13-03-2013, 02:33 AM
Everyone,
It's very simple.
1. In the post in which he opened this thread, Gordon Gray drew our attention to an image from a "Russian language documentary" of an individual bearing a resemblance to LHO. He asked if the image was familiar to anyone and if it was captured "in the Philippines or maybe on some place like No Name Key".
2. Less than an hour later, Josephs responded with this bold statement: "I would put it at No Name before anyting [sic] else... "
3. I quickly came back with:
"I'm no botanist, but the vegetation in this image does not strike me as being particularly tropical.
"That plus the fact that neither an image nor a verifiable report of LHO at No Name Key has surfaced to date make the statement that this view should be accepted as having been taken "at No Name before anyting [sic] else" utterly under-informed and undisciplined -- which is to say, nonsensical."
4. Josephs took immense offense at my comments. Yet when pressed by me to justify his No Name Key conclusion, all that he could offer were evasions, attempts to deflect the conversation from questions regarding his analysis, shift the burden of proof for a claim I never made to me, and ultimately declare that he will not explain the rationale behind his No Name Key identification because I am rude:
"why and how I come to this speculation is not anything I prefer to discuss with you at this point... given your initial response...
that you can't make those connections yourself speaks volumes"
5. So with what are we left?
My legitimate question, and Josephs's evasions.
And so I have no choice but to ask the question AGAIN:
Do you, Josephs, stand by your assertion that there is good reason (which you've yet to state) to conclude that the photo was taken at No Name Key "before anyting [sic] else"?
Because THAT is the question I originally raised, and THAT is the question you are dodging.
Answer the question. Share with us why the No Name Key identification should be accepted "before anyting [sic] else". Show us why you made that knee-jerk assertion.
You made the assertion.
Defend it.
Will no one join me in demanding an answer?
It's very simple.
1. In the post in which he opened this thread, Gordon Gray drew our attention to an image from a "Russian language documentary" of an individual bearing a resemblance to LHO. He asked if the image was familiar to anyone and if it was captured "in the Philippines or maybe on some place like No Name Key".
2. Less than an hour later, Josephs responded with this bold statement: "I would put it at No Name before anyting [sic] else... "
3. I quickly came back with:
"I'm no botanist, but the vegetation in this image does not strike me as being particularly tropical.
"That plus the fact that neither an image nor a verifiable report of LHO at No Name Key has surfaced to date make the statement that this view should be accepted as having been taken "at No Name before anyting [sic] else" utterly under-informed and undisciplined -- which is to say, nonsensical."
4. Josephs took immense offense at my comments. Yet when pressed by me to justify his No Name Key conclusion, all that he could offer were evasions, attempts to deflect the conversation from questions regarding his analysis, shift the burden of proof for a claim I never made to me, and ultimately declare that he will not explain the rationale behind his No Name Key identification because I am rude:
"why and how I come to this speculation is not anything I prefer to discuss with you at this point... given your initial response...
that you can't make those connections yourself speaks volumes"
5. So with what are we left?
My legitimate question, and Josephs's evasions.
And so I have no choice but to ask the question AGAIN:
Do you, Josephs, stand by your assertion that there is good reason (which you've yet to state) to conclude that the photo was taken at No Name Key "before anyting [sic] else"?
Because THAT is the question I originally raised, and THAT is the question you are dodging.
Answer the question. Share with us why the No Name Key identification should be accepted "before anyting [sic] else". Show us why you made that knee-jerk assertion.
You made the assertion.
Defend it.
Will no one join me in demanding an answer?
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene