Mr. Parnell, when I saw the Ed Forum thread about a fairly recently debunked Armstrong "myth" speculating as to whether or not an actor who later played a detective on the Barney Miller Show, sitcom, resembled Oswald, or not, I wondered how the dying embers of that "lunacy": could be fanned back into a flame.
Although I played a part in supporting your rebuttal and dismantling of that particular "two Oswald" tale and know much more than the average reader about the "nuts and bolts" of it all, your treatment of it gave me a new appreciation of the effort you put in to wrest the actual truth out of such a intricate mess.:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.htmlMy first reaction to John Butler's near blind faith in the reliability of John Armstrong's assertions, especially after you provided both links to your research and several patient explanations, was annoyance, especially Butler's resistance to the overwhelming evidence Landesberg (not the actor) was insane, but by the time I got to the end of your page, I linked to above, I no longer was critical of John Butler.
I learned something about myself. Although the details are nearly impossible for me to wrap my mind around, I discovered and contributed what I did to your gargantuan effort, I think now, because of the KISS approach. I am not capable of thinking like Armstrong or even reading his "feed" without my eyes glazing over as my mind wanders. It just does not seem worth it.
In you, however, John Armstrong has definitely met his match! Where I look for a key vulnerability and pursue it, more often than not finding what I am after, inside of a week, or not, and then I put it down, moving on, sometimes coming back to it at a later date, you manage to master and address the entire, steaming pile!
The Ed Forum is definitely getting worse, suspicion rising, informative posts or threads, declining, and the institutional core of the place is disappearing. Butler mentioned how impressed he was with the 2004 threads he was reading.
In my experience, much of what was assumed reliable in the majority of those early threads has been debunked or revised/refined to a degree that makes them nearly useless reads.
In closing, reading just that single page of your work makes me feel I have been lazy, superficial. I cannot even suggest how you could pare or simplify your presentation. You are addressing Armstrong's pile, so far-fetched, intense, elaborate, who could respond to it all, adequately.
W. Tracey Parnell, please do not give up! Yes, readers are unappreciative to the point of resenting the proof put in front of them. They are looking to confirm their biases and react with frustration and disappointment, while all you are doing is helping them put aside what you've proven to be a complete waste of time. They resist moving on. The work needs to be done, but the satisfaction arising out of doing it is mostly self satisfaction. "I wish you hadn't told me the well supported truth," is not the reaction I hope for, but you certainly, too, have come to expect it. Our present political divide seems made of similar stuff. Forty percent "Hargroves" and fifteen percent, "undecided".
