03-04-2014, 09:11 PM
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Greg R Parker Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:In post #139, GP refers to his position about LHO vs. to what I will call the H&L School. Can someone summarize these two schools of thought?
The Armstrong case for two Oswald's is a lot like the WC case for a lone assassin. It is built on often misunderstand, or deliberately reshaped circumstantial evidence - padded out with irrelvancies and bloated to a supersized burger for public consumption. Both can look appealing for those hungry enough for a solution. Just don't put the ingredients under a mcroscope!
The main difference is that whereas the WC never met an"Oswald sighting" it could accept - Armstrong never met one he could reject.
But both extremes were in support of a predetermined conclusion.
Actually, Greg, you didn't spell out what you think about LHO in any positive sense. You compare the H&L school to the WC. That is an insult.
From my POV, you have made it clear that you have no respect for the H&L school. And yet at the same time, you do not put forth the kinds of things that are in your book. Why? In an IM, you told me, nobody asked. I asking. Greg, start your own thread and put forth your own theses.
To everyone: I wish at times, we functioned like an online journal in the JFK Forum. People submit articles that make an argument with supporting evidence with a conclusion. Respondents are invited to comment by pointing out strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Like Marlene and Dawn have said, these flame wars are just not acceptable.
No, Marlene. I compared the fact that on the one hand, the WC dismissed all "double" LHO sightings as in error, while Armstrong seems to have embraced every single one one of them -- and that both positions are extreme, with the truth usually found somewhere in between. The obstinance of heels dug in in the face of justified criticism is a trait of both.
The two areas in common I share with Armstrong are that I believe Oswald was taken to New York City for a purpose outside anything we have been told, and that Oswald never went to Mexico City.
What I have no respect for is people who claim a theory to be fact. Especially so when the theory in question is all smoke and mirrors and large colorful fonts. If this case is to be progressed, it will not do so by everyone being obliged to embrace every conspiracy theory that anyone ever came up with. If I am ever to be part of a Unified Front, it will be because I have "test driven" the vehicle carrying us all and have found it to be mechanically sound.
Yes, you have invited me to post about my book. What I am waiting for are specific questions, otherwise there appears to be no interest.