16-03-2010, 05:13 AM
THE ONLY CONFLICT LIES IN YOUR PREJUDICE, JACK!
NOTE: I think that Judyth makes excellent points, Jack.
I am sorry to have to say I agree with her completely!
Dear Jack:
We have established the following:
1) I made a reading error that resulted in Banister and Ochsner being mentioned
on the wrong date. I supplied evidence that my correction matched what is easly
available online and that I had misinterpreted what was there as a list, which was
unconnected to the date a few lines aove it.
2) I pointed out that YOU misread the article yourself when you stated that I did
not mention Ochsner being out of town (South America). It seems you, too, are
capable of misreading the long article. I have shown you that Ochsner was out
of town and that it was in the article.
3) I pointed out that, for some reason, you have changed actual words, such as
'apartment' to 'room', and otherwise degraded information that is relevant to
establishing connectons between me and Oswald
4) You further left out connectors between Oswald and myself, such as mentioning
that, when I was forced to resign--yes, it was actually getting fired, but I signed a
resignation--it had occurred because I was seen with Oswald not long before he
was arrested for opassing out pamphlets--you simply didn't mention this connector.
By failing to do so, you exhibited a remarkable amount of prejudice in reporting my
position as a witness. I have been stunned, actually, by these seemingly deliberate
distortions of the record.
Now you compound everything with insults, such as beow:
Now, in 2010, she says that is wrong...that he was in South America at that time.
==We have alrerady addressed this, Jack--It says in the same article you supposedly
read that Oschner was out of town for two weeks when I arrived in New orleans.
Obviously, then, I could not have met him on April 27, since I arrived in New Orleans
on April 20. But let us move on to your insults and leave your errors behind:
Previously I had read that she had been invited to come to New Orleans to be an intern
under Dr. Ochsner. Now if you can sort this out and make sense of it, you are better
than I am at interpreting conflicting statements. I find this (and many other things)
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT. WHAT I FIND DISTURBING IS THAT YOU PASS
JUDGMENT ON ME APPARENTLY WITHOUT EVER SEEING THE DOCUMENTARY BY NIGEL
TURNER. IT IS CLEAR THERE--AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR--THAT I WAS OFFERED
AN INTERNSHIP WITH DR. MARY SHERMAN BY OCHSNER AND THAT MY UNIVERSITY
WENT ON THE TRIMESTER SCHEDULE THAT YEAR.
WE GOT OUT TWO WEEKS EARLIER THAT OTHER SCHOOLS, BUT OCHSNER LEFT THE
COUNTRY, THINKING I WOULD ARRIVE TWO WEEKS LATER THAN I DID. SHERMAN
WAS WITH HIM PART OF THAT TME.
I FOUND MYSELF WTHOUT FUNDS. WATCH THE DOCMENTARY OR READ THE BOOK,
BUT PLEASE DO NOT PASS JUDGMENT ON ME WITHOUT HAVING EVEN READ THIS
ONE ARTICLE BY DR. JOHN WLLIAMS WITH CARE.
I AM SHOCKED AND SURPRISED AT THE CARELESSNESS INVOLVED HERE.
I CANNOT EVEN FEEL ANGER, JUST SHOCK.
YOU DO NOT CARE NOT WHETHER YOU DESTROY A WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY
YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER INSPECTED. YOU HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY.
IT GRIEVES ME TO SAY THESE WORDS. YOU HAVE DONE SO MUCH FOR THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY.
too confusing to sort out or bother with. And so what?
THESE WORDS IMPLY IGNORANCE OF WHAT I KNOW AND WISH TO CONVEY
TO THE FORUM HERE--IF I EVER GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OF THOSE
THINGS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DEFEND MY INTEGRITY AND VERY SANITY ON
THIS FORUM AGAINST SPECIOUS ATTACKS.
I AM WELL AWARE THAT I AM HUMAN AND CAN MAKE AN OCCASIONAL ERROR.
BUT YOUR STATEMENTS BRUSH ME OFF AS A WORTHLESS PERSON NOT EVEN
DESERVING OF A HEARING. AND YOU DID NOT GIVE ME A FAIR ONE, EITHER.
Was Ochsner behind the assassination? Or if he had ANY involvement, was it
important?
AT LAST, A QUESTON OF VALUE.
I do not get that impression from ANYTHING JVB has said. Even if EVERYTHING
she says is true, it does not enhance the things we already knew.
HOW CAN YOU BE IN A POSITON TO JUDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT I HAVE
TO SAY, MR. WHITE, SINCE YOU HAVE NEVER MET ME, NEVER INTERVIEWED ME,
NEVER EVEN SEEN THE DOCUMENTARY, WHICH IS BASIC TO COMPREHENDING
MY TESTIMONY.
MUCH INFORMATION I HAVE DID NOT MEAN MUCH TO ME AT THE TIME. BUT BEING
THREATENED, REVILED AND ATTACKED CHANGES ONE'S PERSPECTIVE, AND I HAVE
DILIGENTLY SOUGHT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I KNOW.
I HOPE ATTACKS WILL STOP AND I WLL BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT MY INFORMATION.
YOU HAVE SPENT PAGES AND PAGES ATTACKING ME, WHILE REVEALING THAT YOU
HAVE ACCEPTED THE JUDGMENTS OF OTHERS WITHOUT RELYING ON YOUR OWN
HIGH INTELLIGENCE AND GOOD SENSE. SOME PEOPLE YOU TRUSTED HAVE QUITE
NEGATIVELY INFLUENCED YOU, JACK,
I AM VERY SORRY TO HAVE TO WRITE THESE THINGS TO A MAN WHOM I HAVE LONG
RESPECTED, DESPITE HIS UNENDING HOSTILE ATTITUDE TOWARD ME FOR OVER FIVE
YEARS.
IT SEEMS THAT "I AM HATED WITHOUT CAUSE" BY YOU.
JVB
NOTE: I think that Judyth makes excellent points, Jack.
I am sorry to have to say I agree with her completely!
Dear Jack:
We have established the following:
1) I made a reading error that resulted in Banister and Ochsner being mentioned
on the wrong date. I supplied evidence that my correction matched what is easly
available online and that I had misinterpreted what was there as a list, which was
unconnected to the date a few lines aove it.
2) I pointed out that YOU misread the article yourself when you stated that I did
not mention Ochsner being out of town (South America). It seems you, too, are
capable of misreading the long article. I have shown you that Ochsner was out
of town and that it was in the article.
3) I pointed out that, for some reason, you have changed actual words, such as
'apartment' to 'room', and otherwise degraded information that is relevant to
establishing connectons between me and Oswald
4) You further left out connectors between Oswald and myself, such as mentioning
that, when I was forced to resign--yes, it was actually getting fired, but I signed a
resignation--it had occurred because I was seen with Oswald not long before he
was arrested for opassing out pamphlets--you simply didn't mention this connector.
By failing to do so, you exhibited a remarkable amount of prejudice in reporting my
position as a witness. I have been stunned, actually, by these seemingly deliberate
distortions of the record.
Now you compound everything with insults, such as beow:
Now, in 2010, she says that is wrong...that he was in South America at that time.
==We have alrerady addressed this, Jack--It says in the same article you supposedly
read that Oschner was out of town for two weeks when I arrived in New orleans.
Obviously, then, I could not have met him on April 27, since I arrived in New Orleans
on April 20. But let us move on to your insults and leave your errors behind:
Previously I had read that she had been invited to come to New Orleans to be an intern
under Dr. Ochsner. Now if you can sort this out and make sense of it, you are better
than I am at interpreting conflicting statements. I find this (and many other things)
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT. WHAT I FIND DISTURBING IS THAT YOU PASS
JUDGMENT ON ME APPARENTLY WITHOUT EVER SEEING THE DOCUMENTARY BY NIGEL
TURNER. IT IS CLEAR THERE--AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR--THAT I WAS OFFERED
AN INTERNSHIP WITH DR. MARY SHERMAN BY OCHSNER AND THAT MY UNIVERSITY
WENT ON THE TRIMESTER SCHEDULE THAT YEAR.
WE GOT OUT TWO WEEKS EARLIER THAT OTHER SCHOOLS, BUT OCHSNER LEFT THE
COUNTRY, THINKING I WOULD ARRIVE TWO WEEKS LATER THAN I DID. SHERMAN
WAS WITH HIM PART OF THAT TME.
I FOUND MYSELF WTHOUT FUNDS. WATCH THE DOCMENTARY OR READ THE BOOK,
BUT PLEASE DO NOT PASS JUDGMENT ON ME WITHOUT HAVING EVEN READ THIS
ONE ARTICLE BY DR. JOHN WLLIAMS WITH CARE.
I AM SHOCKED AND SURPRISED AT THE CARELESSNESS INVOLVED HERE.
I CANNOT EVEN FEEL ANGER, JUST SHOCK.
YOU DO NOT CARE NOT WHETHER YOU DESTROY A WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY
YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER INSPECTED. YOU HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY.
IT GRIEVES ME TO SAY THESE WORDS. YOU HAVE DONE SO MUCH FOR THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY.
too confusing to sort out or bother with. And so what?
THESE WORDS IMPLY IGNORANCE OF WHAT I KNOW AND WISH TO CONVEY
TO THE FORUM HERE--IF I EVER GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OF THOSE
THINGS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DEFEND MY INTEGRITY AND VERY SANITY ON
THIS FORUM AGAINST SPECIOUS ATTACKS.
I AM WELL AWARE THAT I AM HUMAN AND CAN MAKE AN OCCASIONAL ERROR.
BUT YOUR STATEMENTS BRUSH ME OFF AS A WORTHLESS PERSON NOT EVEN
DESERVING OF A HEARING. AND YOU DID NOT GIVE ME A FAIR ONE, EITHER.
Was Ochsner behind the assassination? Or if he had ANY involvement, was it
important?
AT LAST, A QUESTON OF VALUE.
I do not get that impression from ANYTHING JVB has said. Even if EVERYTHING
she says is true, it does not enhance the things we already knew.
HOW CAN YOU BE IN A POSITON TO JUDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT I HAVE
TO SAY, MR. WHITE, SINCE YOU HAVE NEVER MET ME, NEVER INTERVIEWED ME,
NEVER EVEN SEEN THE DOCUMENTARY, WHICH IS BASIC TO COMPREHENDING
MY TESTIMONY.
MUCH INFORMATION I HAVE DID NOT MEAN MUCH TO ME AT THE TIME. BUT BEING
THREATENED, REVILED AND ATTACKED CHANGES ONE'S PERSPECTIVE, AND I HAVE
DILIGENTLY SOUGHT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I KNOW.
I HOPE ATTACKS WILL STOP AND I WLL BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT MY INFORMATION.
YOU HAVE SPENT PAGES AND PAGES ATTACKING ME, WHILE REVEALING THAT YOU
HAVE ACCEPTED THE JUDGMENTS OF OTHERS WITHOUT RELYING ON YOUR OWN
HIGH INTELLIGENCE AND GOOD SENSE. SOME PEOPLE YOU TRUSTED HAVE QUITE
NEGATIVELY INFLUENCED YOU, JACK,
I AM VERY SORRY TO HAVE TO WRITE THESE THINGS TO A MAN WHOM I HAVE LONG
RESPECTED, DESPITE HIS UNENDING HOSTILE ATTITUDE TOWARD ME FOR OVER FIVE
YEARS.
IT SEEMS THAT "I AM HATED WITHOUT CAUSE" BY YOU.
JVB