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.
Let's take this off this EF thread and see what you got to offer Ms. Loney...
DJ
Hello David
Now you know very well I was proposing a debate between Armstrong and Parker on the neutral ground of Black Op Radio, not between myself and you.
Just quietly David I don't think it really matters much what you and I debate. After all, as Mr Di E. has so kindly pointed out I'm a neophyte and my views are neither here nor there in this overall issue.
But I think it's important that the two researchers who are leading this discussion get to debate it. That way we all get to learn something.
I offered to debate you on Prayer Man any time. That offer is still open. As long as you promise to play nice of course. Just a hint, it's not really PC to refer to people as loonies' any more. It really is time to update your insults.
Hello Vanessa,
While I can appreciate your thinking that a debate may accomplish something, Greg has yet to address the simpliest of conflicts in the evidence, let alone illustrate his knowledge of the nuances of the material enough to have a meaningful discussion with John. All he would be doing is arguing with him over insignificant issues to avoid his inability to discuss the topic with any authority.
Why would John even bother? Taking the time to explain each and every item that Greg repeatedly gets wrong is tiresome.. besides, this is and will always be about the evidence... He doesn;t need John to use the evidence to prove the critical aspects of H&L wrong... he needs to use the ACTUAL evidence. Yet this is the same evidence Greg steers clear of when he presents his arguments... the same evidence which he consistently mistrepresents as saying and meaning one thing when the evidence is there for all to see.
You directly challenged me to discussion/debate on the topic - remember? So please don't pawn off the opportunity to show your understanding of the subject HERE and your take on why it's wrong by claiming this is about Greg and John...
You are on your own here Vanessa... no Greg et al to come derail the discussion... but let's keep it where it belongs https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post100336
When you go to this link there is a simple question about the counting of days... no H&L detailed knowledge necessary... just a calendar and some common sense...
I look forward to how you present yourself over this very simple question... will you be avoiding the issues or can you look at the evidence and come to your own conclusions?
===================
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Greg is saying that its actually Oswald that Bogard saw?
And he is saying that Odio and her sister were wrong about Oswald or a double being at her doorstep?
Wow.
Originally, Greg claimed that Bogard interacted with an "Oswalt" who just coincidentally had a nearly identical name. Then, he had a strange epiphany and boldly declared that it was actually the real Oswald, with a very understandable scenario where he felt he had to buy a car to take his driving test.
As for Odio, Greg has danced all around this, and continues to misquote her testimony in order to claim that her visitors never used the last name "Oswald" to her. Even when it was pointed out by someone that the name "Lee" is virtually unknown in the Spanish language, and that "Leon" was its closest approximation, Greg continued to harp on that- "Why wouldn't they call him Lee?"
Basically, Greg follows the official government line that nearly every one who interacted with an Oswald impersonator (Yates, Bogard, Odio) was somehow "mentally ill" and thus not credible. Although, again, his views on Odio are confusing, as he continues to maintain she didn't lie, but didn't meet an Oswald impersonator.
As I've pointed out on the EF, virtually everything Greg posts is an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Greg is saying that its actually Oswald that Bogard saw?
And he is saying that Odio and her sister were wrong about Oswald or a double being at her doorstep?
Wow.
Originally, Greg claimed that Bogard interacted with an "Oswalt" who just coincidentally had a nearly identical name. Then, he had a strange epiphany and boldly declared that it was actually the real Oswald, with a very understandable scenario where he felt he had to buy a car to take his driving test.
As for Odio, Greg has danced all around this, and continues to misquote her testimony in order to claim that her visitors never used the last name "Oswald" to her. Even when it was pointed out by someone that the name "Lee" is virtually unknown in the Spanish language, and that "Leon" was its closest approximation, Greg continued to harp on that- "Why wouldn't they call him Lee?"
Basically, Greg follows the official government line that nearly every one who interacted with an Oswald impersonator (Yates, Bogard, Odio) was somehow "mentally ill" and thus not credible. Although, again, his views on Odio are confusing, as he continues to maintain she didn't lie, but didn't meet an Oswald impersonator.
As I've pointed out on the EF, virtually everything Greg posts is an attempt to dilute the case for conspiracy.
Thank you for about the millionth time Don for being the voice of reason and clarity. (On the other thread as well, gee I did not know I was being called a "very busy lawyer" over there. I never go there. I think the fact that I had 3 cases set for jury on Monday does qualify as busy however, thankfully only one is going.
I think we have to cease discussing Greg and his troops. John called me this am before court and I did not have time to talk and I just called him back and got his vm but I will ask about a debate that VL keeps pushing and report back and that will be my final comment on that issue. Having been in the critical community since 73 I have seen many fakes and became fairly good at being able to see who was for real and who was simply an agitator early on. I have zero tolerance for the bullshit. Many decent people with busy lives have devoted countless years to research and truth on all of these issues. I see that Ms. Loney did not even comment on the great interview I posted yesterday with Lisa Pease- who is smart enough to avoid forums as she too has a very busy life, working fulltime and writing a book on the RFK assassination.
Yet she types endlessly about some inside information/gossip regarding someone's alleged first name. It's abundantly clear to me she is here to
troll.
Dawn
Just spoke with John. Mainly about his new research which puts "Lee" in NY at the time "Harvey" was in Russia. I think someone has mentioned this article John's been writing on one of the threads somewhere here. He has some edits to do then will email it to me and I will post it. As to debating Parker he said he will debate "any reasonable person". But really he has no interest in debating anyone. He does research and puts it out there. If someone disagrees or does not like it, so be it. So bottom line is "no", no interest in debating Parker.
He's not afraid of Parker, just not interested. The way his work has been twisted has gotten back to him and, like me, he has no time or stomach for dishonesty. What he does enjoy is a discussion, in depth of any of his new research, which we do on a regular basis. And I did not present his book at COPA, cripes that would take a week, but his latest research on Tippit that day, 11/22/63, and the intersection of Harvey and Lee. (It's posted at his site for anyone who cares).
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:I was trying to get an answer from Ms. Loney about whether or not she read John's book.
I mean I could get that answer from John probably , since he keeps track of who orders the book.
I could not disagree more about David and Ms. Loney discussing the book. Because that means you read it.
Now, if you have not read it, and are just following someone else's lead, then I think that will come out in the wash.
I mean, today, I don't want to be represented by anyone else. I would think that is the way most of us here would feel.
Jim...
I read the book. Acquired the CD files, pdfs and notebooks and traced the sources... and about 3 years ago John and I got in touch and began discussing the topic.
I started the book again and spent the next 2 years with John weekly discussing what he wrote, what he meant and what the sources were... and STILL it is difficult to wrap one's head around the magnitiude of the data.
I created the only comprehensive side-by-side presentation of H&L by date directly from the book so that anyone can see who was where and why... and can check the data for themselves (for those interested I can send a pdf version if you PM me an email address - and I still have not completed the 11/22 hour by hour side-by-side since the evidnece is so sparce and conflciting for that time period... Westbrook's whereabouts for example are a mystery - why?)
Ms. Loney and the rest of that crowd has not approached the book and data with any seriousness, and as Dawn repeated says, we simply do not have the time or stomach for the ongoing misrepresentation of data which becomes the springboard to their rebuttals... Their work is all built on a foundation of quicksand... so all that they do is to keep piling on the manure so something shows above the water line...
John and I continue to discuss and work together as he genuinely enjoys my "Evidence IS the Conspiracy" approach... his single point thru all of this is the Evidence is the problem here... no real surprise since in every aspect of the case we find all evidence has been specifically focused to incriminate Oswald, not solve the case. Or specifically convoluted to make understanding and authenticating it impossible.
H&L surfaced as a result of an interview with a man who worked with Oswald at the wrong time
Odio was squashed because she sees an Oswald at the wrong time
The records under the control of different agencies of the government (all of which had FBI/CIA agents along with military agents "gathering intel" within these agencies) were substituted for similar records which instead incriminate Oswald..
So how could these guys leave info in that leads to H&L? Just like the Zfilm could not remove everything indicative of the actual event, certain records could only be removed while others could be partially altered...
Allen Felde is describing his time with Harvey Oswald
The USMC recap here is a mixture of both men... in each case Lee arriving and performing a few months ahead of Harvey... El Toro and Santa Ana are two different bases.
The "FIASCO" extends to all aspects or evidence misrepresentation by this group, not just the H&L stuff. Which happens when they don't take any time to research the issue and just offer pre-conceived opinions to fit their pre-conceived conclusions... gee, just like Specter, Rankin and the entire WC staff.
I have almost completely disengaged from discussion at EF - when a forum allows the wholesale misrepresentation of the facts to go unnoticed, unpunished and even encouraged, enough is enough.
Besides... I have an article on the Rifle and Pistol to finish for Jim and CTKA which I hope to be illuminating :ongwriting::
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
19-06-2015, 10:08 PM (This post was last modified: 20-06-2015, 01:07 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Vanessa admitted somewhere else that she had not read the book.
That's what I thought.
I wonder how many of these others who were in on these attacks had not done so either.
I mean, I read the whole book and then went through the CD files. (Its the same approach I used with RH.)
If someone does that, I don't see how one can come away with anything but respect for what John did.
Even if you don't agree with him, it is one of the most original books in the field. In the sense that there are very few references to other books in his footnotes. Most of the time, maybe 90% from my estimate, he went to the primary sources. That is, either an interview or a document.
There are very few books in the field that do that.
I made a mistake and looked over at the Spartacus Forum.
Paul Trejo came out of the closet. He is an Agency apologist.
He thinks the CIA is innocent of any role in the JFK case. This explains why he writes as he does. I think his idea is: Edwin Walker did it.
But he does say that two CIA guys did confess. And he uses Hunt and Morales as his examples.
Go figure.
Anybody who trusts that phony confession by Hunt should get his head examined. I got the whole story on that from the people who worked on it from the beginning, David Giammarco and Kevin Costner. It was such a painful experience for them, they don't want to talk about it today. But the final result, which was staged by Saint John Hunt, does not resemble what was there at the beginning.
Secondly, as I have said innumerable times, what Morales said does not amount to a confession.
I don't base any of my beliefs of CIA involvement on these two so called confessions. I base it on the evidence, both circumstantial and direct.
And I am very specific about this in both of my recent books. As is, for example, Jim Douglass.
I mean, one really has to wonder how much of the new documentation these people have read.
And if you have not read it, then what value is there to your opinions.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Vanessa admitted somewhere else that she had not read the book.
That's what I thought.
I wonder how many of these others who were in on these attacks had not down so either.
I mean, read the whole book and then went through the CD files. (Its the same approach I used with RH.)
If someone does that, I don't see how one can come away with anything but respect for what John did.
Even if you don't agree with him, it is one of the most original books in the field. In the sense that there are very few references to other books in his footnotes. Most of the time, maybe 90% from my estimate, he went to the primary sources. That is, either an interview or a document.
There are very few books in the field that do that.
Agreed... I just got off the phone with John who is still digging into Landesberg in NYC with Oswald... but he mentioned having paid a pretty penny for a couple dozen rolls of microfilm which have never been printed including as he just said the original notes from Mosby writing ND, as opposed to NO... I'll probably have to get a surplus reader as he said he'd let me look thru them any time....
Beyond the foornotes being primary sources, there are many which are primarily sources to documents only available at the Archives... which is why the Notebooks are so valuable. The original Norton report for example, and so many more originals... it's like being a kid in a candy shop at Baylor...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
ongwriting::