+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: ATTN: Tom Scully (/Thread-ATTN-Tom-Scully)
ATTN: Tom Scully - Jim Hargrove - 11-03-2016
On this past January 7, you wrote on this forum:
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.
I "deliberately associated" the article with John Armstrong because he wrote it, and you are clearly making a charge of plagiarism against him. At the time you made the accusation, John Armstrong had just left for a month long trip to China, and I was leaving the next morning to spend a week on the East Coast with my brother and his family. I've always thought it was unwise to announce on the Internet that one's home would be empty for some time, and so rather than try to hash this out from the road, I simply announced I would take the article down until Mr. Armstrong could respond to your accusations.
When I returned, however, I had time to follow some of the links you presented allegedly showing the plagiarism you had declared. I saw no such thing, although I did see plenty of words written by John Armstrong that you did not ask permission to post. And so I asked you again and again and again, ten times in fact, in the same thread you made the original accusation, to paste from one of your dated posts here the words you claim Mr. Armstrong stole from you. You never did so, and after my numerous warnings, I put the article back up.
Now I see you are making similar, defamatory statements about Mr. Armstrong's work in a thread started by Alan Ford entitled "Heads Up!" By doing so, you completely veered the topic away from the misdeeds of a virulent Warren Commission Apologist on EF, and, as always, you completely obfuscated evidence for your original charge in your usual cloud of dust and non-specific data dumps. Do you do ANYTHING here other than try to criticize John Armstrong?
This is REAL SIMPLE! Copy the words from one of your dated posts prior to January 7 that you feel John Armstrong stole from you, and paste them in this thread. Show us how he took "excerpts almost word for word" of your research in his article. SHOW US THE ACTUAL WORDS! Don't show us a cloud of dust!
Your charges are clearly defamatory. For the eleventh time, put up or shut up!
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.
I "deliberately associated" the article with John Armstrong because he wrote it, and you are clearly making a charge of plagiarism against him. At the time you made the accusation, John Armstrong had just left for a month long trip to China, and I was leaving the next morning to spend a week on the East Coast with my brother and his family. I've always thought it was unwise to announce on the Internet that one's home would be empty for some time, and so rather than try to hash this out from the road, I simply announced I would take the article down until Mr. Armstrong could respond to your accusations.
When I returned, however, I had time to follow some of the links you presented allegedly showing the plagiarism you had declared. I saw no such thing, although I did see plenty of words written by John Armstrong that you did not ask permission to post. And so I asked you again and again and again, ten times in fact, in the same thread you made the original accusation, to paste from one of your dated posts here the words you claim Mr. Armstrong stole from you. You never did so, and after my numerous warnings, I put the article back up.
Now I see you are making similar, defamatory statements about Mr. Armstrong's work in a thread started by Alan Ford entitled "Heads Up!" By doing so, you completely veered the topic away from the misdeeds of a virulent Warren Commission Apologist on EF, and, as always, you completely obfuscated evidence for your original charge in your usual cloud of dust and non-specific data dumps. Do you do ANYTHING here other than try to criticize John Armstrong?
This is REAL SIMPLE! Copy the words from one of your dated posts prior to January 7 that you feel John Armstrong stole from you, and paste them in this thread. Show us how he took "excerpts almost word for word" of your research in his article. SHOW US THE ACTUAL WORDS! Don't show us a cloud of dust!
Your charges are clearly defamatory. For the eleventh time, put up or shut up!
ATTN: Tom Scully - Scott Kaiser - 11-03-2016
Jim Hargrove Wrote:On this past January 7, youwrote on this forum:
Mr. Hargrove,
You have taken my uniqueresearch specifics, in some excerptsalmost word for word, not onlywithout attribution, but deliberatelyassociated it with JohnArmstrong.
Please take down your link toyour web page displaying my unattributed original research detailshere and on the Education Forum, and remove every detail of myoriginal research, and images I am the original presenter of, fromyour web pages.
I "deliberately associated"the article with John Armstrong because he wrote it, and you areclearly making a charge of plagiarism against him! At the time youmade the accusation, John Armstrong had just left for a month longtrip to China, and I was leaving the next morning to spend a week onthe East Coast with my brother and his family. I've always thoughtit was unwise to announce on the Internet that one's home would beempty for some time, and so rather than try to hash this out from theroad, I simply announced I would take the article down until Mr.Armstrong could respond to your accusations.
When I returned, however, I hadtime to follow some ofthe links you presented allegedly showing the plagiarism you haddeclared. I saw no such thing, althoughI did see plenty of words written by John Armstrong that you did notask permission to post. Andso I asked you againand again and again, ten times in fact, in the samethread you made the original accusation, to paste from one ofyour dated posts here the words you claim Mr. Armstrong stole fromyou. You never didso, and after my numerous warnings, I put the article back up.
Now I see you are makingsimilar, defamatory statements about Mr. Armstrong's work in a threadstarted by Alan Ford entitled "Heads Up!" By doing so, youcompletely veered the topic away from the misdeeds of a virulentWarren Commission Apologist on EF, and, as always, you completelyobfuscated evidence for your original charge in your usual cloud ofdust and non-specific data dumps. Do you do ANYTHING here other thantry to criticize John Armstrong?
This is REAL SIMPLE! Copy thewords from one of your dated posts prior to January 7 that you feel JohnArmstrong stole from you, and paste them in this thread. Show us howhe took "excerpts almost word for word" of your research in hisarticle. SHOW US THE ACTUAL WORDS! Don't show us a cloud of dust!
Your charges are clearlydefamatory. For the eleventh time, put up or shut up!
Jim, I can understand your frustration with Tom, he like me can piss people off, except, I have a big mouth, he just has the act for it. So, don't take this post as a defense on his behalf, but unless your material is copyrighted material, there's nothing you can do but to demand he remove it. And, the reason he hasn't if you've already asked him is because he knows this, that means there's no shame in his game.
At least if I ever think that someones material is worth publishing, I make sure to give that person the credit, I don't care about credit, that's not what this is about for me, what I do care about is getting down to the bottom of the truth. I may not ever know who ordered Kennedy's assassination, I may not know who financed it, although, my father talks about Pawley, and I may never know who it was that really pulled the trigger, but I do know who covered it up and why, and everything I've learned in over the pass eight years including talking to many folks is that Oswald didn't do it.
What I don't know personally doesn't mean I will not expose everything my father knew personally, and there is a lot of material, new material I discovered regarding my father, so I can't say I'm (first hand accounts to the events), however, I am first hand information regarding my father.
ATTN: Tom Scully - Jim Hargrove - 12-03-2016
I'm not sure you understand my point, Scott.
By claiming that John Armstrong stole "almost word for word" excerpts of his own "unique research," Tom Scully quite obviously is accusing John of plagiarism. I have asked a dozen or more times now for Mr. Scully to give an example of this theft by presenting the words Mr. Armstrong allegedly stole, but he has neglected to do so. Because they don't exist.
Most recently, his endless attacks on John also served to distract attention from the original subject of Alan Ford's thread entitled "Heads Up!" By his usual tactics of attacking John Armstrong, Mr. Scully has once again changed the subject from dirty tricks promoted by Warren Commission apologists to something else--something all about himself. Mission accomplished!
Mr. Scully's accusations are clearly libelous.
ATTN: Tom Scully - Scott Kaiser - 12-03-2016
Jim Hargrove Wrote:I'm not sure you understand my point, Scott.
By claiming that John Armstrong stole "almost word for word" excerpts of his own "unique research," Tom Scully quite obviously is accusing John of plagiarism. I have asked a dozen or more times now for Mr. Scully to give an example of this theft by presenting the words Mr. Armstrong allegedly stole, but he has neglected to do so. Because they don't exist.
Most recently, his endless attacks on John also served to distract attention from the original subject of Alan Ford's thread entitled "Heads Up!" By his usual tactics of attacking John Armstrong, Mr. Scully has once again changed the subject from dirty tricks promoted by Warren Commission apologists to something else--something all about himself. Mission accomplished!
Mr. Scully's accusations are clearly libelous.
I understand, it is truthfully sad that a good president, with good intentions got assassinated, it's even worst when others who calls themselves researchers are out to assassinate others because of the assassination. I wonder if there will ever come a day when everyone wants to come together to sign a petition and have these documents fully released rather then focusing on who started the petition, would it matter? Perhaps, to some.
From what I have seen over the years, there is more than enough people to get the government involved again. Time is running out, October 17, 2017 will be here in two years, if no one starts something NOW it will be to late. And, as a reminder which many of you are already familiar with the 1992 JFK Act requires that ALL document shall be released in full.
I'm only sorry there are some folks like Tom out there, perhaps, their ways can change. Tom, if I can change, not who I was four years ago as you put it, and people can change, so can you.
ATTN: Tom Scully - Jim Hargrove - 12-03-2016
I sincerely doubt the USG will release anything of significance about the Kennedy assassination by October 2017. Although that chance does seem more likely than Tom Scully ever showing us the "almost word for word" excerpts of his own "unique research" that he alleges John Armstrong stole from him.
ATTN: Tom Scully - Jim Hargrove - 14-03-2016
Jim Hargrove Wrote:On this past January 7, you wrote on this forum:
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.
I "deliberately associated" the article with John Armstrong because he wrote it, and you are clearly making a charge of plagiarism against him. At the time you made the accusation, John Armstrong had just left for a month long trip to China, and I was leaving the next morning to spend a week on the East Coast with my brother and his family. I've always thought it was unwise to announce on the Internet that one's home would be empty for some time, and so rather than try to hash this out from the road, I simply announced I would take the article down until Mr. Armstrong could respond to your accusations.
When I returned, however, I had time to follow some of the links you presented allegedly showing the plagiarism you had declared. I saw no such thing, although I did see plenty of words written by John Armstrong that you did not ask permission to post. And so I asked you again and again and again, ten times in fact, in the same thread you made the original accusation, to paste from one of your dated posts here the words you claim Mr. Armstrong stole from you. You never did so, and after my numerous warnings, I put the article back up.
Now I see you are making similar, defamatory statements about Mr. Armstrong's work in a thread started by Alan Ford entitled "Heads Up!" By doing so, you completely veered the topic away from the misdeeds of a virulent Warren Commission Apologist on EF, and, as always, you completely obfuscated evidence for your original charge in your usual cloud of dust and non-specific data dumps. Do you do ANYTHING here other than try to criticize John Armstrong?
This is REAL SIMPLE! Copy the words from one of your dated posts prior to January 7 that you feel John Armstrong stole from you, and paste them in this thread. Show us how he took "excerpts almost word for word" of your research in his article. SHOW US THE ACTUAL WORDS! Don't show us a cloud of dust!
Your charges are clearly defamatory. For the eleventh time, put up or shut up!
Bump. Will you EVER respond, Tom Scully?
ATTN: Tom Scully - Michael Cross - 14-03-2016
Fascinating. He's pissy that I called him out on ignoring your public request to provide evidence of his assertions, but now he's doing it again?
Tom seems to be a dedicated researcher, but this is odd, at best.
ATTN: Tom Scully - Scott Kaiser - 14-03-2016
Michael Cross Wrote:Fascinating. He's pissy that I called him out on ignoring your public request to provide evidence of his assertions, but now he's doing it again?
Tom seems to be a dedicated researcher, but this is odd, at best.
Fascinating, I think Michael's an instigator.
ATTN: Tom Scully - Jim Hargrove - 14-03-2016
Scott Kaiser Wrote:Michael Cross Wrote:Fascinating. He's pissy that I called him out on ignoring your public request to provide evidence of his assertions, but now he's doing it again?
Tom seems to be a dedicated researcher, but this is odd, at best.
Fascinating, I think Michael's an instigator.
No, I think Michael is just pointing to the obvious here. Tom Scully makes the vicious charge that my friend John Armstrong has stolen his "unique research specifics, in some excerpts almost word for word," and when I ask him at least FIFTEEN DIFFERENT TIMES NOW to give us some EVIDENCE, he just runs away and hides.
Man up, Mr. Scully. You can't back up your accusation, can you? We're waiting... and waiting... and waiting.
ATTN: Tom Scully - Jim Hargrove - 28-03-2016
To Tom Scully....
Why not talk about this? I'm still willing to consider your arguments, if you have any....