27-03-2014, 01:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 27-03-2014, 07:43 PM by Don Jeffries.)
Self-disclosure here- Greg Parker and I went around a few times on the EF over the years. I confess that I always found him one of the most baffling posters on the internet. He always seems to be working towards something that I can't fathom, and he can't explain.
Greg seems to have a real aversion towards any "second Oswald" evidence, with John Armstrong's work being of particular distaste to him. As Jim Hargrove noted on another thread, if he put as much effort into reopening the Kennedy case, as he does in scolding Armstrong, or trying desperately to poke holes in all the "fake Oswald" sightings, then he might really accomplish something.
I will confess that I haven't read Harvey and Lee, but that's simply because it's a bit pricey and it is not in any public library system around me (although I have requested that they purchase it). That being said, there is enough information online, speeches by Armstrong, Jim Hargrove's excellent web site, etc., so that one can at least get the gist of his theory. From my admittedly limited knowledge, I find Armstrong's research important and intriguing, but also have questions about some of the things one must accept to make his scenario work (primarily the post-assassination movements, which result in a "Lee killed Tippit" theory).
What I don't understand is why Greg, or anyone else, feels compelled to dismiss Armstrong's work so passionately. Like David Lifton, he has opened doors that no one else was approaching. Taken together with the posts Greg made on the EF, attempting to discredit what seemed like most, if not all, of the "fake Oswald" sightings, I am at a loss to understand what he is hoping to accomplish here. How does brushing aside strong evidence of an organized attempt to frame Oswald in advance of the assassination help anyone other than lone nuts who are anxious for anything that throws doubt on those dastardly "conspiracy theories?"
David Josephs has done a remarkable job in this thread, but evidently even going as close to the original source as possible, as he did regarding Dr. Philbin, is not enough to satisfy Greg Parker. I know I've asked this before, but does Greg not believe that there were "fake Oswalds" before the assassination? How does trying desperately to question these sightings (even the Sylvia Odio incident, if I recall correctly) aid the efforts to "re-open" the inquiry into the assassination? How does it not take ammunition away from those of us who know there was a conspiracy?
But Greg usually stirs up debate, as he is doing here. Although I don't know where he's coming from, or where he's trying to go, he is stimulating discussion, and that's always good.
Greg seems to have a real aversion towards any "second Oswald" evidence, with John Armstrong's work being of particular distaste to him. As Jim Hargrove noted on another thread, if he put as much effort into reopening the Kennedy case, as he does in scolding Armstrong, or trying desperately to poke holes in all the "fake Oswald" sightings, then he might really accomplish something.
I will confess that I haven't read Harvey and Lee, but that's simply because it's a bit pricey and it is not in any public library system around me (although I have requested that they purchase it). That being said, there is enough information online, speeches by Armstrong, Jim Hargrove's excellent web site, etc., so that one can at least get the gist of his theory. From my admittedly limited knowledge, I find Armstrong's research important and intriguing, but also have questions about some of the things one must accept to make his scenario work (primarily the post-assassination movements, which result in a "Lee killed Tippit" theory).
What I don't understand is why Greg, or anyone else, feels compelled to dismiss Armstrong's work so passionately. Like David Lifton, he has opened doors that no one else was approaching. Taken together with the posts Greg made on the EF, attempting to discredit what seemed like most, if not all, of the "fake Oswald" sightings, I am at a loss to understand what he is hoping to accomplish here. How does brushing aside strong evidence of an organized attempt to frame Oswald in advance of the assassination help anyone other than lone nuts who are anxious for anything that throws doubt on those dastardly "conspiracy theories?"
David Josephs has done a remarkable job in this thread, but evidently even going as close to the original source as possible, as he did regarding Dr. Philbin, is not enough to satisfy Greg Parker. I know I've asked this before, but does Greg not believe that there were "fake Oswalds" before the assassination? How does trying desperately to question these sightings (even the Sylvia Odio incident, if I recall correctly) aid the efforts to "re-open" the inquiry into the assassination? How does it not take ammunition away from those of us who know there was a conspiracy?
But Greg usually stirs up debate, as he is doing here. Although I don't know where he's coming from, or where he's trying to go, he is stimulating discussion, and that's always good.