro is different to Santa Ana (only one "n" there btw, sport)
Well, SPORT, if you look at the dicuments in the record, most of them have ANNA spelled with two "n's"... maybe you should actually look at the evidence before you offer opinions about it. ::
Even better SPORT, you know how to use Google Maps right? Notice they are indeed two completely different facilities... down the road from each other... and house completely different facilities with different focuses of training and operation.
Quote: You (and Armstrong) rely heavily on the memory of carefully selected witnesses. Not sure how you can possibly deny that when the evidence for it is overwhelming. The few exceptions include FBI reports that you think help prop up this tower of meatballs and.......... ? fill in the blank.
Let's see, All the testimony, all the affidavits, all the SS and FBI reports are ALL based on someone's memory.... So far I don't see you offering a single piece of ANY TYPE of evidence in your replies....
I guess you believe evidence materializes thru osmosis....
Quote: Moreover, I have told you before,
You "telling me" aint nothing but your opinion backed by nothing but your speculation and lack of familiarity with the evidence from the WCR on... post the evidence for all to see Greg... why does that remain so hard for you to do?
Without your handful of minions to cheer you on, but rather informed members willing to question your tactics and conclusions - you crumble...
and rather than post the info, you claim I/we do not know how to read it...
Well done... ;:crutches::
Rather than deal with the statement... A high school dropout with a 103 IQ teaches himself one of the hardest languages in the world AFTER having taught himself German... or the fact that handfuls of HARVEY's bunkmates were never even approached... You'd rather talk about incomplete records...
Bravo!
All one need do is follow any of the links you threw down to see your "open forum" is simply your personal soapbox in your little corner of the internet...
Quote: For the record, Hasan has told me in no uncertain terms that if I interfere in the way he performs his admin duties, he will leave the forum. Some brown-noser.
On those links where someone other than you actually posts anything and Mr Yusuf chimes in... here is what we get:
There's nothing quite like using good old common sense to debunk a non-sensical theory.
I know that Armstrong did a lot of research, but it doesn't make his theory a fact
I suppose it's simply because they aren't interested in any facts which contradict this non-sensical theory, Greg. Nice job, btw.
That's the Harvey and Lee cult for you. No objectivity whatsoever. BTW, great work on Palmer McBride, Greg.
I wonder if, like you, he even opened the book... looked at the Baylor site, or went to see the WCR EVIDENCE from which most of these conclusions are based (or the lack of investigation to fill those gapping holes in the WCR story)...
This has never been THEORY Mr. Parker, these are supportable conclusions from REAL mountains of evidence which can be accessed and evaluated by anyone...
That you choose to look upward and proclaim the sky green... with a "take my word for it as you aren't smart enough to know better oh you lost member of the cult of the Blue sky"
is a pathetic way to construct a rebuttal and is better suited to trolls without the ability to present what they think they understand clearly, backed by anything in the real world other than conjecture.
We are all here Greg... you need to come to us and offer your arguments... coming to your little sandbox to be ganged up on and have sand kicked in our faces reminds me of a number of other forums where that practice is encouraged and reinforced...
Bring it HERE Sport... and see if you hold your own with those who dont keep their noses buried where your green sun don't shine...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Jim Hargrove Wrote:State's Edward Hickey writes in the document above, "it has been stated that there is an imposter using Oswald's identification data and no doubt the Soviets would love to get hold of his valid passport...."
Yeah, but that could just be loose reference to Hoover's previous assumption based on the Schweitzer College information.
Didn't the embassy have Oswald's passport?
Well, rather than speculate about this, let's see if there is any EVIDENCE about an Oswald impersonation anywhere else while Oswald was in Russia. For simplicity, let's just see if Oswald was trying to buy cars and trucks in Louisiana while Oswald was in Minsk.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5799[/ATTACH]
Since James Spencer only worked at Dumas and Milnes Chevy Co. between February and August of 1961, it's clear that "LEE OSWALD, Magazine St." notation on his business card was made while the other Oswald was in Russia. Someone as smart as Greg Parker can probably explain to us why this publicity-seeking father of five would want to lie to the FBI and fabricate documents so... so... he might go to prison and make new friends?
I'm going to make a wild guess and say the report won't satisfy Parker. Is there any more car and truck buying evidence for Oswald in New Orleans while Oswald was in Russia. OF COURSE there is!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5800[/ATTACH]
Well lookee here. On January 20, 1961 Oswald and another guy walked into Bolton Ford in New Orleans and spoke with assistant manager Oscar Delatte. They wanted to buy trucks for an organization called "Friends of Democratic Cuba." Deslatte's bid form includes the dates, the name "Oswald" and "Friends of Democratic Cuba"
And who were the Friends of Democratic Cuba?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5801[/ATTACH]
Wow! What a coincidence! Among the three officers of FDC listed in the Articles of Incorporation above were Oswald's former employer Gerard Tujague and ... wait for it ... W. Guy Banister of 531 Lafayette St.
Is there still MORE evidence? Of course there is, and Greg Parker only needs to ask for it. C'mon Greg, I won't be mean like that sarcastic son-of-a-bitch David Josephs. <g>
I was actually thinking of those car sales when I typed the last post but didn't mention it. Thanks to these websites and DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed I've already read about that duplicitous nest of Oswald impersonation in New Orleans etc. CIA needed to get Garrison down fast for a reason. This kind of stuff is the reason. I've read Parker before over the years on the Education Forum and found him too skeptical to the point of my wondering about his motives. He's like Martin Hay, he goes too far with the Devil's Advocacy. While I haven't read Harvey & Lee I have seen it discussed enough to lean in its favor. The real evidence of Oswald impostors and doubles in Dallas should make most objective people realize the plausibility of an even greater doubles operation going on with Oswald. At minimum Banister's being associated with use of defector Lee Harvey Oswald's name for Cuban ops is evidence of intel knowledge and use of Oswald for operational purposes. Meaning, at minimum, Oswald was much more on intel radar than the Warren Report admitted (which we already know).
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Now, is there any EVIDENCE that "Oswald" was active in the U.S. while "Oswald" was in the Soviet Union? Would Greg Parker like to see the evidence, or does he just want to continue pointing elsewhere and giving us his opinions?
Let's talk about the EVIDENCE that we put RIGHT HERE!
Could Hoover simply be reacting to the fact Oswald was expected to appear at Schweitzer College at the same time he was in the Soviet Union?
I'll be away for a few days, but can quickly address this before I go since it's the only post that is actually on subject:
Here is what I said about it at my forum a little while back:
The Hoover Memo has been taken way out of context. There is background to this which apparently Armstrong is unaware of, or would rather his readers did not know about. Marguerite had sent 3 letters to Lee. Those letters got returned unopened. Marguerite wrote to State. She then got interviewed by SA John Fain. The New York Field office then summarized Fain's report and sent it to HQ. In that summary, they advised of the returned mail and opined that Oswald may in fact be elsewhere in Europe (Albert Schweitzer College) and that since he had taken his Birth Certificate, there is a possibility it was stolen and is being used by another in the Soviet Union.
So there it is - there was never any evidence the birth certificate was stolen or that anyone else was using it... it was all looking at worst case scenarios based on the returned mail. By the time Hoover wrote his memo to state "the Chinese Whispers-like effect had kicked in... what was no more than a vague thought was transformed into a major possibility.
DJ, if you want the type of "debate" you're currently trying to make this, you'll get it when I get back. If you had an ounce of decency and any sort of ethic, you would of course, simply log on to my site and address your concerns there. Your pretending that this is all based on my OPINION is utter nonsense. If I have to copy and paste everything here, I'll do it. Along with addressing your utter vileness and cowardice towards people not here to defend themselves.
: