+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Heads Up! (/thread-14526.html)
Heads Up! - Tom Scully - 23-02-2016
Michael Cross Wrote:.................
Wait a minute. You were asked, here publicly, over and over and over to supply, publicly, what you asserted to be your stolen research. And you think IGNORING someone you've accused of plagiarism to be the appropriate response? SERIOUSLY? If you're PUBLICLY accusing someone of plagiarism then IMO you should PUBLICLY respond when asked to explain your accusation. Wow.
Wow?
Mr. Cross, not only did I point out to Mr. Hargrove, when he first presented my original research under John Armstrong's name, that he was copying my research,
Tom Scully Wrote:Mr. Hargrove,
You have taken my unique research specifics, in some excerpts
almost word for word, not only without attribution, but deliberately
associated it with John Armstrong.
Please take down your link to your web page displaying my unattributed original research details here and on the Education Forum, and remove every detail of my original research, and images I am the original presenter of, from your web pages.
For comparison:
http://jfk.education/node/11 and http://jfk.education/node/13
Late 1950's - early 1960's automated check processing innovation.:
http://jfk.education/node/12
Throughout this process, from about November 1, 2015, this research has been collaborative, co-operative, and presented in a team like spirit, your new presentation being a disturbing exception.....
Quote:http://jfk.education/node/11Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:
https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf
(Lance Payette brought this to my attention, today. "File Locator Numbers - See Explanation, below
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19620623&id=2PQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Nc0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5330,4714873&hl=en
...........
Shortly after my November 10, initial presentation of my original research, google.com news archive dropped access to Palm Beach Post articles, of which the one I presented an image of, was one.:
https://sites.google.com/site/palmbeachcountyflgenweb/home/newspapers vs.
https://news.google.com/newspapers#P
It seems this change by google.com left you no alternative than to include the article image file from my presentation (just one small example) , cropped by you, but with my unique red highlighting visible.:
When I originally presented this research on this forum, David Joseph reacted by launching a competing thread, directed at David Von Pein
who merely recounted, with attribution, the original research of Lance
Payette and myself.
presenting obsolete information which you enthusiastically posted in.:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15277-DVP-Take-the-Money-Order-Image-to-your-bank-and-ask-them-if-it-was-processed#.Vo3_loShe78
I do not see how your efforts conform to presentation of the most accurate information as soon as possible because I understand no higher priority than promptly attempting to present the most accurate and A.S.A.P. components, and always in good faith, giving credit where credit is due.
......I had made a presentation on this forum last November 15, of the details I had recently discovered that were unique in comparison to John Armstrong's research, and I knew that Jim Hargrove was aware of it, and where my presentation was located on this forum.
A reasonable person fully acquainted with the background, and Mr. Hargrove was well acquainted with it, would
see Mr. Hargrove's later demands of me for what they are. He insisted I restate what is obvious.
On November 15, I posted my new, original research details, including images, and I went on to post further
details and supporting evidence later in the same thread. If you consider the thread, you can acquire an understanding of the differences of the details in earlier presentations of Mr. Armstrong, compared to my newly presented research.:
(On November 15, rather than start a new thread, I posted a quote of Bernice Moore's post quoting John Armstrong's money
order research, and I interspersed my new, original research for sake of comparison. I selected Bernice's quoted text of Armstrong
because the money order research then on Jim Hargrove's page was much briefer. See - https://web.archive.org/web/20150912025523/http://harveyandlee.net/ - "....Oswald Never Purchased a Mail Order Rifle The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission.")
Quote:[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6432-Armstrong-Of-Covert-Ops-Fake-Marines-of-Classifieds-of-Cabbages-and-Kings&p=104555#post104555"]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6432-Armstrong-Of-Covert-Ops-Fake-Marines-of-Classifieds-of-Cabbages-and-Kings&p=104555#post104555
[/URL] .....I will take questions, but I cannot anticipate what they will be about because a close reading of the document images I have interspersed in the quoted text of the original post and a close comparison of what is described in the original text with the details displayed in the four document images should be an informative exercise, well worth the time...
I've excerpted what is relevant, from Mr. Hargrove's reply, a day later.:
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Tom Scully Wrote:I will take questions,
I have a question....
Since it is clear from the reports you copied here that by March '63 Dallas Postal Money Orders were pre-punched with rectangular holes representing the individual serial number of the money order and punched at the time of issuance with round holes representing the its value, ...........
.............
Thank you for the additional documents. John A. is going to work at least one of them into an expansion of his writeup on the money order.
Two days later, I commented (in the thread Jim Hargrove made a brief appearance in on November 16 ) in reaction to this development.:[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15277-DVP-Take-the-Money-Order-Image-to-your-bank-and-ask-them-if-it-was-processed"]
DVP - Take the Money Order Image to your bank and ask them if it was processed[/URL] Started by David Josephs, 11-18-2015
Tom Scully Wrote:Is the creation of a second thread on this same topic, with a title calling out someone who is not a member here and who has quoted much of the research I came up with and presented in my last post on this thread, really necessary?....
Mr. Cross, I am sorry your "Wow" reaction to my ignoring Mr. Hargrove's demands that I repeatedly take him
through what is sourced from me, vs. what he attributed to John Armstrong, seems to discount the fact I had already done that very thing twice, with Mr. Hargrove.
If you believe that my choosing to ignore Mr. Hargroves' demands that I show him a third time, what should be obvious, somehow erodes my standing or credibility, that certainly seems no more reasonable than what you've already directed at me in your rush to judgment in this thread.
I am not dense.... it is crystal clear to me... do not post new research if it contradicts what is already favorably received, no
matter how well you think you can support newly discovered details.:
Dawn Meredith Wrote:I have come to the conclusion that the sole reason Tom Scully is here with all his data dumps is to attack John Armstrong.
So sick of his endless posts of old news articles that you cannot even read. At least Tommy Graves over at Ef keeps his criticism short and sweet.
Dawn
Heads Up! - Michael Cross - 23-02-2016
Yes, wow.
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. But you ignored this post:
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Tom Scully Wrote:Mr. Hargrove,
You have taken my unique research specifics, in some excerpts
almost word for word, not only without attribution, but deliberately
associated it with John Armstrong.
To Tom Scully,
I've checked your links and haven't found "almost word for word" copies of your research in John Armstrong's "Postal Money Orders" article that I hid for a week at your request.
Please copy and post in this thread Mr. Armstrong's words that you found so offensive. I plan to unhide Mr. Armstrong's article eventually if you don't respond ....
Jim
And I think, ten more requests. You accused someone of plagiarism. Then you ignored repeated requests for substantiation/clarification. You did that, it's here for all to see:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15400-U-S-Postal-Money-Orders-circa-1950-to-1963#.VszPeNzF8bg
It is what it is, but if you accuse someone of plagiarism, in my opinion when asked to show the "word for word" copying of your research, you should reply. The man you accused PULLED the information he had posted while waiting for your reply. To me that seemed like the proper thing to do. In the vacuum you provided afterward, I'm not sure what you expect.
As I said, no dog in this fight, other than objectivity.
Heads Up! - Alan Ford - 23-02-2016
Michael Cross Wrote:Alan Ford Wrote:Top of the morning to you, Mr. Cross, saw your name and just wanted to wish you a good day (never had an opportunity to thank you in another thread for lending your photographic expertise to the ongoing discussions on an important matter at hand).
Now, here's an update everyone, in case someone hasn't been following along already over on the EF thread authored by Mr. Hargrove, his Paul Revere like ride is up to 5 pages now, with 64 generated comments ----> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22690
For the life of me, IF the wrongfully accused is legitimately guilty of what he has been accused of, Why on earth would any LN need to tamper with the words of researchers who clearly know otherwise?
Not only is this underhanded, it is also unfair to people just coming to the debate. We can only imagine how many people, demonstrating an interest in this five decades old murder mystery, having clicked upon those deceptively misleading links are now sold on the idea that every legitimate argument put forth proving Mr. Oswald's innocence was deceitfully shown to be deposed by these slight of hand tactics (what a disservice to the entire research community as a whole, not to mention a backhand to a sense of something much bigger than all of us, a sense of truth and justice altogether).
Does integrity matter?
Does it matter to some people that an innocent man was framed? His young, innocent daughters vilified?
How far will some people go to prove they "won" an argument?! Isn't this case much more than a LN "winning" a mere argument? If "winning" is cheating I'd rather lose.
How anyone can claim "victory" after editing out another researcher's genuine thoughts and contributions, taking them out of context, bending them to their "victory", etc., while shamelessly discrediting a fellow researcher, displaying disrespect for their time and energy is troubling to say the least.
Five decades in denial, and even now some people choose to "cook the books" rather than let the genuine evidence (not contrived "evidence") speak for itself.
Thanks Alan.
And yes, integrity matters. Researchers will be held to the highest possible standard by the LN group and those influencing them that lurk behind the scenes. More so, lies and disinformation will be routinely used against us. Which means we MUST hold ourselves to the highest possible standards of integrity. If we produce work that can stand on its own, then our work is done.
Well said, Mr. Cross, appreciate the sensible reply chock full of wisdom.
That said, I respectfully ask a Moderator to shut my thread down at this point, before it's original premise is lost in the potential mushrooms that may form or evolve around it.
However, as we shut this down in hopes that should anyone have any further disagreement(s) over Mr. Armstrong's research with someone else they take the matter up via PM mode.
That said, don't let it be lost upon anyone, actual members and/or "Guests" reading along to what great length how the researcher Mr. Hargrove warns about would rather "win" with the last word however contrived or bias towards his fellow researchers. Thought I'd never see the day when someone wants to "win" so bad that misconstruing the words/context of others is more important than arriving at the genuine truth?!
Lee Harvey Oswald is an innocent victim.
Heads Up! - Tom Scully - 23-02-2016
Michael Cross Wrote:Yes, wow.
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. But you ignored this post:
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Tom Scully Wrote:Mr. Hargrove,
You have taken my unique research specifics, in some excerpts
almost word for word, not only without attribution, but deliberately
associated it with John Armstrong.
To Tom Scully,
I've checked your links and haven't found "almost word for word" copies of your research in John Armstrong's "Postal Money Orders" article that I hid for a week at your request.
Please copy and post in this thread Mr. Armstrong's words that you found so offensive. I plan to unhide Mr. Armstrong's article eventually if you don't respond ....
Jim
And I think, ten more requests. You accused someone of plagiarism. Then you ignored repeated requests for substantiation/clarification. You did that, it's here for all to see:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15400-U-S-Postal-Money-Orders-circa-1950-to-1963#.VszPeNzF8bg
It is what it is, but if you accuse someone of plagiarism, in my opinion when asked to show the "word for word" copying of your research, you should reply. The man you accused PULLED the information he had posted while waiting for your reply. To me that seemed like the proper thing to do. In the vacuum you provided afterward, I'm not sure what you expect.
As I said, no dog in this fight, other than objectivity.
Mr. Cross, when someone boldly takes what is yours, do you feel an obligation to repeatedly respond to their requests (demands) to present again, what is obvious to a reasonable person?
We know from the motivation it took to create the very thread we are having this discussion in, that Mr. Hargrove is very sensitive about what he perceives as belonging to him. He does not
even regard being attributed when quoted on another site as a "taking" small enough not to protest about.
....and again, Mr. Cross. I am the unique source of ALL the information in this screenshot excerpt, the entirety of
which I demanded Mr. Hargrove take down. ( see - https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15400-U-S-Postal-Money-Orders-circa-1950-to-1963&p=106125#post106125 )
The irony is you are judging me in a thread Mr. Hargrove initiated to complain about another individual posting material of others WITH ATTRIBUTION. I find your judgment absurd.
This is a January 7, 2016 screenshot of the lower portion of a web page put up by Jim Hargrove and attributed to John Armstrong. The same image is included in my post demanding Hargrove
take down my unique research and the two article images visible in the screenshot, both of which I found and supported my presentation of my unique research.:
When my content is then copied, including the text, almost verbatim, and the image on the right displaying my red highlights, (I also found the other article image**) and attributed to John Armstrong, what would a reasonable describe it as? What additional questions would reasonably be asked, in good faith, subsequently? Mr. Hargrove's pressing me was unreasonable. I am sorry if you do not recognize that fact. You also indicate I forfeited some right or standing by refusing to respond to a man who had presented my unique research and attributed it to someone else, after I posted a screenshot image
defining what had been appropriated from me and intentionally misattributed.
** https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6697-The-deposit-slip-that-was-never-stamped-by-the-bank&p=104479#post104479
See bottom of post, on left.:
Please point out when Mr. Hargrove offered to attribute my research to me.... we are, after all, in a thread objecting to reproducing the mere posts of others, WITH ATTRIBUTION.
Is it not reasonable for me to ask now, considering all you have had to say here, whether you are as unreasonable as Mr. Hargrove is?
Heads Up! - Alan Ford - 23-02-2016
*Moderator*
A couple of things: given the time stamp between my initial request to lock this thread and Mr. Scully's response, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in that he could have been transcribing his response as I was making the request; and, of further note, just a word of thanks and appreciation to Mr. Cross for his respectful refrain here (given that he has had more than ample opportunity to engage but has respectfully chosen not to). Again, PM mode is the best venue to air this issue out between Mr. Hargrove and Mr. Scully. Thanks again, Mr. Cross, for your respectful refrain given that you had 90% of a half hour to engage but have chosen not to. Thank You!
*note to self: Cam Neely, Jay Miller and Terry O'Reilly (can only wonder how many Cups the Bruins could have won if either of these guys had the discipline of Mr. Cross)
Heads Up! - Tom Scully - 23-02-2016
Alan Ford Wrote:*Moderator*
A couple of things: given the time stamp between my initial request to lock this thread and Mr. Scully's response, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in that he could have been transcribing his response as I was making the request; and, of further note, just a word of thanks and appreciation to Mr. Cross for his respectful refrain here (given that he has had more than ample opportunity to engage but has respectfully chosen not to). Again, PM mode is the best venue to air this issue out between Mr. Hargrove and Mr. Scully. Thanks again, Mr. Cross, for your respectful refrain given that you had 90% of a half hour to engage but have chosen not to. Thank You!
*note to self: Cam Neely, Jay Miller and Terry O'Reilly (can only wonder how many Cups the Bruins could have won if either of these guys had the discipline of Mr. Cross)
"Lock the thread?" Let us recap. You parrot a thread Mr. Hargrove posted in another forum because you are impressed with Mr. Hargrove's argument and principal(s).
I object to your entire premise. I painstakingly support my opinion. Mr. Cross adds his two cents. I painstakingly support my opinion as to Mr. Cross's judgment of me.
You ask the moderators to close the thread to further comment because you do not like or agree with what is being posted.
So much for fairness and free speech.
Heads Up! - Alan Ford - 24-02-2016
On the contrary, Mr. Scully, the request to lock this thread has nothing to do with your exercise of free speech, nada! The intent to lock this thread is requested with the best of intentions and the honorable thing to do, given a private matter between you and Mr. Hargrove shouldn't escalate in a thread that doesn't feature your private disagreement. I find it curious--timing wise--that after so many good faith attempts by him to ask you on multiple occasions to exercise your free speech and share with him how he and Mr. Armstrong had slighted you--that your right to free speech didn't seem to be so important. Just saying.
Now, Whether it's "Guest" viewing along and/or other researchers passing by, I don't believe it serves the research community in any way shape or form to allow members to openly engage in a combative private matter best relegated to PM mode. I hinted as much to you early on in this thread in hopes that you would set your focus upon engaging him directly in PM mode, rather than use this thread indirectly to attack him (I'm all for open, fair exchanges between researchers, but I cannot--in good conscience--allow him to be attacked behind his back). Again, this matter is a private concern between you and him, and as such should be handled via PM, not in a thread void of his input. The honorable thing to do is not hit or kick someone behind their back, thus my request to have moderation lock this thread down.
That said, please by all means exercise your right to free speech, PM him and resolve your conflict with him.
I don't like being privy to lopsided discussions, which seems to come much easier for the individual Mr. Hargrove simply made an effort to warn us about ( a sneaky edit here, a sneaky edit there, etc). I admire and respect Mr. Hargrove for alerting the research community to those deceptive practices. Moving forward, it's up to you guys to resolve your own conflict.
Now, as to such time the Moderators decide to shut this thread down or not, Mr. Scully, if you feel an urge to exercise your free speech here rather than directly engaging in PM mode the actual source of your compliant, go ahead....
Heads Up! - Lauren Johnson - 24-02-2016
I'll submit this request to the rest of the Mods for discussion.
FYI, the easiest way to make such a request is to click on the Report Post icon at the bottom of a post (it is a triangle with an exclamation mark). It will send off a PM to all the mods.
Heads Up! - Alan Ford - 24-02-2016
Thank You!, very MUCH, Lauren Johnson, duly noted for future reference. Thanks again. Enjoy your day. Cheers!
Heads Up! - Michael Cross - 24-02-2016
Lauren Johnson Wrote:I'll submit this request to the rest of the Mods for discussion.
FYI, the easiest way to make such a request is to click on the Report Post icon at the bottom of a post (it is a triangle with an exclamation mark). It will send off a PM to all the mods.
Thanks as always Lauren. Moderating isn't easy.