Heads Up!

[Michael Cross]

On the contrary, Mr. Scully, because the last I knew an open post bearing your name asked you repeatedly on more than several occasions to speak to Mr. Hargrove's good faith overtures directed towards you; however, unless I may have missed your response, I am still awaiting your response to his good faith overtures. Taking that stance, I thought was the fair thing to do; however, if you have actually responded to his repeated overtures, please bring me up to speed where and when. Otherwise, comparing the good faith efforts of Mr. Hargrove to the less than forthcoming tactics/antics of underhandedly destroying the integrity of others within the research community by altering their genuine intent is akin to comparing an apple to a sinister snake. Again, I am open to you bringing me up to speed as it concerns your response to Mr. Hargrove's good faith efforts.

Mr. Ford, a man presented my unique, new research, putting the name "John Armstrong" to it. I protested this and the page presenting my unique research under the name "John Armstrong". It is quite clear what is and is not
the research of John Armstrong. I ignored Hargrove because in my experience, in this matter, and in exchanges in other threads, he exhibits an ethics deficit.

U.S. Postal Money Orders... circa 1950 to 1963


This is background information for an upcoming new writeup by John Armstrong on the rifle that allegedly killed JFK, which should be completed and online in a few weeks.
....................

You've created a thread that only serves as an example of Hargrove acting indignant over a third party presenting the forum posts of others accompanied by the names of the authors. Now you are lecturing me?

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.....

I had already pointed out what my unique, original research was comprised of.
See: http://jfk.education/node/11 and http://jfk.education/node/13 and https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post104555

I saw no need to reply further to him. He knows what he should do. Empathy and ethics are what are lacking. My response to his repeated demands to be
shown the obvious again, are a tactic, and your opinion is a result of that tactic. Ignoring him is reasonable since he usurped my material, attributed it to another, was challenged, and then made demands and set deadlines.
If you are saying I waived or forfeited my standing as discoverer of new money order details because I ignored Hargrove's demands and deadlines after protesting his transference of my new research to John Armstrong, you exhibit
a loack of empathy or understanding.

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.