Oswald's High School

[W. Tracy Parnell]

 With all due respect your responses to these posts is that it is impossible because there is a Lee Harvey Oswald living somewhere else simultaneously to the given reports in question For you this is evidence  that a contradictory report is impossible whereas for those entertaining the possibility of two Oswald's it is a confirmation of the theory

I don't think you read the article. The fact that the one and only LHO was overseas is only one of the things that debunks Palmer McBride's story. From my article:

We know LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957 because of the ARRB tax records.
CD 343 confirms LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957.
Other Pfisterer employees remembered LHO working there in 1956.
In an interview with David Lifton in 1994, McBride recanted his assertions about knowing LHO in 1956 and about Sputnik.
The riots LHO mentioned in a letter to McBride occurred in 1956 not 1958.
The ARRB investigated and refuted Armstrong?s claims about the tax records.

Now, if you want to join the H&L people and say that the records are faked and David Lifton is lying and the ARRB is wrong you can do that. But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.

[Matt Grantham]

I don't think you read the article. The fact that the one and only LHO was overseas is only one of the things that debunks Palmer McBride's story. From my article:

We know LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957 because of the ARRB tax records.
CD 343 confirms LHO worked at Pfisterer in 1956 and not 1957.
Other Pfisterer employees remembered LHO working there in 1956.
In an interview with David Lifton in 1994, McBride recanted his assertions about knowing LHO in 1956 and about Sputnik.
The riots LHO mentioned in a letter to McBride occurred in 1956 not 1958.
The ARRB investigated and refuted Armstrong?s claims about the tax records.

Now, if you want to join the H&L people and say that the records are faked and David Lifton is lying and the ARRB is wrong you can do that. But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.

 As afar as a McBride recantation  First that does not explain the lack of the WC ever talking to him Second yes I am going to suggest there is an established tendency for witnesses of various sorts, especially those tied to intelligence, to move their stories over time to conform to the needs of those promulgating the official story Are you suggesting his memory improved over time? LHO being wrong about the dates of t he riot seem only to point at a lack of proper memory and nothing more Some of the other points you raise may be legitimate, and I will hopefully look into a bit more

 And of course this is only one part of the material I posted

[W. Tracy Parnell]

 As afar as a McBride recantation  First that does not explain the lack of the WC ever talking to him Second yes I am going to suggest there is an established tendency for witnesses of various sorts, especially those tied to intelligence, to move their stories over time to conform to the needs of those promulgating the official story Are you suggesting his memory improved over time? LHO being wrong about the dates of t he riot seem only to point at a lack of proper memory and nothing more Some of the other points you raise may be legitimate, and I will hopefully look into a bit more

 And of course this is only one part of the material I posted

The WC intended to call McBride if I remember correctly but didn't probably because of time constraints. In any case, they had his FBI statement. If he had been called the WC would have done the same thing David Lifton did-shown McBride the documentation that proved he was simply mistaken about the dates. It wasn't a major issue for the WC-no need to embarrass someone for their faulty memory. But this is what Armstrong does-takes a discrepancy in the record and uses it to his advantage. Lookup "Armstrong witness recruitment program" and you will find David Lifton's explanation of how Armstrong operates. He goes and finds a witness and then convinces them they are a part of history and then explains his crazy theory. Read the transcript of Lifton's interview with McBride and you will see the way a witness should be questioned to arrive at the truth.

[Matt Grantham]

The WC intended to call McBride if I remember correctly but didn't probably because of time constraints. In any case, they had his FBI statement. If he had been called the WC would have done the same thing David Lifton did-shown McBride the documentation that proved he was simply mistaken about the dates. It wasn't a major issue for the WC-no need to embarrass someone for their faulty memory. But this is what Armstrong does-takes a discrepancy in the record and uses it to his advantage. Lookup "Armstrong witness recruitment program" and you will find David Lifton's explanation of how Armstrong operates. He goes and finds a witness and then convinces them they are a part of history and then explains his crazy theory. Read the transcript of Lifton's interview with McBride and you will see the way a witness should be questioned to arrive at the truth.

  does Davi Lifton allow himself to be cross examined , if you will, that no shots came from behind?

[Matt Grantham]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/cifnFZW_bnw


But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.


 We have Lifton obviously If you have a list of others it would helpful That being said two points

1-It is a field too far for many , and no doubt the wilder stories scare people off for a variety of reasons

2- Simply saying someone is mistaken is diferent than actually addressing the evidence as to why they are wrong

[W. Tracy Parnell]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/cifnFZW_bnw


But the vast majority of researchers on both sides understand that McBride was simply mistaken.


 We have Lifton obviously If you have a list of others it would helpful That being said two points

1-It is a field too far for many , and no doubt the wilder stories scare people off for a variety of reasons

2- Simply saying someone is mistaken is diferent than actually addressing the evidence as to why they are wrong

Myself, David Lifton, Greg Parker, Michael Walton, Thomas Graves for starters. We did an informal poll at the EF and the majority did not agree with H&L. As for addressing evidence the researchers I named have done just that both at private websites and forums.

[Matt Grantham]

Myself, David Lifton, Greg Parker, Michael Walton, Thomas Graves for starters. We did an informal poll at the EF and the majority did not agree with H&L. As for addressing evidence the researchers I named have done just that both at private websites and forums.

 Best I can tell from Michael Walton is that he knew the two Oswalds was absurd on the face of it, but thanks for the list