Trolls and proxy posts against Harvey and Lee.

[Dawn Meredith]

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

[Jim Hargrove]

And if you want to see why John Armstrong is Public Enemy #1 for a number of people, an easy place to start studying his research is right here:

[URL="http://harveyandlee.net"]
HarveyandLee.net[/URL]

You can order John's book from that site also.

[Lauren Johnson]

And if you want to see why John Armstrong is Public Enemy #1 for a number of people, an easy place to start studying his research is right here:

[URL="http://harveyandlee.net"]
HarveyandLee.net[/URL]

You can order John's book from that site also.

What is Parker's point? Why does he hate the Harvey and Lee theory so violently? Before he got banned here, I never could figure out what was at stake for him?

[Tracy Riddle]

If we agree on the big picture (it was a conspiracy involving more than one gunman, Oswald was a patsy, etc.), then JFK researchers need to accept that they can disagree about other areas. But it shouldn't get personal, we shouldn't let our egos get in the way. None of us should become so attached to a particular theory that we see others who disagree with us as the "enemy."



As far as Armstrong is concerned, I really like his book (have read it twice), but it may not be correct in every detail. I've said before that I have problems with his scenario of the events on the day of the assassination. But I may be wrong too.

[David Josephs]

Thanks moderator. Although I can't help feeling the warning about attacks on individuals could have come quite a few posts earlier.

All I'm proposing is a fair debate on neutral ground.

Fine Ms. Loney... in a fair debate on neutral ground I'd like to know how any of these constitutes a rebuttal argument that addresses the issues and what your "fair debate" brings to the discussion.

To anyone following the EF Fiasco... these are the issues and below the offered explanation which are not supported by anything, unless Ms. L here has the supporting evidence
I look forward to a fair and focues discussion of the issues.

DJ

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post100310 the post you are referring to....

1. who tries to convince us the Marines simply asked Oswald, "height, weight, vision, blood pressure, etc..." and just recorded what he said to arrive at 61" and 150 lbs....
2. who believes it was Radionics that influenced the Oxnard call where a crazy women rambles about JFK's assassination
3. who wants us to believe that a 6% chance of tonsil regrowth in 5 year olds within the first 30 months after surgery explkains why the USMC records have Oswald suffering from tonsilitis and the Russian hospital records telling us that
the man they saw had normal tonsils and adenoids
4. who also claims that an article on riots in Ft Worth in 1956 and comments Oswald made proves he was not at Pfisterer's in 1958
5. who supplies 7 sources to debunk Oswald at Beauregard JHS in 1953-54 that are all asked only about the 54-55 school year
6. who tries to convince us that from March 23, 1953 to Sept 14, 1953 includes 200 school days from which the records and FBI show his attendance. (there are 210 potential school days in that period which includes 55 days of summer, 10 days of winter break, 5 days of spring break, 17 days at the Youth House.
7. who doesn;t realize that Robert Oswald puts him at PS44 in MANHATTAN at 77th and Columbus in 8th grade in 1954 while the boys PO Carro writes he enters 9th grade at PS44 on Propect in the Bronx
8. The FBI records from NYC are a complete sham... one has to ask, for what possible reason would it be necessary to do the kind of background investigation which includes the taking off ALL his original Jr high school records only to be held and copied by the FBI. There are at least 3 different versions of the boy's "Permanent" record... see below

---------------------------------

1. He enters the USMC at 68" grows to the point of his discharge to 71" and then shrinks down to 69" at his autopsy yet the USMC does not take the vital stats, they simple ask the Marine.

2. Radionics (suggested as the source of the woman's ability to know the future) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionics This was discussed in the context of the types of source research done or relied upon to determine the reasons for events... He like to accuse JA of every trick in the book without an ounce of proof yet is fine claiming Radionics and other extreme fringe concepts as the basis for his analysis without seeing the hypocrisy.

"The above facts brought to mind some of the practices of Wiccans, Rosicrucian and other fringe groups and cults, and so it was along such lines that further inquiry took me."

Was the Caller Using Radionics? http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/parker4.html
I believe she was using radionics or a similar means of remotely affecting the assassination. I have no opinion on whether it works. At this point, that is less important than the fact that the woman believed it worked, and that she had prior knowledge of what was about to happen in Dallas. The other unanswered question: was she trying to ensure the success of the assassination, or trying to prevent it? I believe that the totality of her invocations suggests she was trying to ensure success.

3. The tonsil regrowth theory has been offered repeatedly by this group yet when the actual statistics are found and presented AND I post that the word JA used in this instance, "Impossible" related to the tonsilitis in the USMC is not 100% accurate since there was a very slight chance of partial regrowth. Yet on p455 of CE985 we learn that at the Russian Hospital they found: "pharynx clean, tonsils not enlarged, no pus. Swallowing painless." Not that they are tiny partial regrowth tonsils... but that they are normal, ie not enlarged with infection...

4. you can bring that argument forward if you understand it... I find it more of his obtuse sourcing and twisted logic... but show us differently Ms. Loney... this has to do with Palmer McBride and the need for the FBI to ascertain and prove that his FBI statement could not possibly be allowed since it confincted with where Lee was at the time... Again Ms. L... the president is killed and the first week of the investigation requires the FBI to prove that a man was not truthful about a job 5 years earlier that he and other corroborate? "Never believe anything until it is officially denied"

5. it's on EF - you can search for it. Every student attending Beauregard JHS in New Orleans who was asked was asked about the 54-55 school year when we know Lee was there... he was not supposed to be there in the fall of 1953. The FBI did not ask a single question about 1953 yet your man there proudly linked to all of these interviews and proclaimed, "see, they all say he was there"... this remains the manner in which supporting evidence is offered...

6. Simple math Ms. L. I'll even post the days again so you can count them... Out of 210 possible days, show us how the 200 days the FBI and GP says he attended fits...

7. Posted at the original thread at EF... there are a number of different stories of what happens to little Ozzie in the fall of 1953.. and they wind up combined into one, seriously flawed record.

8. why is CE1384, the "PERM RECORD" of Lee Harvey Oswald not matchother copies of the same document or even the original document which was started for Oswald in 1952 when he came from Trinity to Public School. (below)

[Jim Hargrove]

Sure, Tracy, and this is the kind of balance any mature researcher without a hidden agenda would adopt. In a 1,000+ page book filled with as much info as H&L, there are bound to be some mistakes. How could there not be?

But what is going on over at EF strikes me as going far beyond personal differences and disagreements over facts. It strikes me as a professional disinfo campaign, which begs the question, What has John Armstrong uncovered that requires a response like that?

John is currently revising an article on the Steven Landesberg affair, and it is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous to the status quo as the rest of H&L. When it's done, and it's nearly there, I'm hoping EF will feel compelled to erupt in some sort of nuclear way, not just the usual panties in a twist snits. Should be fun!

[Drew Phipps]

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.

[Dawn Meredith]

And Drew you know that I totally respect all of your opinions even though we do not agree on Harvey and Lee. You have posted much of value on these pages.

Jim: I completely agree. What John has uncovered is bigger than the assassination. Similar to Ed Haslam's book, transcends the assassination of JFK or the murder of Dr. May Sherman.

Gotta give a huge shout out to Lisa Pease who I was just listening to on Black Op radio. I will start a new thread with the link.

Dawn

[David Josephs]

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.

And I freely admit that in the study 6% of the subjects where a partial was perfomed purposefully had minor regrowth with in 30 months of the median age of 5.
From the time Oswald was 8 until the tonsilitis in the Marines I do not see evidence for anything of the sort occurring. Reading CE985 a bit more closely and the man with reoccurring tonsilitis and sore throats has none of these once he leaves the USMC and Harvey is tracked instead of Lee.

The point of the argument was JA's use of the word "impossible"... 5% occurrance is not impossible... but it's also not the 94% who did not have any regrowth or tonsil problems.

[Vanessa Loney]

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

Er....are you referring to me by any chance? If you are, please let me assure you I am not here to 'bash' anyone let alone Mr Armstrong. All I'm asking for is a proper debate on the issue. And I'm finding a puzzling lack of support for it on here.


I can also assure you that I haven't been 'sent' by anyone and nor does GP send people out to do his bidding. I'm not sure why anyone would even think that. On ROKC we're all strong-minded individuals with our own views. Very strong-minded individuals actually.