Trolls and proxy posts against Harvey and Lee.

[Jim Hargrove]

Forums like this one and others are indexed by Google and probably by other search engines as well. When you search for specific topics related to the assassination, forum results are often near or even at the very top of the results list. Disinformation that goes unchallenged is left for years to be "discovered" by unsuspecting people looking for information. Is that really what we want?

[Albert Doyle]

I have had trouble locating specific conspiracy evidence on Google lately. Either it isn't there, or non-related material pops up. But usually the case is that McAdams or other denier material is posted as the top links.

[Michael Cross]

Posted by Jim D:

Vanessa, please spare us.

You came over here because you objected to being called a PM or Parker Minion.

Vanessa Loney replies:

Jim, with all due respect, (and I do respect you as a researcher but am finding your manners disappointingly lacking) I am not being directed by anyone at ROKC or EF. They would find that laughable I'm sure.


Posted by Vanessa Loney at ROKC:

Hi Lee and Hasan


I"m a member at the Deep Politics Forum and am happy to post whatever you want about Albert Doyle. I can't seem to do anything but type on this computer though due to the browser so if you have something for me to post it will have to be sent to my private email Vanessa.Loney@transact.net.au.

The truth. Thanks Jim. Beautifully done.

[Drew Phipps]

As this thread amply demonstrates, stuff that is posted on the internet sticks around, intended or unintended, challenged or unchallenged. Now, while we can't do much about search engines and their proclivities, we can make sure our little corner of the internet stays polite, mature, and respected.

[Peter Lemkin]

The purpose of provocation on Forums is at least two-fold. First, to harass and if possible make researchers/forum members with a contrary view look defensive and 'silly' by having to 'defend' a theory that often needs no defense. Second, to rewind the clock on already settled [for the majority of intelligent and open-minded researchers] with the nth 'debate' from the beginning on the already settled issue(s), making them look unsettled and up for contest over and over and over again. While some do this out of conviction or naivete, others are part of an established system of disinformation on this case - that has been ongoing from the day of the assassination - and has many foci, but primarily run out of the intelligence apparat of the USA.

While Armstrong has some additional ideas, it is established fact (to me) that there were more than one 'Oswald' at certain times - certainly in the weeks and months before the assassination there were often two persons claiming to be an 'Oswald' at mutually exclusive places. Even on the day OF the assassination there were to my satisfaction TWO 'Oswalds'. All that Armstrong does is go further with his theory/evidence, which I subscribe to in most of its aspects, that the doubling of 'Oswald' went back AT LEAST to his/their days in the Marines, and possibly back to their childhood days. Obviously, this was not originally with the JFK assassination as its aim...but for some other intelligence-related purpose, as needed.

Even if one doesn't 'buy' the childhood doubling [though the evidence seems quite convincing even there], to me it is established fact that there were two 'Oswalds' by Marine times, when one was a false defector in the USSR, and upon that one's return...right up to the day of the Assassination when two Oswalds were seen, and two arrested - one to be eliminated before he could tell his real story, and the other to be whisked away by the architects of the assassination.

Even if one doesn't subscribe to everything in Armstrong's book, there is no other book with as much useful and valid research on certain aspects of 'Oswald' and a few others in his circle of friends and family, etc.

I really can't understand how someone who has not read the book and has no intention to can claim to 'debate' the topic - other than to say something like 'all the people I respect think this is an invalid theory - so I do as well'.

As far as I'm concerned, tag-team posting for persons on other forums is not valid and shouldn't be tolerated beyond a very very few posts. We've all been reminded that GP thinks ill of H&L - so what of it?! [Some still think that LHO shot JFK from the front from the rear; with more than six bullets with three of them; from multiple positions from one he wasn't even at, etc.] GP has his own Forum to spout on about whatever he wants. What NEW and substantive problems/debate do people have with Armstrong's work? - or be gone.....IMHO. Not everyone on this forum subscribe to Armstrong's views [or all of them], but I think most agree that there were at various times more than one 'Oswald' and that Armstrong's research - both in the book and available in the archives - are some of the best ever done on 'Oswald' and things related to 'Oswald'. Extreme 'Armstrong bashing' to me is only a surrogate for LN-ism.

[Dawn Meredith]

Thanks Peter. And the trolls are many. All one has to do is spend some time at Parker's hate forum. And to think that they make fun of us.
I won't be commenting any further at EF to Parker. Or the other of his followers. Nasty f'ing bunch. I can't help but wonder why they such a hard on for John. One reason is their own books. But it seems to go deeper. Which tells me more than I dare post. It all reminds me of Len Colby.

That said, let's move ahead doing what we can to shed light on the truth. We can't change the haters, liars, disinformationists. They clearly have a LOT of spare time. So, all we can do is avoid them. Feed the tolls and they will return again and again.

[Michael Barwell]

I have absolutley no idea what all this is about - even having read some of it, but 'parker'/'Parker' is a reference I've had for a while - yrs. Smells fishy to me.

[Albert Doyle]

A certain group is making a move to sell itself as the bold, cold water in the face, skeptic contrarian group that will bring a brave new reality to assassination evidence. However in reality all it is is a cheap hack trying to sensationalize assassination research and grab attention while taking down some of the most important esoteric evidence just like Lone Nutters. Its methodology is based mostly on thuggish protest and intimidation. If you look at the details their claims are even weaker and worse examples of the claimed research flaws they criticize. Unfortunately this crude attack on the evidence has managed to gain the support of researchers who don't look too closely at the details and are prone to the influence of popular political winds. This skeptic neo-con like movement takes advantage of government corruption of the evidence and pretends that the lack of evidence is due to the failure of the theories rather than intentional government suppression. These people should be treated like the apostate troublemakers they are and should be driven out of the assassination research community. Their contempt for the real evidence is plain.


I think a talented researcher could make short work of those deniers in direct debate.

[Michael Barwell]

A certain group is making a move to sell itself as the bold, cold water in the face, skeptic contrarian group that will bring a brave new reality to assassination evidence. However in reality all it is is a cheap hack trying to sensationalize assassination research and grab attention while taking down some of the most important esoteric evidence just like Lone Nutters. Its methodology is based mostly on thuggish protest and intimidation. If you look at the details their claims are even weaker and worse examples of the claimed research flaws they criticize. Unfortunately this crude attack on the evidence has managed to gain the support of researchers who don't look too closely at the details and are prone to the influence of popular political winds. This skeptic neo-con like movement takes advantage of government corruption of the evidence and pretends that the lack of evidence is due to the failure of the theories rather than intentional government suppression. These people should be treated like the apostate troublemakers they are and should be driven out of the assassination research community. Their contempt for the real evidence is plain.


I think a talented researcher could make short work of those deniers in direct debate.

Well, that's cleared it up. I'll stay out of it. I've got quite enough on my plate, as is.