27-03-2014, 10:54 PM
Try googling "fake tonsillectomies." No relevant results come up. I'm sorry, but postulating that a doctor faked an operation, as evidently the only way to explain a set of tonsils that shouldn't have been there, is about as credible as inventing a "bunched up coat" theory to explain an inconvenient wound location. Not far behind is suggesting the extremely rare phenomenon of tonsils growing back.
I am at a loss to understand what Dr. Philben's motive would have been, to pretend to remove tonsils when he actually didn't. Greg's premise smacks of desperation, not logic.
Again, I question some of Armstrong's theory. But I have always respected his invaluable research, and there should be no question, in any legitimate researcher's mind at this point, that someone put time and effort into impersonating Oswald in an incriminating way, in the time period just before the assassination. Trying to diminish the significance of these reports does nothing but help keep the impossible official fairy tale on life support.
There are too many researchers, who profess to disbelieve the lone-nut narrative, who nevertheless insist upon questioning the witnesses who first provided the best evidence for conspiracy, and were the impetus for all the original critics who destroyed the official case. If we can't rely on these witnesses, then we have to look at the official "evidence," which was largely mishandled or destroyed. The witnesses who insisted upon reporting information that contradicted the Oswald-did-it myth provided some of the best indicators of conspiracy.
In recent years, many supposedly pro-conspiracy types have tried to repudiate the witnesses who reported seeing the limo slow down or stop, those who saw a bullet hole in the windshield, the medical staff at Parkland who described a huge wound in the back of JFK's head, as well as individual witnesses like Roger Craig, Richard Carr, James Worrell and others who gave testimony that conflicted with the official story. Many even believe Steven Witt is the umbrella man, and downplay any significance this enigmatic figure might have had. Lots of researchers completely accept that both Weitzman and Boone mistakenly identified the rifle found on the sixth floor. It's this kind of collective swing in the research community that I call "neo-con," or neo-conspiracy belief.
I didn't mean to derail this thread, but in my view Greg Parker's curious postulation of a "fake" tonsillectomy to explain unwanted anomalies in the record is vintage "neo-con" thinking. There is no reason to cast aside the credible reports of someone impersonating Oswald, and if you're trying to debate Armstrong's theories, you need to come up with something at least semi-plausible, and not quite this ridiculous.
I am at a loss to understand what Dr. Philben's motive would have been, to pretend to remove tonsils when he actually didn't. Greg's premise smacks of desperation, not logic.
Again, I question some of Armstrong's theory. But I have always respected his invaluable research, and there should be no question, in any legitimate researcher's mind at this point, that someone put time and effort into impersonating Oswald in an incriminating way, in the time period just before the assassination. Trying to diminish the significance of these reports does nothing but help keep the impossible official fairy tale on life support.
There are too many researchers, who profess to disbelieve the lone-nut narrative, who nevertheless insist upon questioning the witnesses who first provided the best evidence for conspiracy, and were the impetus for all the original critics who destroyed the official case. If we can't rely on these witnesses, then we have to look at the official "evidence," which was largely mishandled or destroyed. The witnesses who insisted upon reporting information that contradicted the Oswald-did-it myth provided some of the best indicators of conspiracy.
In recent years, many supposedly pro-conspiracy types have tried to repudiate the witnesses who reported seeing the limo slow down or stop, those who saw a bullet hole in the windshield, the medical staff at Parkland who described a huge wound in the back of JFK's head, as well as individual witnesses like Roger Craig, Richard Carr, James Worrell and others who gave testimony that conflicted with the official story. Many even believe Steven Witt is the umbrella man, and downplay any significance this enigmatic figure might have had. Lots of researchers completely accept that both Weitzman and Boone mistakenly identified the rifle found on the sixth floor. It's this kind of collective swing in the research community that I call "neo-con," or neo-conspiracy belief.
I didn't mean to derail this thread, but in my view Greg Parker's curious postulation of a "fake" tonsillectomy to explain unwanted anomalies in the record is vintage "neo-con" thinking. There is no reason to cast aside the credible reports of someone impersonating Oswald, and if you're trying to debate Armstrong's theories, you need to come up with something at least semi-plausible, and not quite this ridiculous.