The Fiasco of Spartacus

[Dawn Meredith]

Vanessa admitted somewhere else that she had not read the book.

That's what I thought.

I wonder how many of these others who were in on these attacks had not down so either.

I mean, read the whole book and then went through the CD files. (Its the same approach I used with RH.)

If someone does that, I don't see how one can come away with anything but respect for what John did.

Even if you don't agree with him, it is one of the most original books in the field. In the sense that there are very few references to other books in his footnotes. Most of the time, maybe 90% from my estimate, he went to the primary sources. That is, either an interview or a document.

There are very few books in the field that do that.

Agreed... I just got off the phone with John who is still digging into Landesberg in NYC with Oswald... but he mentioned having paid a pretty penny for a couple dozen rolls of microfilm which have never been printed including as he just said the original notes from Mosby writing ND, as opposed to NO... I'll probably have to get a surplus reader as he said he'd let me look thru them any time....

Beyond the foornotes being primary sources, there are many which are primarily sources to documents only available at the Archives... which is why the Notebooks are so valuable. The original Norton report for example, and so many more originals... it's like being a kid in a candy shop at Baylor...

Landesberg in NYC with LEE while Harvey was in Russia. Quite an interesting and complex story, what was what we talked about earlier and he is editing it more before it gets posted.

[Dawn Meredith]

Well, that is John.

Always digging deeper.

I thought he retired from the field, but like Newman he came back.

Let me know about these new files, and Mosby and ND.

Jim: He did retire for awhile, but then shortly before the 50th he did all the stuff on the Tippit area, that we distilled so that I could present at COPA and he has just never stopped. It's like a fulltime job. We talk at least once a week, sometimes more and he runs it all by me and I add my thoughts and eventually we get to personal talk but he is otherwise on this non stop. One of the things I LOVE about him is he has no big ego, he is just a genuine researcher who wants the truth out there to help those who come after us. He's a real sweetie.

[Vanessa Loney]

THAT is a nice bag!

Not quite sure what the reference is Michael. But if you have something to say I think you should just come out and say it. That way I can respond.

[Vanessa Loney]

Thanks moderator. Although I can't help feeling the warning about attacks on individuals could have come quite a few posts earlier.

All I'm proposing is a fair debate on neutral ground.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post100336

Let's take this off this EF thread and see what you got to offer Ms. Loney...

DJ

Hello David

Now you know very well I was proposing a debate between Armstrong and Parker on the neutral ground of Black Op Radio, not between myself and you.

Just quietly David I don't think it really matters much what you and I debate. After all, as Mr Di E. has so kindly pointed out I'm a neophyte and my views are neither here nor there in this overall issue.

But I think it's important that the two researchers who are leading this discussion get to debate it. That way we all get to learn something.

I offered to debate you on Prayer Man any time. That offer is still open. As long as you promise to play nice of course. Just a hint, it's not really PC to refer to people as loonies' any more. It really is time to update your insults.

Hello Vanessa,

While I can appreciate your thinking that a debate may accomplish something, Greg has yet to address the simpliest of conflicts in the evidence, let alone illustrate his knowledge of the nuances of the material enough to have a meaningful discussion with John. All he would be doing is arguing with him over insignificant issues to avoid his inability to discuss the topic with any authority.

Why would John even bother? Taking the time to explain each and every item that Greg repeatedly gets wrong is tiresome.. besides, this is and will always be about the evidence... He doesn;t need John to use the evidence to prove the critical aspects of H&L wrong... he needs to use the ACTUAL evidence. Yet this is the same evidence Greg steers clear of when he presents his arguments... the same evidence which he consistently mistrepresents as saying and meaning one thing when the evidence is there for all to see.

You directly challenged me to discussion/debate on the topic - remember? So please don't pawn off the opportunity to show your understanding of the subject HERE and your take on why it's wrong by claiming this is about Greg and John...
You are on your own here Vanessa... no Greg et al to come derail the discussion... but let's keep it where it belongs https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post100336

When you go to this link there is a simple question about the counting of days... no H&L detailed knowledge necessary... just a calendar and some common sense...

I look forward to how you present yourself over this very simple question... will you be avoiding the issues or can you look at the evidence and come to your own conclusions?

===================

Hello David

You know very well I didn't challenge you to discuss H&L. I've never discussed it on EF and have never been on the H&L thread here. The H&L theory with two Oswald's and 2 Marguerites is simply not credible and that is about as polite as I can be about it. I have already told you that on EF. I came on here to address the criticisms of EF, ROKC and myself and to suggest a debate between the two key players.

The one time I did venture on the H&L thread on the EF was to take you to task for saying that Australians couldn't do maths or understand English and because you referred to me as a looney. Remember that? For which you were told off by the mods at EF. I suspect that is why you have brought your bat and ball over here, because you don't think you'll get into trouble for the personal attacks and because you didn't think many of us ROKCers were on here to rebut you.

But I have offered to debate you on Prayer Man and will do that anywhere. That is pretty much the only aspect of the assassination that I comment on in detail on EF because it is a game changer and also has solid research behind it.

[Jim DiEugenio]

BTW, isn't it odd, that no one I know at EF has even mentioned John Newman's new book, or his upcoming trilogy.

Its like it does not exist.

But yet, few people I think have a track record for doing better work that Newman has.

I mean when you write two books and they are as good as JFK and Vietnam and Oswald and the CIA?

I still think that his Vietnam book is probably the best in the field and his book about Oswald was a milestone.

But that is what happens when you let DVP in the front gate, and end up spending three threads arguing about Armstrong.

Everything else gets lost.

[Vanessa Loney]

I was trying to get an answer from Ms. Loney about whether or not she read John's book.

I mean I could get that answer from John probably , since he keeps track of who orders the book.

I could not disagree more about David and Ms. Loney discussing the book. Because that means you read it.

Now, if you have not read it, and are just following someone else's lead, then I think that will come out in the wash.

I mean, today, I don't want to be represented by anyone else. I would think that is the way most of us here would feel.

Hello Jim

I don't mean to sound rude but I didn't come over to DP to discuss H&L or Mr Armstrong's book. If I'd wanted to do that I would have gone on to the H&L thread or even just stayed at EF and joined the discussion on H&L there. I've never contributed to that thread on EF (except to take David to task about his comments about Australians and me, personally).

The debate on EF and the evidence presented there are convincing to me that there never were two Oswalds as per H&L. Apart from that I really don't believe I have anything to contribute to that debate at all.

I specifically came on to the "The Fiasco at Spartacus" thread because I wanted to raise the issue of a debate between JA and GP as a way to air the issues in a neutral environment. Dawn has taken up that suggestion with JA and he's declined as he is perfectly entitled to do.

Prayer Man is my main area of interest and it's why I got engaged with the online community in the first place.

Obviously, I think the PM research by Sean Murphy is a game changer and I have been increasingly puzzled and dismayed by the lack of comment on it by the major researchers, especially yourself and Jeff Morley. I appreciate you have put links on CTKA to the original discussions on the PM figure. But I haven't seen any commentary by yourself on it.

Can I ask what you think of Sean Murphy's research on PM? And what, if anything, you think should be done to carry it forward?

[Vanessa Loney]

Just spoke with John. Mainly about his new research which puts "Lee" in NY at the time "Harvey" was in Russia. I think someone has mentioned this article John's been writing on one of the threads somewhere here. He has some edits to do then will email it to me and I will post it. As to debating Parker he said he will debate "any reasonable person". But really he has no interest in debating anyone. He does research and puts it out there. If someone disagrees or does not like it, so be it. So bottom line is "no", no interest in debating Parker.
He's not afraid of Parker, just not interested. The way his work has been twisted has gotten back to him and, like me, he has no time or stomach for dishonesty. What he does enjoy is a discussion, in depth of any of his new research, which we do on a regular basis. And I did not present his book at COPA, cripes that would take a week, but his latest research on Tippit that day, 11/22/63, and the intersection of Harvey and Lee. (It's posted at his site for anyone who cares).

Dawn

Hello Dawn

Thank you for raising that with Mr Armstrong. I really do appreciate you doing that. I'm disappointed that he is not going to do a debate as I think that would clear up a lot of issues. Now we're left with the entirely unsatisfactory discussion that has been going on across the forums. But in any case, that's asked and answered and I thank you for that.

BTW I think most of the research community would say that GP accepts only evidence-based research. That makes him reasonable by any definition.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Vanessa, please spare us.

You came over here because you objected to being called a PM or Parker Minion.

But yet, you admit you never read John's book. Therefore, you are being directed by others either at ROKC or EF.

Please do not try and disguise what happened at EF.

Greg got KO'd here. So he then went over to EF with some of his own constituents in tow and started something like a Boer attack at EF--if you have seen Breaker Morant, you will know what I mean by that. I mean we all know who is from ROKC and we all know that EF has been decimated. I mean why else bring back Ray Carroll.

Now, the logical conclusion if you have not read John's book is that you got al your opinions from ROKC.

That is something I don't think anyone should do in this field. It would be like getting all your info on the autopsy from Lifton and Horne

So why should anyone respect your opinion on the subject if what you are doing is echoing or shilling for ROKC? And, IMO, dragging down EF with you?

[Vanessa Loney]

Vanessa, please spare us.

You came over here because you objected to being called a PM or Parker Minion.

But yet, you admit you never read John's book. Therefore, you are being directed by others either at ROKC or EF.

Please do not try and disguise what happened at EF.

Greg got KO'd here. So he then went over to EF with some of his own constituents in tow and started something like a Boer attack at EF--if you have seen Breaker Morant, you will know what I mean by that. I mean we all know who is from ROKC and we all know that EF has been decimated. I mean why else bring back Ray Carroll.

Now, the logical conclusion if you have not read John's book is that you got al your opinions from ROKC.

That is something I don't think anyone should do in this field. It would be like getting all your info on the autopsy from Lifton and Horne

So why should anyone respect your opinion on the subject if what you are doing is echoing or shilling for ROKC? And, IMO, dragging down EF with you?

Jim, with all due respect, (and I do respect you as a researcher but am finding your manners disappointingly lacking) I am not being directed by anyone at ROKC or EF. They would find that laughable I'm sure.

If you want to know if I actually possess any brains myself then perhaps you should read my contributions to the Prayer Man thread on EF - it's the only thread I contribute to.

I really am struggling to understand what you mean by the EF being 'decimated'. They are equal-opportunity suspenders over there so we've all had a taste of it when we step over the line.

But, if you mean the EF has been decimated because the H&L debate on there has not won over any converts and the poll over there is heavily against H&L then perhaps the problem is not with the EF but with H&L. The views that I do have on H&L have been formed solely by the EF debate.

I haven't asked anyone to respect my opinion on the subject of H&L and nor do I expect them to. I have not joined in the debate on H&L on EF or here because I have nothing to contribute to it. I am not a JFK assassination polymath such as yourself and I stick to the one field that interests me which is Prayer Man.

I have asked those that are experts on H&L to discuss it in a more constructive way rather than sniping at each other across the forums. You can all only do that by talking directly to each other on the same forum, in my view.

FWIW I find James Douglas' book to be the seminal work, so far, on the assassination. I have also enjoyed your ground-breaking work on JFK's foreign policy on CTKA and look forward to seeing that turned into a book one day.

[Anthony Thorne]

BTW, isn't it odd, that no one I know at EF has even mentioned John Newman's new book, or his upcoming trilogy. Its like it does not exist.

I'll admit I found that extremely odd. I visit the DPF a few times a week, and visit the EF every few weeks to see what's up. I would have thought Newman's new book would have been big news, but there wasn't a peep about it from the various regulars there, unless I missed it. I have John's book on my phone (Kindle) but have been too busy to get through it yet.

From Vanessa -

The one time I did venture on the H&L thread on the EF was to take you to task for saying that Australians couldn't do maths or understand English

I'm probably awful at maths. I suspect I'm better at English. Note for the record, I spent a couple of months proofreading Greg's book (minus the final chapter, as health issues prevented me from devoting further time to it). I've been loath to dig into any of the agitated threads here or at Greg's forum regarding the Harvey and Lee evidence, but will note that the animosity flying back and forth doesn't thrill me.

I take it DVP is still present at EF. He's as much of a troll and time-waster as Colby was. The 'no trolls' rule generally enforced here at DPF has much to recommend it.