27-01-2011, 03:11 AM
My comments in RED.
"Credible," Greg, is a subjective judgement. This too from the "No Brainer" department.
[COLOR="red"]If anyone is building a straw man, Greg, it's you. Did you or did you not write to Jim:
"Huh? What are you claiming to know about covert ops, Jim? WHAT? Please give me some basis for your claim BEYOND being an historian? Huh? WHAT? I'm serious. How do YOU know--first hand--what are "the rules of covert ops" ? Huh? Seriously, that is a very dis-educated claim--an unsupported assertion; unless, of course, you have FIRST HAND knowledge of what "every rule of covert ops" consists of, I find no reason to place any faith in your "guess" about something of which you are poorly prepared to speak."
If you seriously argue that this language does not suggest that you are rejecting Jim's assertion based upon the fact that it is the product of research as opposed to "FIRST HAND knowledge," then you and I have very different appreciations of the mother tongue.[/COLOR]
I reiterate: the sources, not the methodology. Stay on point, please.
[COLOR="red"]It is most decidedly NOT "off topic in this thread."
Normally I'd have neither the time nor the inclination to hand-hold you through an exercise in reading comprehension. But in this case I'll make an exception.
The methods and motives of photo identification comprise a significant sub-aspect, if you will, of this thread. So too does the issue of motivation behind said identification. If this mystifies you, I suggest you re-read the thread from its beginning with special attention to nuance and subtext.
I might add that while I respect your right to define the parameters of this thread to the best of your abilities, do not for a moment think that your limitations as a reader and interpreter will define, inform, or otherwise limit my own perceptions and those of others.
You do not "own" this or any other thread. Your efforts to ignore and/or narrow its areas of focus -- as I interpret them -- are wasted.[/COLOR]
Greg Burnham Wrote:Great, I don't either--unless and until he begins to challenge the eyewitness accounts of CREDIBLE individuals who are in a much better position to know about these matters than is he. This is a no brainer.
"Credible," Greg, is a subjective judgement. This too from the "No Brainer" department.
Greg Burnham Wrote:Agreed. However, no one is holding Jim to such a standard--and your suggestion that I am doing so is a Straw Man. He drew first blood by claiming that the positive ID made by both Colonel L Fletcher Prouty and General Victor Krulak were "iffy" identifications.
[COLOR="red"]If anyone is building a straw man, Greg, it's you. Did you or did you not write to Jim:
"Huh? What are you claiming to know about covert ops, Jim? WHAT? Please give me some basis for your claim BEYOND being an historian? Huh? WHAT? I'm serious. How do YOU know--first hand--what are "the rules of covert ops" ? Huh? Seriously, that is a very dis-educated claim--an unsupported assertion; unless, of course, you have FIRST HAND knowledge of what "every rule of covert ops" consists of, I find no reason to place any faith in your "guess" about something of which you are poorly prepared to speak."
If you seriously argue that this language does not suggest that you are rejecting Jim's assertion based upon the fact that it is the product of research as opposed to "FIRST HAND knowledge," then you and I have very different appreciations of the mother tongue.[/COLOR]
Greg Burnham Wrote:What part of the Lansdale identification is "iffy" Charles? Is it the Letter from General Krulak that positively identifies Lansdale? Is it the letters from Col. Fletcher Prouty positively naming Lansdale or is it the YouTube video made by Len Osanic?
I reiterate: the sources, not the methodology. Stay on point, please.
Greg Burnham Wrote:No comment since that is off topic in this thread...and I have NEVER even spoken about the Ambassador Hotel "spooks" --so I'm mystified as to why you raise this subject here and now in this thread.
[COLOR="red"]It is most decidedly NOT "off topic in this thread."
Normally I'd have neither the time nor the inclination to hand-hold you through an exercise in reading comprehension. But in this case I'll make an exception.
The methods and motives of photo identification comprise a significant sub-aspect, if you will, of this thread. So too does the issue of motivation behind said identification. If this mystifies you, I suggest you re-read the thread from its beginning with special attention to nuance and subtext.
I might add that while I respect your right to define the parameters of this thread to the best of your abilities, do not for a moment think that your limitations as a reader and interpreter will define, inform, or otherwise limit my own perceptions and those of others.
You do not "own" this or any other thread. Your efforts to ignore and/or narrow its areas of focus -- as I interpret them -- are wasted.[/COLOR]