Invitation to Dr Norwood

Fri 22 Sep 2017, 12:11 pm

Dr Norwood has complained that the level of debate at the Ed Forum regarding Harvey & Lee is not to his liking.

I therefore invite Dr. Norwod to join this forum for a debate on H & L.

Dr. Norwood can set the rules of the debate and he has my word I will abide by them.

I will also request that other members do not join in as the appearance of "tag-teaming" should be avoided. I want to make it as fair and as comfortable for Dr. Norwood as possible, so that the debate is the sole focus on both sides.

Fri 22 Sep 2017, 3:00 pm

Stan Dane wrote:If you set this up, this Musketeer assures you that other ROKC members will abide by your wishes and only observe.

Now let the games begin.

Thank you Stan.

There is no point in doing this unless it is done with meticulous attention to fair play for all. That is why the invitation is for Dr. Norwood. I have picked the brightest among them to give them every chance.

This a serious suggestion, no tricks, no traps and done under whatever set of rules he chooses. He can even select the specific topics.

Thu 26 Oct 2017, 9:33 am

Dr. James Norwood wrote:Very well done, Jim!

Your points above on Jack Ruby are especially important.

Readers of this thread are urged to study John Armstrong's piece on Ruby:

http://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html

The story of Jack Ruby has long flummoxed JFK researchers. John's article hits the bull's eye, especially in linking Ruby to the CIA, not the mafia.

It takes a minimum of one hour to read and digest this lengthy piece. The abundant primary sources appearing throughout John's article are what make it so persuasive. Readers are encouraged to verify each of those sources and to weigh the evidence for themselves, to determine the significant role played by Ruby in the assassination.

Dr. Norwood has not taken up my offer to debate the Harvey & Lee Theory.

Is he willing perhaps to debate the Fehrenbach allegations which are supported by JA in the link provided?

I for one, would relish that, and once again, Dr. Norwood can set the rules, because any rules he sets will not deflect or detract from the facts I have at my disposal.

The person involved was not Ruby. Though I long ago put forward that it may have been the NY unionist, Jack Rubenstein, I no longer support that either. I now know who it was.

Over to you doc. I'm ready anytime.

Tue 21 Nov 2017, 11:41 am

Dear Greg,

Today (November 20), I came across this post that you started back in September, wherein you wish to debate the topic of the two Oswalds. So, I created my account with you today, and I am now a participant in your forum. Thanks for accepting my request to join you and the other members.

You are correct when you assert that I do not like the level of comments posted by users on the Education Forum. But I have a bad taste for all of the JFK internet forums. The main problem for me is the cliquish nature of the forums and the lack of integrity to the discussions, wherein actual evidence is not presented and subjected to scrutiny.

My two points are borne out already on this thread:

(1) Your clique (steely dan, stan dane, terry w. martin) have already started the process of "piling on," making derogatory comments about me before I even located this thread and;

(2) there is nothing in the way of evidence of any sort that has been presented on this thread.

I have written two articles that appear on the site harveyandlee.net.

What points would like to challenge in those two articles?

Please refer to specific arguments that I have made and, above all, individual pieces of evidence that I have cited, and I will be happy to respond right here on this thread.

I look forward to your reply.

James

Tue 21 Nov 2017, 4:21 pm

James Norwood wrote:Dear Greg,

Today (November 20), I came across this post that you started back in September, wherein you wish to debate the topic of the two Oswalds. So, I created my account with you today, and I am now a participant in your forum. Thanks for accepting my request to join you and the other members.

You are correct when you assert that I do not like the level of comments posted by users on the Education Forum. But I have a bad taste for all of the JFK internet forums. The main problem for me is the cliquish nature of the forums and the lack of integrity to the discussions, wherein actual evidence is not presented and subjected to scrutiny.

My two points are borne out already on this thread:

(1) Your clique (steely dan, stan dane, terry w. martin) have already started the process of "piling on," making derogatory comments about me before I even located this thread and;

(2) there is nothing in the way of evidence of any sort that has been presented on this thread.

I have written two articles that appear on the site harveyandlee.net.

What points would like to challenge in those two articles?

Please refer to specific arguments that I have made and, above all, individual pieces of evidence that I have cited, and I will be happy to respond right here on this thread.

I look forward to your reply.

James

No worries. I am looking for someone to ensure fair play and order. When that is done, I will start on a new thread.

Wed 22 Nov 2017, 8:28 am

The person I had in mind seems to be off the grid at the moment so I think we should just proceed. If there are any issues, we will deal with them if/when they arise.

Wed 22 Nov 2017, 5:20 pm

Hello Dr Norwood

To demonstrate our good faith about this debate I've deleted the comments from other posters that were on this thread. You can comment on here or use the other thread that Greg has set up.

Fellow RoKCers: these two threads are for Dr Norwood and Greg only. Anyone else who attempts to comment on here will get booted. Anyone who attempts to make comments about this thread on another RoKC thread will get booted.

RoKCers can email me with any complaints at my home email.

Thu 23 Nov 2017, 1:15 am

Dear Greg,

You indicated that I could set the rules of the debate. The rules are as follows:

(1) The goal of the debate is focused discussion of ideas, arguments, and evidence related to the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, as identified in #2 below. The purpose is not broad speculation, theorizing, or abstractions. In the course of this conversation, readers might learn something new about Oswald simply in the process of reflecting on the different positions taken by the debaters.

(2) I take full responsibility for the views that I present. This debate is not about John Armstrong, and I do not even plan on mentioning his name except for identifying documents that he discovered, crediting him for interviews that he conducted, or acknowledging him for original interpretive points, as per standard scholarly practice. The exclusive focus of this debate will be on the issues identified in my two articles that appear on harveyandlee.net:

(a) “Lee Harvey Oswald: The Legend and the Truth”

(b) “Oswald’s Proficiency in the Russian Language”

The overall rationale for the two Oswalds is established in the opening article. The second article, which focuses on Oswald’s Russian language skills, is the cornerstone for the evidence for the existence of the two Oswalds. In other words, if the Lee Harvey Oswald who grew up in Louisiana, New York, and Texas, served in the Marines, resided in Minsk, married Marina, returned to the United States in 1962, distributed pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans in 1963, worked in the TSDB, and was shot by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963, was a native speaker of the Russian language, then it follows that this Oswald could not have possibly been the Lee Harvey Oswald born to Marguerite Claverie Oswald and Robert E. Lee Oswald.

In the two articles, there is enough material for a sustained and lively debate. Ancillary topics not pertaining to the two articles are offlimits for the debate.

(3) The strict policy of the debate is that no aspersions or personal invective will be tolerated. By “aspersions,” we mean questioning the intelligence or the professional reputation of the debater. By “personal invective,” we mean any insulting, demeaning, abusive, or hurtful remarks (even suggested by innuendo) that impugn the personal character of the debater. If any such language enters into the conversation from either of the two debaters or any third parties posting on the thread, then either one of the two debaters has the right to peremptorily withdraw from the conversation since the ground rules have been violated. The purpose of the debate is 100% discussion pertaining to historical inquiry and 0% about the debaters themselves.

(4) As the invitation for a debate came from you, I am planning on responding only to the questions and issues that you raise on this thread, not to the posts or questions from any third parties.

(5) In this internet-forum medium, the best questions will be those that address a single point. Convoluted, multi-component questions are to be avoided. The rule of thumb is that the respondent must be able to provide a full response to a single question that will fit into a forum reply box of reasonable length, as opposed to having to write a book in order to respond to the debater’s query. With each post limited to a single point and/or question, it will also be difficult for a debater to dodge or avoid responding to the other debater’s question.

(6) There may be a lag time in responding to the posts, due to busy schedules. Thus, the debate will likely unfold in a much more leisurely manner than a typical forum thread that is characterized by lightning-fast replies. It may require patience in waiting for responses. But, if all goes according to plan, this could be a substantial conversation that evolves over time and probes progressively deeper into the issues.

(7) Either party is free to end participation in the debate at any time and with no consideration of retaliatory comments for choosing to withdraw.

If the guidelines above are followed, this debate may serve as a template for future internet conversations involving other JFK researchers who wish to engage in civilized discourse about different facets of the case.

Please let me know if you are in accord with the rules, as defined above.

Thanks!

James

Thu 23 Nov 2017, 8:08 am

All good with me.

Thu 23 Nov 2017, 8:10 am

Are you happy to respond to my first post in the other thread or would you like it modified in some way?

Thu 23 Nov 2017, 8:20 am

Hello, Greg

In your first post, there were many topics, and I want to be thorough in responding to all of the components of your critique.

For a starting point, would you please select only one of the questions and re-send it in your next post?

Thanks!

James

Thu 23 Nov 2017, 8:47 am

James Norwood wrote:Hello, Greg

In your first post, there were many topics, and I want to be thorough in responding to all of the components of your critique.

For a starting point, would you please select only one of the questions and re-send it in your next post?

Thanks!

James

I have shortened to addressing only your opening quote.

Invitation to Dr Norwood

Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

reply to Greg Parker

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Ground Rules for the Debate

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood

Re: Invitation to Dr Norwood