The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science?

[Paul Rigby]

::

These images of spokesmen for the Washington-backed fascists in Kiev seem to be getting everywhere - even into unrelated threads.

It's quite shocking, though no more so than the reality.

[Albert Doyle]

Show me where Philben listed a tonsillectomy anywhere.

As for the evisceration, Albert, all in good time. Patience.

I think it would behoove a practicer of the level of research you pretend to explain why a Tonsillectomy by Dr Philben on Lee Harvey Oswald was claimed in the 1945 Insurance application and by whom?


Anyone else notice Parker running from the question of what Philben would have done if a patient he claimed to do a Tonsillectomy on had a severe tonsil problem later on? Mr Parker seems to not be willing to give an honest answer if Philben would risk the severe penalties and repercussions for that.


This is why I find Mr Parker disingenuous at best and question his motives. He doesn't practice the objectivity he berates others over.


David: Why not have Parker call the Grove Medical Center pharmacist and put his theory to him. In fact why don't you do a conference call and record it. Also, ask the pharmacist if there's any other sources that could confirm Dr Philben's performance of Tonsillectomies? This is very interesting.



.

[Bob Prudhomme]

"Never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience."

---- Mark Twain ----

[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 R Parker]

Show me where Philben listed a tonsillectomy anywhere.

As for the evisceration, Albert, all in good time. Patience.

I think it would behoove a practicer of the level of research you pretend to explain why a Tonsillectomy by Dr Philben on Lee Harvey Oswald was claimed in the 1945 Insurance application and by whom?


Anyone else notice Parker running from the question of what Philben would have done if a patient he claimed to do a Tonsillectomy on had a severe tonsil problem later on? Mr Parker seems to not be willing to give an honest answer if Philben would risk the severe penalties and repercussions for that.


This is why I find Mr Parker disingenuous at best and question his motives. He doesn't practice the objectivity he berates others over.


David: Why not have Parker call the Grove Medical Center pharmacist and put his theory to him. In fact why don't you do a conference call and record it. Also, ask the pharmacist if there's any other sources that could confirm Dr Philben's performance of Tonsillectomies? This is very interesting.


.

Sorry Albert, I have been apparently been giving you too much credit for being able to think for yourself, so I will spell it out for you.

There are two possible scenarios that may address your concerns.

1. Philben never claimed to Marguerite that he was performing a tonsillectomy. She made that assumption herself and was not present to see the procedure (which would have consisted of bone and muscle manipulation).

2. Philben did claim he was performing a tonsillectomy. Any future issues over tonsillitis would be addressed by merely saying "they can and do grow back". I think option one is the more likely.

[David Josephs]

Will Mr P post the evidence he has on Dr Philben and what he did or didn't do, besides opinions and links to opinions?

The FBI, if they were as interested in the tonsilectomy as the mastoidectomy, were no more than 15 minutes from Dr Philben's office on Dec 9, 1963 and thereafter...
until these many years later and it's assisting to prove there were two different men using the same name, it was as insignificant then as all of the FBI's pseudo-investigation

I for one have had enough of the bully pulpit that Mr P has brought over from his unknown and hardly visited "forum" of 3 who do nothing but :.

His posting tactics are transparent as anyone who googles "cointelpro for internet forums" can easily learn.

Let the "sport" scream and stamp his feet all he wants in order to get anyone to take him seriously...
maybe he'll sell another book and double his volume, maybe he is simply to be seen for who he has become...

Either way I believe my posts stand, my understanding of the evidence stands and finally I simply cannot stand for any more of his theatrics.

The tagline at the top of each page talks of shining a light into the dark reaches of deep political structure...
The manner in which that person presents himself is all too easily seen as representative of such darkness... bu-bye Mr P... and good luck.

::

And so David stalks off from another kitchen that was getting too hot...

Will Mr P post the evidence he has on Dr Philben and what he did or didn't do, besides opinions and links to opinions?

That would be a no then...

Ok ::thumbsup::

Mr P's knowledge about platoon 2060 versus 1070 illustrating both a LEE and HARVEY existed... is also well established with that insightful reply...

::thumbsup::

btw - Thanks Don... nice to hear from you
DJ

[Greg R Parker]

"Never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience."

---- Mark Twain ----

A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones who need the advice.
- Bill Cosby

[Albert Doyle]

Sorry Albert, I have been apparently been giving you too much credit for being able to think for yourself, so I will spell it out for you.

There are two possible scenarios that may address your concerns.

1. Philben never claimed to Marguerite that he was performing a tonsillectomy. She made that assumption herself and was not present to see the procedure (which would have consisted of bone and muscle manipulation).

2. Philben did claim he was performing a tonsillectomy. Any future issues over tonsillitis would be addressed by merely saying "they can and do grow back". I think option one is the more likely.

Number 2 would have problems. Doctors, I'm sure, are sophisticated enough to distinguish between regrown tonsils and originals. They are professional enough to see there were no surgery marks and therefore no removed tonsils. Being a doctor I think Dr Philben would be smart enough to realize this too and know he couldn't get away with it. Professional doctors would not reach for the easily disproven 'regrown tonsils' excuse as quickly as you do because they would realize it wouldn't work - just as it isn't working for you here. Doctors also collect data. They want to collect statistics on regrown tonsil rates. They would inquire and ask Marguerite and even Lee if the original tonsils were removed. Perhaps you sense these serious flaws so you prefer number 1.


What bones and muscles do you manipulate to treat tonsils? And what possible reason would Marguerite think whatever manipulation she witnessed was intended for the tonsils? You're on swampy ground at best and fishing. Could you please articulate clearly how a non-present Marguerite came to the conclusion that a treatment she had no means of witnessing was a tonsillectomy? Your scenario requires Marguerite to drop Lee off for a non-specific illness for which she had no consultation with the doctor and then made a completely blind assumption that it was a tonsillectomy based on nothing you can describe. I'm sorry but you're not seriously offering this to adult people? You're not seriously offering this after attacking and ridiculing people for their entries? Is this what a mother would have done with a 5 year old child? Dropped him off and guessed?


Are you joking? You dare offer something like this? This is the old option number one isn't that believable so offer option number two, but then bounce it back to number one since number two isn't that believable either...


.

[Jim Hargrove]

Number 2 would have problems. Doctors, I'm sure, are sophisticated enough to distinguish between regrown tonsils and originals. They are professional enough to see there were no surgery marks and therefore no removed tonsils. Being a doctor I think Dr Philben would be smart enough to realize this too and know he couldn't get away with it. Professional doctors would not reach for the easily disproven 'regrown tonsils' excuse as quickly as you do because they would realize it wouldn't work - just as it isn't working for you here. Perhaps you sense that so you prefer number 1.


What bones and muscles do you manipulate to treat tonsils? And what possible reason would Marguerite think whatever manipulation she witnessed was intended for the tonsils? You're on swampy ground at best and fishing. Could you please articulate clearly how a non-present Marguerite came to the conclusion that a treatment she had no means of witnessing was a tonsillectomy? Your scenario requires Marguerite to drop Lee off for a non-specific illness for which she had no consultation with the doctor and then made a completely blind assumption that it was a tonsillectomy based on nothing you can describe. I'm sorry but you're not seriously offering this to adult people? You're not seriously offering this after attacking and ridiculing people for their entries? Is this what a mother would have done with a 5 years old child? Dropped him off and guessed?


Are you joking? You dare offer something like this?

Well said, Albert! This entire thread is INSANE. A mother doesn't know when her young son's throat has been cut open? It takes two weeks to recover from a tonsillectomy, and a far higher percentage of young children had tonsillectomies sixty years ago than do now. Mothers knew more about the procedure then. This is Crazy Town!

[Bob Prudhomme]

Number 2 would have problems. Doctors, I'm sure, are sophisticated enough to distinguish between regrown tonsils and originals. They are professional enough to see there were no surgery marks and therefore no removed tonsils. Being a doctor I think Dr Philben would be smart enough to realize this too and know he couldn't get away with it. Professional doctors would not reach for the easily disproven 'regrown tonsils' excuse as quickly as you do because they would realize it wouldn't work - just as it isn't working for you here. Perhaps you sense that so you prefer number 1.


What bones and muscles do you manipulate to treat tonsils? And what possible reason would Marguerite think whatever manipulation she witnessed was intended for the tonsils? You're on swampy ground at best and fishing. Could you please articulate clearly how a non-present Marguerite came to the conclusion that a treatment she had no means of witnessing was a tonsillectomy? Your scenario requires Marguerite to drop Lee off for a non-specific illness for which she had no consultation with the doctor and then made a completely blind assumption that it was a tonsillectomy based on nothing you can describe. I'm sorry but you're not seriously offering this to adult people? You're not seriously offering this after attacking and ridiculing people for their entries? Is this what a mother would have done with a 5 years old child? Dropped him off and guessed?


Are you joking? You dare offer something like this?

Well said, Albert! This entire thread is INSANE. A mother doesn't know when her young son's throat has been cut open? It takes two weeks to recover from a tonsillectomy, and a far higher percentage of young children had tonsillectomies sixty years ago than do now. Mothers knew more about the procedure then. This is Crazy Town!

Also, Jim, if Dr. Philben was such a notorious quack and witch doctor, one wonders how he attained the prestigious position of chief of staff at Dallas Memorial Hospital.