Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2
Today at 2:39 pm by barto

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1
Today at 11:58 am by barto

» JFK Assassination
Today at 7:15 am by jack ferguson

» Lifton on his "new evidence"
Today at 4:47 am by steely dan

» The Eighth Naval District
Today at 1:11 am by Hasan Yusuf

» friends student exchange programs
Yesterday at 12:01 pm by greg parker

» Richard Bernarbei
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:29 pm by barto

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

» ROKC Lampoon
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 10:12 am by Stan Dane

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



why palmer mcbride was wrong

View previous topic View next topic Go down

why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by greg parker on Thu 26 Sep 2013, 9:23 pm

From mcBride's initial FBI report based on 11/23/63 interview. Note that the FBI used quote marks and that McBride read and signed each page: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95623&relPageId=82
"During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war. At this time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but that I did feel more emphasis should be placed on the space program in view of Russian successes. OSWALD was very anti-Eisenhower, and stated that President EISENHOWER was exploiting the working people. He then made a statement to the effect that he would like to kill President EISENHOWER because he was exploiting the working class. This statement was not made in jest, and OSWALD was in a serious frame of mind when this statement was made."
I want to concentrate on the two highlighted parts of the text.

1. This is expanded on later in the document when McBride states that in "April or May, 1958 Oswald stated he was moving to Ft Worth....in about August 1958 I got a letter from him saying he had gotten mixed up in a anti-Negro or anti-Communist riot on high school grounds in Ft Worth"

The official timeline indicates Marguerite and Oswald actually moved to Ft Worth 2 years prior to what McBride recalled.

The official timeline is correct.

Here is the proof. From the Spokane Daily Chronicle Sept 3, 1956


[edit to add: there were no similar stories coming out of Ft Worth in 1958]



Note that the riot started at the "Riverside Elementary School". This was undoubtedly the issue referred to by Oswald in his letter- and it happened in 1956 - not 1958.

On the second issue, McBride is recalling a debate with Oswald about "Russian success" with their space program. I'm not sure exactly how this played out, but if McBride later claimed this was a reference to the successful Sputnik launch in 1957, someone most likely planted that thought in his mind, based on his own erroneous timeline. If he had meant "Sputnik", he surely would have said "Sputnik".

It was by no means impossible to talk about "Russian success" in space PRIOR to Sputnik. The newspapers of the day were continually hammering away at how the US was falling behind the successful Russians. 

Here are two stories on the subject of Russian success in space both published in the US in the months prior to Oswald leaving NO for Ft Worth. 
Soviet Race For 'Moon' Spurs US

Pay-Per-View - 
Christian Science Monitor - May 4, 1956 
According to reports , Soviet space . under the direction of t;ommission . on Travel. Some of the Soviet Union's top natural scientists are believed to be ... 



SOVIET SPACE SHIP IN '56 ENVISIONED; London Red Paper...

$3.95 - 
New York Times - Jan 3, 1956 
The Communist newspaper Daily Worker reported in a Moscow dispatch today that the Soviet Union might be ready to launch a space satellite this year.... 

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by John Mooney on Thu 26 Sep 2013, 10:28 pm

Greg, did you see the Linda Faircloth video that John Armstrong made.

It's supposed to prove that everyone at Pfisterers remembered Oswald working there in 57/58.

It does no such thing. It proves that John Armstrong and Palmer McBride told everyone that Oswald worked there at that time.

I got called an agent provocatuer for pointing this out.

John Mooney

Posts : 84
Join date : 2013-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by greg parker on Thu 26 Sep 2013, 10:55 pm

John Mooney wrote:Greg, did you see the Linda Faircloth video that John Armstrong made.

It's supposed to prove that everyone at Pfisterers remembered Oswald working there in 57/58.

It does no such thing. It proves that John Armstrong and Palmer McBride told everyone that Oswald worked there at that time.

I got called an agent provocatuer for pointing this out.
Why bother?

Lifton got one thing right. Armstrong and his enablers went on a witness recruitment drive.

Go to the bottom of this. Linda Minor, I think, pretty well nails it.
http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/colossal-failure-to-research-ekdahl.html

As for Faircloth...

these are all the Pfisterer employees Armstrong ignored. Why? Because they all say 1956.

http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/colossal-failure-to-research-ekdahl.html

Peggy Zimmerman - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26

Mrs Bernierita Smith - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=26

Mrs Anna Langlois - recalled Oswald as attending in 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27

Fred O'sullivan - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=27

Jack Loyakano - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview him?
http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=715120

Carroll Battistella - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=28

Joan Burgard - 54/55. Did Armstrong interview her?
http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=29

One final thing - in Louisiana, a Census Form was completed for EVERY child attending school in that state. Did Armstrong check Census records?
http://www.maryferre...07&relPageId=83

The response? You can't trust the FBI. All those reports are forged.

Great.

Then all the more reason Armstrong should have spoken to those people. Imagine the furore if half a dozen ex-students all independently claimed the FBI changed their reports?

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by greg parker on Fri 27 Sep 2013, 10:17 am

John,

I saw a comment on the Harvey & Lee FB page that DPF was a H & L friendly forum... so I wandered over there for a look at what they have.

While there, I came across your debate with some of them on this subject, and within that, you had some nice things to say about me - so thank you for that!

But there was one post that I found a bit baffling.

One made by Jim Hargrove:


I never heard of Greg Parker until a few days ago when I stumbled across a lengthy, year or two old debate between him and David Josephs.

Parker declared victory every time he posted, but David ate him up in the debate! EVIDENCE is a funny thing, and joking about it doesn't change it.

Jim
Jim and I interacted on JFK newsgroups about 10 or so years back.


He even sent some of my material to Armstrong in 2002.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/14905/rec/1

Back then I thought Jim was a decent enough fellow - even though I was at that time, not convinced one way or the other by his postings about Armstrong's theory.

Not so sure about him any more.

He liked my material back then -- but now that I have come out against "Harvey & Lee", I apparently couldn't win an argument against a turnip.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by greg parker on Fri 27 Sep 2013, 1:14 pm

David Josephs from that same DPF thread:

With regards to Beauregard...
when I did finally find the Asst Principal HEAD explanation of the school days, AS I ALSO POSTED, I find that Greg's analysis was incorrect and my agreeing with him premature.

Help us understand how Oswald attends a complete SPRING semester in 1954 and yet has a full attendance record for BOTH semesters...  
or how they can both be living at 126 Exchange AND at Lillian's that Spring...
Here is Asst Principle Head's explanation:

"The interpretation of the numbers set forth opposite this abbreviation would represent A TOTAL LISTING OF THE SCHOOL DAYS FOR A GIVEN SCHOOL YEAR. He further stated that regularly 180 days appear in the school year and it was a state law that a number of school days in a given year must not drop below 170."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10530&relPageId=10
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10530&relPageId=11

David has officially lost the plot. 

The Armstrong/Josephs line has been that the figure represented the number of days attendance by Oswald.

In the debate at the ed forum, David finally conceded I was correct - that the figure actually represented the number of school days available to Oswald for the remainder of the school year (given that he commenced after the start of the school year).

David is now trying to say that what Asst Principle Head told the FBI by way of explaining the records actually supports Armstrong.

I don't think so, David. It unequivocally supports my argument.
 
If you think otherwise, you would have provided a link and/or a quote from the report. You didn't because you KNOW it does NOT support you.

Nice try. But if this is what the DPF prides itself on, it's no better than some of the forums it likes to berate.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by John Mooney on Fri 27 Sep 2013, 3:47 pm

Jim Hargrove is the one who posted in that debate the Linda Faircloth video as some kind of proof that Oswald worked at Pfisterers during 57/58.

But if you watch it the sleight of hand becomes apparent.

For a start Linda Faircloth didn't work there when Oswald was there and Pfisterers have no employment records for the time.

Then Linda Faircloth says they say Oswald worked there during that period -  after she gives a long line of "we spoke to... they said the one you need to speak to is..." - because the ultimate source for the date is JOHN ARMSTRONG himself and Palmer McBride.

She says "John Armstrong" with a nod to off camera because John Armstrong is sitting there.

John Mooney

Posts : 84
Join date : 2013-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by greg parker on Fri 27 Sep 2013, 7:44 pm

John Mooney wrote:Jim Hargrove is the one who posted in that debate the Linda Faircloth video as some kind of proof that Oswald worked at Pfisterers during 57/58.

But if you watch it the sleight of hand becomes apparent.

For a start Linda Faircloth didn't work there when Oswald was there and Pfisterers have no employment records for the time.

Then Linda Faircloth says they say Oswald worked there during that period -  after she gives a long line of "we spoke to... they said the one you need to speak to is..." - because the ultimate source for the date is JOHN ARMSTRONG himself and Palmer McBride.

She says "John Armstrong" with a nod to off camera because John Armstrong is sitting there.
Unbelievable.

Here's more from that thread:

Hargrove 
JA said someone was arguing that the days listed under "Re Ad" on the Beauregard JHS records really meant number of total school days in the semester/year, not the number of days a kid was present.


Doesn't make sense, though, if you look at the "Re Ad" total for the 1954-55 school year, which is 168, two days less than the minimum 170 day school year mandated by Louisiana law.


I've altered the Early Years write-up on the website a bit, highlighting just the 53-54 fall semester lines on the PS 44 and Beauregard records hoping to make this conflict clearer.
 
Josephs in reply
Jim...

That was me talking to John about that... Asst Principal HEAD says both things in the FBI telling of it. He first says it's the TOTAL number of school days, then he says it's the number Oswald attended.


Here is Asst Principal Head again -- maybe someone can find where he says the figure represents the number of days Oswald attended.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10530&relPageId=10

All I can see is where he states it's the total listing of school days for a given school year. 

Here is the actual record.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1317&relPageId=847
As you can see, Hargrove has as much trouble understanding the records as Josephs does. The total number of days is clearly indicated - 179 (wrong figure). Hargrove is getting his "168" from the record, but is forgetting to add on days absent. 168 + 12 days absence = 180 days in the school year. 

I see how they "chastised" you about DPF being a research site and how you should pony up with some research.... but if this is any indication of the quality of their work -- their insights into the records... Mr. Drago is welcome to keep them all over there.  

What a bunch of oxygen thieves.

They are of course, guilty of the very thing they accused you of - merely parroting the (flawed) works of another - in this case me.

The difference is, you understood the material. They just believe what they are told to believe by Armstrong -- and then, like that square peg in a round hole... they hammer, twist and contort the evidence until they are satisfied it fits close enough to Armstrong's conclusions about it.


Last edited by greg parker on Fri 27 Sep 2013, 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : correction from records)

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Fri 27 Sep 2013, 8:14 pm

greg parker wrote:The difference is, you understood the material. They just believe what they are told to believe by Armstrong -- and then, like that square peg in a round hole... they hammer, twist and contort the evidence until they are satisfied it fits close enough to Armstrong's conclusions about it.
That's the Harvey and Lee cult for you. No objectivity whatsoever.

BTW, great work on Palmer McBride, Greg.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1783
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by John Mooney on Fri 27 Sep 2013, 8:23 pm

I only did what others did. People chip in with comments all the time.

But I made the cardinal sin of questioning supposed "research".

I also asked... why would the CIA (or whoever) decide to use two 13 years olds to create dual Oswalds back in 1952? How could that be useful?

I get how body doubles and identity swapping could possibly be useful. What I don't get is why two people with the same persona/name would be useful. It doesn't make any sense.

What if the Russians had checked up on Oswald.. "hey Vladimir, wtfski.. there are two of him".

I was told the answers were already in the thread (they weren't), so I asked for them to point me to the answers (they couldn't).

I asked for an example where this hairbrained scheme might be of some use.

That's when the ad hominem started so that was it for me.

John Mooney

Posts : 84
Join date : 2013-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by greg parker on Sun 13 Apr 2014, 3:44 pm

bump

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by Stan Dane on Sun 13 Apr 2014, 5:23 pm

greg parker wrote:bump
Thanks for the bump, Greg. I was quite new to the forum when this thread came out, mainly focused on the PM discussion, so I missed this (but then, there's a hell of a lot I've missed). John Mooney's experience at DPF is a lot like yours. You too "made the cardinal sin of questioning supposed 'research.'" When guys like Severson make insightful comments and ask legitimate questions, they get patronized by Armstrong's Grand Most Excellent Masters. Bottom line: shut up and believe.
 
They are indeed a cult.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2329
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by Terry W. Martin on Sun 13 Apr 2014, 9:12 pm

Stan Dane wrote:
greg parker wrote:bump
Thanks for the bump, Greg. I was quite new to the forum when this thread came out, mainly focused on the PM discussion, so I missed this (but then, there's a hell of a lot I've missed). John Mooney's experience at DPF is a lot like yours. You too "made the cardinal sin of questioning supposed 'research.'" When guys like Severson make insightful comments and ask legitimate questions, they get patronized by Armstrong's Grand Most Excellent Masters. Bottom line: shut up and believe.
 
They are indeed a cult.

Like Stan I was new here when that thread was running and i couldn't make heads or tails out of it. Now, after looking over more of the H&L stuff here and at DPF, I still can't make heads or tails out of it.

I have to agree with John on this: why would anyone start a doppelganger program with a couple of kids? Maybe some spook with a lot of time on their hands or maybe some sort of testing program. Still, I see no evidence of anything "going on" except for the birthing of - as Stan said - a cult.

Greg, thanks for bumping this one.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: why palmer mcbride was wrong

Post by Sponsored content Today at 3:02 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum