Has anyone seen this photo?

[David Josephs]

Hi David,

First of all, I have been recovering from surgery and have not been reading all the posts. Sometimes I've been off line for an extended period of time. I don't recall even seeing any of the
tit-for-tat infighting that you described. I think I probably just missed it. I gather some of it was moderated. So, I'm the late comer to the discussion. However, I know both you and Charles
are passionate about your beliefs and I think you are both honorable men. Sometimes honorable men are passionate about core values and in their haste are perhaps a bit sloppy about how
they present their "peripheral" work or opinions. I know I've been guilty of that in the past--hopefully not very often--and no doubt I may even commit such an error in the future. But, in my
view, pristine core values are the most important quality that I find admirable in a researcher. I don't find the occasional over-reaching statement or even the occasional "less than well founded"
supposition to be necessarily relevant to the subject of judging another's core values. Those may well be "premature research-aculations" that any one of us may, on rare occasions, perpetrate.
So, although I think you over-stated yourself, IMHO, I don't consider it a deal breaker.

Truth be told, when I first joined this forum Charles and I did not know each other. He did not know me from Posner. He held my feet to the fire, just like I used to do as sgt-at-arms for Rich
at the JFKresearch Forum, and sometimes it got hot. Very hot. We banged heads very hard. But, that was just at first. While we don't see eye-to-eye 100% of the time immediately, we work it
out naturally, very quickly, and easily. We think very much alike. That may have contributed to our original clashing. Stan Wilbourne helped bridge the gap.

Today I count Charles to be a close friend, and among a mere handful of researchers for whom my trust is both implicit and utterly complete.

Speaks volumes Greg...

"over-stated myself" - well put.

My greatest fault is that I assume the benefit of the doubt too easily... As I have never had any nefarious motives, I naively assume others are also altruistic.
You, CD and many others here deal first hand with the secret agendas of others...
You sniff out and expose it wherever and whenever possible - usually with extreme accuracy.

I dont think I ever pretend to be in the same league as you, CD and others in this respect or in this task. Nor do I wish to be.

On the bigger stage of DEEP POLITICS there is obviously a need to be wary at every turn of a phrase, every "over-statement" or conclusion that it be yet another misdirection, another false lead.
On that stage and from that POV I can understand the guard dog mentality I was shown.

For better or worse, I don't live in that mindset... I'm far too optimistic and in turn a bit gullible. Which may be why I prefer to work with the tangible... the images, the evidence and their authentication.
Salandria's "minutia"... yet even Salandria has to provide analysis of the minutia - the coat, shirt and bullet hole - to help ILLUSTRATE the obviousness of the conspiracy.... to assist the "people" with their hearts and minds decisions.

I've learned a valuable lesson and will keep any "over-statement" in check.... even if I see it as innocuous....
since so many here need to - and really MUST - read so much into so little.

DJ