31-08-2017, 12:18 AM
Jim is flailing. He won't address the fact that he's been shown to have used a dishonest statement to promote Kamp's essay, and so he indulges in loser's rhetoric. The reality is the opposite of what he paints- it is the Murphyites who are engaged in a crusade, more aptly characterized as a Bolshevik politicization of truth. My lunchroom position and Doyle's PrayerMan position have been achieved through hard-won scholarship, which DiEugenio & ROKC completely ignore. The reality is that censorship is imposed on those opposing this Murphyite politicization. And the further reality is that any "deep-seated personal problems" arise from the Clockwork Orange psychos at ROKC, who heap scorn & ridicule upon the refuters of their propaganda.
Jim is attempting to cover up for Kamp's failure to even address my counter-arguments, to cover up for his excerpter Albert Rossi's failure to recognize that defect in the essay, and Jim's own failure to even bother reading my hoax critique at Inside Job. And so the research community gets a partial picture, opinions get shaped based on this limited information, and Party membership grows & further pushes the Murphyite dogma.
How did Duncan Macrae get into this mix? Some old resentment of yours, Jim? So you make a deliberate distortion and lump us all together as evil crusaders? That's Chris Davidson's metadata enhancement which shows that PrayerMan has the face of a woman. In the real world, one would normally include the improved technical analysis to help evaluate the question at hand- PrayerMan's identity- but not in the Murphyized JFK research community.
DiEugenio's regressive rhetoric serves to divert the reader from understanding that Kamp's essay displays this same level of poor scholarship that we encounter in the PrayerMan deception. Party procedure is to misdirect attention and then get on a platform and filibuster the partial picture.
Look what we get with Carolyn Arnold. Kamp has the nerve to alter the account of a major witness- and DiEugenio backs him up. If we honor Ms. Arnold's statement to Earl Golz, then Oswald was sitting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom at 12:25; Fritz testified (IV p. 213) that Oswald said that "he was having his lunch" in that lunchroom; Truly & Baker soon encountered him in that same 2nd-floor lunchroom; and Holmes tells us (VII p. 302) that Oswald said he "just went on downstairs".
But Kamp has to invert this evidence in order to make it fit the hoax. If the hypothesis doesn't align with the evidence, maybe it's time to abandon the hypothesis. And in good time they will, like rats abandoning a sinking ship.
Winners will tell you that during the shooting Oswald was in the 2nd-floor lunchroom. Losers will claim he was elsewhere. Stick with the winners, folks.
Jim is attempting to cover up for Kamp's failure to even address my counter-arguments, to cover up for his excerpter Albert Rossi's failure to recognize that defect in the essay, and Jim's own failure to even bother reading my hoax critique at Inside Job. And so the research community gets a partial picture, opinions get shaped based on this limited information, and Party membership grows & further pushes the Murphyite dogma.
How did Duncan Macrae get into this mix? Some old resentment of yours, Jim? So you make a deliberate distortion and lump us all together as evil crusaders? That's Chris Davidson's metadata enhancement which shows that PrayerMan has the face of a woman. In the real world, one would normally include the improved technical analysis to help evaluate the question at hand- PrayerMan's identity- but not in the Murphyized JFK research community.
DiEugenio's regressive rhetoric serves to divert the reader from understanding that Kamp's essay displays this same level of poor scholarship that we encounter in the PrayerMan deception. Party procedure is to misdirect attention and then get on a platform and filibuster the partial picture.
Look what we get with Carolyn Arnold. Kamp has the nerve to alter the account of a major witness- and DiEugenio backs him up. If we honor Ms. Arnold's statement to Earl Golz, then Oswald was sitting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom at 12:25; Fritz testified (IV p. 213) that Oswald said that "he was having his lunch" in that lunchroom; Truly & Baker soon encountered him in that same 2nd-floor lunchroom; and Holmes tells us (VII p. 302) that Oswald said he "just went on downstairs".
But Kamp has to invert this evidence in order to make it fit the hoax. If the hypothesis doesn't align with the evidence, maybe it's time to abandon the hypothesis. And in good time they will, like rats abandoning a sinking ship.
Winners will tell you that during the shooting Oswald was in the 2nd-floor lunchroom. Losers will claim he was elsewhere. Stick with the winners, folks.