27-01-2012, 02:28 AM
Monk,
The evidence and proof are laid out so painstakingly and so thoroughly that I am dumbfounded by these remarks. If you want to challenge our work, then explain what premises we have wrong or where our reasoning is faulty. Do that or pass by in silence. This work is "rock solid" or I would not have put my name on it. Ralph noticed that what mattered was not the faces but the shirts! He was absolutely determined to work this out and we have been dealing with it for months. If you can show where we have gone wrong, do that. Persumably, there is no better place to subject research on the assassination of JFK than on a JFK assassination research forum. You remarks here, I regret to say, are absurd.
Jim
The evidence and proof are laid out so painstakingly and so thoroughly that I am dumbfounded by these remarks. If you want to challenge our work, then explain what premises we have wrong or where our reasoning is faulty. Do that or pass by in silence. This work is "rock solid" or I would not have put my name on it. Ralph noticed that what mattered was not the faces but the shirts! He was absolutely determined to work this out and we have been dealing with it for months. If you can show where we have gone wrong, do that. Persumably, there is no better place to subject research on the assassination of JFK than on a JFK assassination research forum. You remarks here, I regret to say, are absurd.
Jim
Greg Burnham Wrote:Jim,
I am unconvinced of the assertions regarding Doorman. Unfortunately, I also observe that Jack White's expertise in this (and other) area(s) is sorely missed due to an extended convalescence. When one or two researchers believe that they have made a break through discovery, especially one that flies in the face of decades of research conducted by over a dozen fellow researchers (all of whom have repeatedly demonstrated their bona fides and integrity, including Jack), I would think that a peer review of sorts is precisely the reason that this potential discovery should be shared in its infancy.
It is not advised, IMHO, to share a new discovery of this nature that is still in its untested stage in a manner that pontificates to fellow respected researchers. If peer review is unimportant to you, then why even share the information now? Seems like the information could instead be placed in a new book if one is that convinced of its validity, rather than on a forum whose purpose is to vet such claims as these--particularly when they run contrary to previously validated studies. Is it possible that the new information will eventually supersede what we already know? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But, as of now--it has yet to be proved.
Bottom line: One should EXPECT harsh criticisms when posting work of this nature on a public forum. One should roll with the punches and prove their case, if possible. One should remain properly dispassionate, but not aloof.
On a final note...these recommendations are much easier for me to say since I am not the one sharing my work. I am not intending to preach either. My apologies if it came out that way.