Dawn Meredith Wrote:In 2008 myself and my co-founders started this forum. It was started for many reasons, one, like Peter has already posted, was to counter the treatment our founders were receiving at EF. It was also a forum where lone nuts would not be tolerated. In addition our rules prohibit name calling and purposeful baiting. Most of the folks here are very long time deep researchers who are committed to historical truth.
Of late a certain agenda has taken hold here. Some time back we were forced to ban Greg Parker. He seems to have one intent with this case and that is to trash the valuable research of John Armstrong. Perhaps I am not the best person to be posting abut this matter as John has become a close friend over the last few years. I was honored to present for him at COPA on the 50th anniversary. However I read his work long before we became friends and it answered to very many questions for me. Reasonable minds can disagree, and that is fine, but if a person joins DPF with the SOLE purpose of bashing JA then many here will consider this person a troll with an agenda. Perhaps even sent BY Parker.
Unlike David Josephs and others I refuse to engage with these kinds of people because I see them for what they are. And they will not be tolerated.
Fair warning.
Dawn
Hello Dawn,
I must say you DPers are not very neighbourly - you spent yesterday criticising me and now I'm getting the silent treatment and under orders too! Haven't you folks been voicing your concern that "Master of the Universe", Greg Parker has been directing the thoughts and actions of everyone at ROKC?
The phrase 'pot, kettle, black' comes to mind, for some reason.
Anyhoo, I've got a secret to confess to you Dawn. Like you I am also very, very busy. So busy, in fact, that I have not had time to read Mr Armstrong's book and at the rate I'm going I don't think I'm ever going to have time to read his book (horrors!, I know).
I'm sure it's a very good book - everyone says so - I mean no disrespect to Mr Armstrong at all. But I am no JFK assassination polymath like some in the research community, nor do I aspire to be. So I rely on sites like CTKA and discussion forums like EF and DP to inform me on some of the areas that I don't have to the time to get to myself. And I have to say that the information I've seen has not won me over to the idea of H&L at all.
So now I've made this painful admission, Dawn, in the spirit of mutual confidences, I have a question for you.
Have you read Mr Armstrong's book? And by read I mean have you read it to the very last page? Or did you get most of the way through and then stop?
And then did you go on to give a presentation on this book (which you hadn't finished reading)?
Cos it seems to me if you are going to nail your colours to the wall over this theory then you ought to have at least read the entire book.
Interesting you should write this... do you feel the same for those who argue against the theories and evidence? or should they be allowed to cherry-pick a sentence like Greg and neglect to offer the information in context?
Quote:Cos it seems to me if you are going to nail your colours to the wall over this theory then you ought to have at least read the entire book.
This is one you can take on Vanessa - no heavy lifting... the data is posted earlier in this thread...
Why is there an argument about the simple counting of days? He can't fit 200 into 123 so he does everything possible to make the discussion about something else... this is called a STRAW MAN rebuttal and comes straight out of a document which teaches how to disrupt and overtake a forum...
". Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of
your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look
good and the opponent to look bad. Either m[B]ake up an issue [/B]you may safely imply
exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation,
or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance
and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and
fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."
He does not understand or know the material well enough to have a discussion which is more than evidence in every one of his posts.
What we see repeatedly now is the "selection of the weakest aspect of the weakest charges" - focusing on whether there was 100% intel of 95% intel surrounding Oswald in New Orleans has no bearing on the H&L evidence... THIS is
You've seen me post a few of the hundreds of bit of material which suggests the existence of two people who have been combined into one. I ask that you read thru CE1961 and then CE1962 and get back to mwith what YOU think the problem is there. Just take that single example and focus on it. There are numerous examples of Marines in one area describing one Oswald while another group who were summarily ignored who were describing the larger, southern, non-commie talking Lee. We then have the Folsom and Donadebian exhibits to review...
How does one begin a discussion when one of the party's POV is that the USMC simply asked their marines their vital stats upon discharge and did not actually do any of the measurements...
that his discharge height of 5'11" is a GUESS? This is where a conversation begins - without proof or corroboration this statement is absurd on its face, yet is the go to rebuttal argument for whu one man is 5'11 and thother barely 5'9.
Why one boy is 5'4" in 1953 and the other 4'10". And in reality, they don't look all that much alike... but just enough. If you can look at this collage and say all these men are the same person, we then need to go to step two and understand when these images were taken and why the boy with Ferrie, Harvey, is not the same person as the 1957 Biloxi Lee...
or that in less than 2 weeks his appearance changes that drastically? In the end Vanessa, these men are indeed similar but not anywhere close to identical...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Dawn Meredith Wrote:In 2008 myself and my co-founders started this forum. It was started for many reasons, one, like Peter has already posted, was to counter the treatment our founders were receiving at EF. It was also a forum where lone nuts would not be tolerated. In addition our rules prohibit name calling and purposeful baiting. Most of the folks here are very long time deep researchers who are committed to historical truth.
Of late a certain agenda has taken hold here. Some time back we were forced to ban Greg Parker. He seems to have one intent with this case and that is to trash the valuable research of John Armstrong. Perhaps I am not the best person to be posting abut this matter as John has become a close friend over the last few years. I was honored to present for him at COPA on the 50th anniversary. However I read his work long before we became friends and it answered to very many questions for me. Reasonable minds can disagree, and that is fine, but if a person joins DPF with the SOLE purpose of bashing JA then many here will consider this person a troll with an agenda. Perhaps even sent BY Parker.
Unlike David Josephs and others I refuse to engage with these kinds of people because I see them for what they are. And they will not be tolerated.
Fair warning.
Dawn
Hello Dawn,
I must say you DPers are not very neighbourly - you spent yesterday criticising me and now I'm getting the silent treatment and under orders too! Haven't you folks been voicing your concern that "Master of the Universe", Greg Parker has been directing the thoughts and actions of everyone at ROKC?
The phrase 'pot, kettle, black' comes to mind, for some reason.
Anyhoo, I've got a secret to confess to you Dawn. Like you I am also very, very busy. So busy, in fact, that I have not had time to read Mr Armstrong's book and at the rate I'm going I don't think I'm ever going to have time to read his book (horrors!, I know).
I'm sure it's a very good book - everyone says so - I mean no disrespect to Mr Armstrong at all. But I am no JFK assassination polymath like some in the research community, nor do I aspire to be. So I rely on sites like CTKA and discussion forums like EF and DP to inform me on some of the areas that I don't have to the time to get to myself. And I have to say that the information I've seen has not won me over to the idea of H&L at all.
So now I've made this painful admission, Dawn, in the spirit of mutual confidences, I have a question for you.
Have you read Mr Armstrong's book? And by read I mean have you read it to the very last page? Or did you get most of the way through and then stop?
And then did you go on to give a presentation on this book (which you hadn't finished reading)?
Cos it seems to me if you are going to nail your colours to the wall over this theory then you ought to have at least read the entire book.
Not falling for your bullshit VL. I don't care what you read or do not read. And I am not here to answer your questions. This post was not directed at you, but to people in general who come here with a specific agenda to bash someone's work.
And yes I have read his book.
Bye, have a nice life. I will not be responding further. I am a very busy attorney and can see through people like you a mile away.
These are talking points familiar to anyone who has read some of the "research" threads at ROKC. Vanessa, you wouldn't be referring derisively to Dawn's "busy" schedule because you and others at ROKC regularly refer to her as the "Very Busy Lowyer," would you?
How do you expect me to feel about your idol, Vanessa, when he runs a forum where I (and others) have been caricatured in the most juvenile manner imaginable? Photoshopping chocolate on my face? Really- do kindergartners even do that? One Hasan Yousef- whom I have never even interacted with on the internet in any manner at all- has called for me to jump off a cliff and do everyone a favor on that forum, and threatened to punch my "ugly face." What kind of adult makes those kinds of statements on a public forum, about someone he's never met or even communicated with in a cyber sense? And it's all because I dared to disagree with his inexplicable idol Greg Parker.
Vanessa, you look like a nice person in your photo. What attracts you to a forum like ROKC? Do you approve of the language, and the childish, gutter level of "debate" there? And yet you come on this forum and criticize people for their comments? You have a highly selective sense of outrage, it appears. And why do you keep baiting Albert Doyle by calling him "Brian?" What secret information do you have about his name? And your willingness to ridicule him this way wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he, too, has incurred the wrath of Greg Parker and his followers, would it?
Btw, I'm still a moderator at the EF. My comments here about that forum are no different from what I've told them in many emails (almost all of them unanswered). I care about that forum, as well as this one. They are important sources of information for everyone, and I think it's pathetic that they are so often ruined by problematic personalities like Greg Parker. It is very difficult to have an honest dialogue about anything on these forums, when individuals bombard the threads with endless, circular arguments that impede honest efforts to expose the truth about this case.
Drew Phipps Wrote:So, I don't want to put myself in the middle of this multi-dimensional debate, but I feel compelled to point out, as a father whose kid has had tonsillitis, and a partial tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy (sp?), that a.) partial removal of the tonsils is common (at least now it is), and b.) "normal" in a diagnostic sense means "not inflamed," not that the tonsils have regrown from a post-operative culling.
The doctor calls my kid's partially removed tonsils/adenoids "normal" at our yearly visits. However, she has cautioned us that tonsillitis may recur.
That must be relatively new. As the following excerpt from a peer-reviewed medical monograph shows, complete removal of the tonsils became standard starting around 1910.
============================= QUOTE ON ==============================
A HISTORY OF TONSILLECTOMY:
TWO MILLENIA OF TRAUMA, HAEMORRHAGE
AND CONTROVERSY
By RONALD ALASTAIR McNENLL, M.B., B.Ch.
Senior House Officer in Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast
....
The first sign of a permanent change from partial to complete removal of the
tonsils came in 1897. Ballenger in the U.S.A. realised that partial removal failed
to alleviate symptoms completely in a large majority of cases. He began to
remove the tonsil with its capsule, using a scalpel and forceps. His results, using
this new technique, were so much better than partial removal, for a time the
guillotine fell into disrepute in America.
Some ten years later, dissection tonsillectomy was pioneered in this country
by George Waugh of Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street. In 1909 he
published, in the Lancet, his account of nine hundred cases of dissecting out
the tonsils complete with capsule, using fine dissecting forceps and curved
scissors. The operation was performed with the patient lying on his back with
the head extended. The tongue was held out of the way with a stitch, and the
mouth held open with a gag between the last molar teeth. Waugh became a
great opponent of guillotine tonsillectomy, giving his reasons in these words:
"Even in highly skilled and experienced hands, the complete removal of
tonsils by means of a guillotine is a task of such technical difficulty as to be,
except in a few rare cases, quite impossible."
In the following year Whillis and Pybus in Britain and Sluder in America
pointed out that a guillotine with a fairly blunt blade instead of a sharp one
could be used in such a way as to enucleate the tonsil complete in its capsule.
Whillis and Pvbus gave the following figures for their series:
Tonsil completely enucleated in its capsule - - - 74%
,,,, capsule incomplete - - 13.5%
in two pieces - - 9%
in three pieces - - 0.5%
Incompletely enucleated - - - - - 3%
From this time onwards the value of complete removal of the tonsil has been
accepted.
Thanks for your responses and for keeping them civil. I am actually truly flat out today with my daughter's birthday extravaganza but I will respond asap tonight.
Vanessa Loney Wrote:Anyhoo, I've got a secret to confess to you Dawn. Like you I am also very, very busy. So busy, in fact, that I have not had time to read Mr Armstrong's book and at the rate I'm going I don't think I'm ever going to have time to read his book (horrors!, I know).
:hock:: ::face.palm::
Oh just go away. Don't waste our time.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Vanessa Loney Wrote:Anyhoo, I've got a secret to confess to you Dawn. Like you I am also very, very busy. So busy, in fact, that I have not had time to read Mr Armstrong's book and at the rate I'm going I don't think I'm ever going to have time to read his book (horrors!, I know).
:hock:: ::face.palm::
Oh just go away. Don't waste our time.
Oh Magda, if you want me to go away that is really not the way to go about it.
For every slur on ROKC, EF or myself on DP I'll add another week to my stay here.
Fair warning.
But it would be helpful to me if you guys could consolidate the insults into the one post an Exec. Summary, if you like. That would make it a lot easier for me to respond because there's a lot of you and there's only one of me.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:In 2008 myself and my co-founders started this forum. It was started for many reasons, one, like Peter has already posted, was to counter the treatment our founders were receiving at EF. It was also a forum where lone nuts would not be tolerated. In addition our rules prohibit name calling and purposeful baiting. Most of the folks here are very long time deep researchers who are committed to historical truth.
Of late a certain agenda has taken hold here. Some time back we were forced to ban Greg Parker. He seems to have one intent with this case and that is to trash the valuable research of John Armstrong. Perhaps I am not the best person to be posting abut this matter as John has become a close friend over the last few years. I was honored to present for him at COPA on the 50th anniversary. However I read his work long before we became friends and it answered to very many questions for me. Reasonable minds can disagree, and that is fine, but if a person joins DPF with the SOLE purpose of bashing JA then many here will consider this person a troll with an agenda. Perhaps even sent BY Parker.
Unlike David Josephs and others I refuse to engage with these kinds of people because I see them for what they are. And they will not be tolerated.
Fair warning.
Dawn
Hello Dawn,
I must say you DPers are not very neighbourly - you spent yesterday criticising me and now I'm getting the silent treatment and under orders too! Haven't you folks been voicing your concern that "Master of the Universe", Greg Parker has been directing the thoughts and actions of everyone at ROKC?
The phrase 'pot, kettle, black' comes to mind, for some reason.
Anyhoo, I've got a secret to confess to you Dawn. Like you I am also very, very busy. So busy, in fact, that I have not had time to read Mr Armstrong's book and at the rate I'm going I don't think I'm ever going to have time to read his book (horrors!, I know).
I'm sure it's a very good book - everyone says so - I mean no disrespect to Mr Armstrong at all. But I am no JFK assassination polymath like some in the research community, nor do I aspire to be. So I rely on sites like CTKA and discussion forums like EF and DP to inform me on some of the areas that I don't have to the time to get to myself. And I have to say that the information I've seen has not won me over to the idea of H&L at all.
So now I've made this painful admission, Dawn, in the spirit of mutual confidences, I have a question for you.
Have you read Mr Armstrong's book? And by read I mean have you read it to the very last page? Or did you get most of the way through and then stop?
And then did you go on to give a presentation on this book (which you hadn't finished reading)?
Cos it seems to me if you are going to nail your colours to the wall over this theory then you ought to have at least read the entire book.
Not falling for your bullshit VL. I don't care what you read or do not read. And I am not here to answer your questions. This post was not directed at you, but to people in general who come here with a specific agenda to bash someone's work.
And yes I have read his book.
Bye, have a nice life. I will not be responding further. I am a very busy attorney and can see through people like you a mile away.
Dawn Meredith
Okay Dawn that's your answer in which case my response is that I apologise unreservedly for implying that you might not have finished JA's book.
I would also like to emphasise that the last time this issue was raised you admitted that you hadn't finished the book. But perhaps you have finished it since and I will take your word for it that you have.
Don Jeffries Wrote:These are talking points familiar to anyone who has read some of the "research" threads at ROKC. Vanessa, you wouldn't be referring derisively to Dawn's "busy" schedule because you and others at ROKC regularly refer to her as the "Very Busy Lowyer," would you?
How do you expect me to feel about your idol, Vanessa, when he runs a forum where I (and others) have been caricatured in the most juvenile manner imaginable? Photoshopping chocolate on my face? Really- do kindergartners even do that? One Hasan Yousef- whom I have never even interacted with on the internet in any manner at all- has called for me to jump off a cliff and do everyone a favor on that forum, and threatened to punch my "ugly face." What kind of adult makes those kinds of statements on a public forum, about someone he's never met or even communicated with in a cyber sense? And it's all because I dared to disagree with his inexplicable idol Greg Parker.
Vanessa, you look like a nice person in your photo. What attracts you to a forum like ROKC? Do you approve of the language, and the childish, gutter level of "debate" there? And yet you come on this forum and criticize people for their comments? You have a highly selective sense of outrage, it appears. And why do you keep baiting Albert Doyle by calling him "Brian?" What secret information do you have about his name? And your willingness to ridicule him this way wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he, too, has incurred the wrath of Greg Parker and his followers, would it?
Btw, I'm still a moderator at the EF. My comments here about that forum are no different from what I've told them in many emails (almost all of them unanswered). I care about that forum, as well as this one. They are important sources of information for everyone, and I think it's pathetic that they are so often ruined by problematic personalities like Greg Parker. It is very difficult to have an honest dialogue about anything on these forums, when individuals bombard the threads with endless, circular arguments that impede honest efforts to expose the truth about this case.
Hello Don
Just for the record, I have never referred to Dawn as the "Very Busy Lowyer". I made the comment about her being busy because she referred to how busy she was in at least two posts prior to my posting my comment on Armstrong's book.
This is how I see it. A thread was established on DP entitled "The Fiasco of Spartacus" it includes some derogatory remarks about a number of people from EF (including ROKCers) due to their views on H&L and the poll conducted on EF about H&L.
So I came on here to address that issue and to suggest that the two main protagonists attempt to address the H&L issues that have been raised in a debate on BOR.
For my troubles I have been accused of all sorts of unpleasant things including trolling. I see this as an illustration in micro-cosm of the broader issue that people have with ROKC. Which is: ROKCers get slagged off on a forum, ROKCers retaliate with vigour and are then branded all sorts of things including being demonically obsessed'. Which is not only completely over the top and ridiculous but if you can show me a researcher who is not obsessed with the case then the Pope isn't Catholic.
Obviously GP is not my idol' Don, and you really should know better than to make comments that are clearly meant to both provoke and insult. I am on here defending the ROKC, EF and myself. As you know GP can't because he's been banned.
I guess the comment about the photo is quite illustrative. Thanks for the compliment but I don't really think anyone's character can be ascertained by their photo. And I have plenty of photos where I'm sure I don't look like a nice person at all.
I'm a free speech extremist. Do you support Charlie Hebdo? From what I've seen it's a grossly insulting satirical magazine. Even so, it has a role to play and I support it's right to be. I would never have purchased Charlie Hebdo if it had been available in this country but I would die in a ditch for it's right to be. ROKC is the Charlie Hebdo of the research community. If you believe in free speech then you should support it. ROKC is also engaged in serious research at a number of levels on the PM issue (and a raft of other issues). I think the research community would be a lot better off focussing on that rather than the bad language. Obviously I don't support physical violence of any kind and I haven't seen anything like that since I've been on ROKC.
Seeing as it's show and tell time Don, I have to ask you about your role on EF as a moderator and your partisan support for the H&L theory. I haven't seen that from a moderator on any other forum. They usually don't comment at all and they certainly don't weigh in on one side as you have done. Do you really think that's an appropriate role for a moderator to take?
And now you have called on H&L supporters on DP to come on EF to help out. While I certainly would like to see Mr Di E. on EF I'm puzzled by your strong show of support for this theory. Even if it was true it does not get us to any answers over who killed JFK. So why do you support it so strongly?
Albert Doyle's real name is Brian. His father's name is Albert. I guess it's up to him to explain why he is not using his real name.
The one thing I don't understand, and have never understood, about the research community is the personal politics. I have worked in a few different workplaces with a mix of personalities yet we manage to put those differences aside in the pursuit of a common goal. I don't understand why the research community can't adopt the same professional approach given what's at stake.
hock:: ::face.palm::