The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science?

[Bill Simpich]

I just went through this whole thread.

Both sides in the argument made a number of really good points.

I found myself switching sides several times.

Unfortunately, the name-calling made it a pretty unpleasant experience to read.

I can only imagine what it was like for you guys.

Without trying to be holier-than-thou (because I'm not), could everyone try to disagree in an amicable fashion?

The personal insults poison the well.

It's particularly tragic because you all have some powerful insights.

I think part of the problem - whether we're talking about acoustics, blood-spatter, medicine or firearms - is that
it's very frustrating to deal with specialized and technical information.

When the lawyers get involved, it's not any better - the experts are referred to as "plaintiff's whore" and
"defense whore".

I think the best way to approach this type of discussion is with a high degree of humility.

[Greg R Parker]

I just went through this whole thread.

Both sides in the argument made a number of really good points.

I found myself switching sides several times.

Unfortunately, the name-calling made it a pretty unpleasant experience to read.

I can only imagine what it was like for you guys.

Without trying to be holier-than-thou (because I'm not), could everyone try to disagree in an amicable fashion?

The personal insults poison the well.

It's particularly tragic because you all have some powerful insights.

I think part of the problem - whether we're talking about acoustics, blood-spatter, medicine or firearms - is that
it's very frustrating to deal with specialized and technical information.

When the lawyers get involved, it's not any better - the experts are referred to as "plaintiff's whore" and
"defense whore".

I think the best way to approach this type of discussion is with a high degree of humility.

Thanks Bill,

not sure that there is really any room to be bouncing around on this.

Armstrong claims that it is so rare for tonsils to grow back that records showing tonsillitis in the marines actually indicates it was someone else.

It is rare now. It wasn't back then and I have shown why.

But even if you run with it being rare, growing back is still an eminently more probable explanation that a doppelganger. On top of that, there are no hospital or medical records confirming such an operation, and it is yet to be demonstrated that Philben - even if licensed - was not more of a "traditionalist" osteopath. Indeed, I have been advised by a lurker whose done some digging that ads for Osteopaths in Dallas at the time listed against their names such things as Surgeon or DO or in Philben's case, Pediatrician. That may indicate he did not do surgery.

[Jim Hargrove]

But even if you run with it being rare, growing back is still an eminently more probable explanation that a doppelganger.

Not if you consider the other physical evidence as well. You must also assume that the mastoidectomy scar disappeared between the Marine corps years and the autopsy, and that a six-year-old gunshot wound to the elbow completely disappeared by then too. And then there is the big picture....

Oswald was clearly impersonated in Mexico City, he was clearly impersonated in and around Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination, he was clearly in Japan and Taiwan (Formosa) simultaneously in the Marines, and on and on. At some point, you have to see a trend.

[Greg R Parker]

But even if you run with it being rare, growing back is still an eminently more probable explanation that a doppelganger.

Not if you consider the other physical evidence as well. You must also assume that the mastoidectomy scar disappeared between the Marine corps years and the autopsy, and that a six-year-old gunshot wound to the elbow completely disappeared by then too. And then there is the big picture....

Oswald was clearly impersonated in Mexico City, he was clearly impersonated in and around Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination, he was clearly in Japan and Taiwan (Formosa) simultaneously in the Marines, and on and on. At some point, you have to see a trend.

1. Scars do fade. Mastoidectomy scar was three inches at enlistment down to one inch at detachment. And I have explained why it became visible again when exhumed.
2. The gunshot wound was very superficial, but I will need to look at the autopsy report and forensics from exhumation to refresh my memory on what was said.
3. If he was clearly in Somosa and Japan simultaneously, why is it that no one else can see it except Armstrong and his supporters? I don't see a lot of people jumping on board because of it - which should be the case if it was so clear cut. Or are you just being hyperbolic about how clear it is?
4. I agree he was impersonated in Mexico City -- but none of the photos seem to depict anyone who fits as an Oswald Doppelganger.
5. The trend I see is a trend of bending and twisting the evidence and around a pre-ordained theory, particularly zeroing in an anomalies that can by massaged into shape, as well as every single Oswald sighting in the records as valid, all propped up by the wackiest bunch of witnesses since Jehovah was knee-high to a prophet.

[Albert Doyle]

But even if you run with it being rare, growing back is still an eminently more probable explanation that a doppelganger. On top of that, there are no hospital or medical records confirming such an operation, and it is yet to be demonstrated that Philben - even if licensed - was not more of a "traditionalist" osteopath. Indeed, I have been advised by a lurker whose done some digging that ads for Osteopaths in Dallas at the time listed against their names such things as Surgeon or DO or in Philben's case, Pediatrician. That may indicate he did not do surgery.

Would Philben be likely to not have explained to Marguerite what his alternative non-surgical method was? And would Marguerite then refer to it by the surgical name afterwards?

Would such a "traditional" osteopath later become chief of staff of a surgical hospital? The pharmacist you are ignoring said tonsillectomies would be a regular part of Dr Philben's routine.

Incriminating FBI disinterest is right where it should be with this as well.


.

[Greg R Parker]

Would Philben be likely to not have explained to Marguerite what his alternative non-surgical method was? And would Marguerite then refer to it by the surgical name afterwards?

If he was in Dallas in 1945, he may have. If he was elsewhere, such as finishing his residency in Philadelphia and didn't return to Dallas until 47, we have a problem. Both facts are cited from the Find-A-Grave site earlier in this thread. Information provided by family.

Would such a "traditional" osteopath later become cheif of staff of a surgical hospital? The pharmacist you are ignoring said tonsillectomies would be a regular part of Dr Philben's routine.


Please cite the "surgical hospital" where he later became chief of staff. If he held that position at Dallas Memorial, there seems to be no evidence of it, other than the citation from the Find-A-Grave site, details of which were supplied by a family member. In fact, much of this should have appeared in an official newspaper obituary. Can you find one?

The pharmacist is being ignored because no name has been given, if one indeed does exist. It's also highly unlikely that a pharmacist still dispensing in 2014 would be in a position to know what Dr. Philben did in the mid-1940s. It is 70 years ago, after all, and the proof of this is that he said "would have" mot "did". Sounds like a guess to me.

Incriminating FBI disinterest is right where it should be with this as well.

Yet it was FBI who obtained and reported on the tonsillectomy and who performed it. Just as they did with the mastoidectomy. For an organization that's trying to cover up details of an espionage project, they rather screwed the pooch, didn't they?

[Dawn Meredith]

I just went through this whole thread.

Both sides in the argument made a number of really good points.

I found myself switching sides several times.

Unfortunately, the name-calling made it a pretty unpleasant experience to read.

I can only imagine what it was like for you guys.

Without trying to be holier-than-thou (because I'm not), could everyone try to disagree in an amicable fashion?

The personal insults poison the well.

It's particularly tragic because you all have some powerful insights.

I think part of the problem - whether we're talking about acoustics, blood-spatter, medicine or firearms - is that
it's very frustrating to deal with specialized and technical information.

When the lawyers get involved, it's not any better - the experts are referred to as "plaintiff's whore" and
"defense whore".

I think the best way to approach this type of discussion is with a high degree of humility.

Bill, sadly it's the nature of this critical community. And always has been. (Excuse me as I am a lawyer
On a different note I have been told you are being put down on another forum. Your work that is.
The "new one" where you are not permitted to mention DPF. (This was told to me.) And I hear I am ridiculed on Greg Parker's forum. I don't go there.
I have more than I can keep up with here where there are lots of other topics non-JFK that
I have a huge interest in. Here if people flame they get warned, then put on moderation after we all discuss it in depth.
Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

It's kind of sad seeing otherwise good researchers enforce their egos with pretentious, paranoid imaginary spook detection or forum spying. ::face.palm::

[Greg R Parker]

I just went through this whole thread.

Both sides in the argument made a number of really good points.

I found myself switching sides several times.

Unfortunately, the name-calling made it a pretty unpleasant experience to read.

I can only imagine what it was like for you guys.

Without trying to be holier-than-thou (because I'm not), could everyone try to disagree in an amicable fashion?

The personal insults poison the well.

It's particularly tragic because you all have some powerful insights.

I think part of the problem - whether we're talking about acoustics, blood-spatter, medicine or firearms - is that
it's very frustrating to deal with specialized and technical information.

When the lawyers get involved, it's not any better - the experts are referred to as "plaintiff's whore" and
"defense whore".

I think the best way to approach this type of discussion is with a high degree of humility.

Bill, sadly it's the nature of this critical community. And always has been. (Excuse me as I am a lawyer
On a different note I have been told you are being put down on another forum. Your work that is.
The "new one" where you are not permitted to mention DPF. (This was told to me.) And I hear I am ridiculed on Greg Parker's forum. I don't go there.
I have more than I can keep up with here where there are lots of other topics non-JFK that
I have a huge interest in. Here if people flame they get warned, then put on moderation after we all discuss it in depth.
Dawn

Dawn, I got warned. I stopped flaming, even though I continued to get flamed by others. Yet I am the one put on moderation.


As for what is said at my site.... are you personally responsible for everything said here?


I have been told that the moderation is because of "complaints" about me, the nature of which were not explained. Seems to me that "complaints" were only lodged because attempts to flame me into retaliating and getting kicked off have failed.


This shows once again that you are all scared of a proper debate and will go to any lengths to avoid it. Prove me wrong and stop the moderating nonsense.

[Marlene Zenker]

I just went through this whole thread.

Both sides in the argument made a number of really good points.

I found myself switching sides several times.

Unfortunately, the name-calling made it a pretty unpleasant experience to read.

I can only imagine what it was like for you guys.

Without trying to be holier-than-thou (because I'm not), could everyone try to disagree in an amicable fashion?

The personal insults poison the well.

It's particularly tragic because you all have some powerful insights.

I think part of the problem - whether we're talking about acoustics, blood-spatter, medicine or firearms - is that
it's very frustrating to deal with specialized and technical information.

When the lawyers get involved, it's not any better - the experts are referred to as "plaintiff's whore" and
"defense whore".

I think the best way to approach this type of discussion is with a high degree of humility.

Bill, thank you for this, as a much newer person to the research community it really makes me sad that the disagreements are so personal. I have always thought our aim is to research, argue constructively and inform the public.

BTW, I think it's a good thing for anyone and everyone in the research community to go back and take a fresh look at the evidence and question down to the deepest level but can we just do it in a civil manner? Does it do any good to attack others for having a different opinion, even if that opinion is ridiculous? I say no.