Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence

[David Josephs]

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...

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...

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.

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....

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...

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...