Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence

[Greg R Parker]

Thanks Greg....


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[B]Hasan Yusuf 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.

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.

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]