Operation forty pic

[Peter Lemkin]

The hairline alone is NOT that of Sturgis - as discussed on another thread about this photo. It is however, a match for the hairline of Plumlee. It is not strange in my mind that Plumlee when the photo first came out denied it was he....as there are reasons for him to not want to be associated with a few in the photo - and was the only one who had partly covered his face during that dinner. Later, when most researchers had long thought it was he [Plumlee], he relented, and now he admits it is he.

By the way, please do NOT call me anything other than by my first name, and stop acting like you are someone special, not subject to the rules and just general civil behavior as are others. The Forum rules address not saying negative things about other persons who post here - and being generally civil on the Forum - even to most outsiders [not attacking them, only perhaps critiquing their ideas], your current attempt to denigrate Plumlee, who is a member here, is pretty below the belt, IMO. You were very friendly, even solicitous, in your interview with him, but now stab him behind his back. Says a lot about character - yours more than his, to me. It also makes me wonder about your motives.

These guys all lived a life full of lies and 'legends' they hid behind professionally; no doubt some adding to that due to personality and the need/desire to protect themselves and their secretive lives. I don't believe anything any of them say without verification of one kind or another. They also have - and have always had alliances and enemies within the groups they sometimes had to interact with, as is natural - perhaps more so with covert operatives because they were involved in such intense actions of life and death, near death and being pitted one against the other by those forces that guided them in their operations; although in any set of persons there are those who become close and those who are at 'odds' with someone for all manner of reasons. Your high horse nonsense, a few posts above, that you, Scott, have all the facts, if only others would recognize that, is illogical, not true, and arrogant, IMO. You will convince more by amicably presenting your views and evidence - than antagonistic posts or provocations against others.

Post here following the rules, but get off your high horse, and in a civil manner present your facts and evidence. That your father was once involved with some of these guys, doing ops himself with these men and others doesn't, by itself, give you a 'free pass'. After trying to petulantly chide or dare, even task, members here to name exactly who is in the photo, you say you 'could but won't' name others because it is a public forum and you might sometime talk to some of these guys and they might not like being named - is a very poor cop-out, IMO. It is just as likely you don't know or are not sure. But at the same time you are trying to make others look bad for their opinions on who is whom, what is what - that is not civil interaction here. You are entitled to your views, but others are equally entitled to theirs. While opinions are sometimes OK and an educated opinion is often the best one can do in this field, if one has some evidence/documents/interviews/research to back up the opinions, it is always preferable that that be presented, when available.

There is not one standard on the Forum for others and one special one for you. You've already had some of your posts on this thread removed, as I said before, because they abrogated the rules. However, rather than tempering your behavior, you seem to want to go to the 'line' as close and as repeatedly as you can.