28-03-2010, 07:55 PM
JUDYTH OFFERS OBSERVATIONS ABOUT JACK'S POSTS:
Jim, Jack's reply is a classic example of cognitive dissonance behavior.
He says he isn't reading my posts but then says that he "seldom read(s)
them carefully because they are repetitive and predictable." As anyone
knows who has been following this thread, this is a false characterization
of the nature of these posts. I have been presenting new information all
along, or little-known information. Jack prefers to mow the grass because
that is a different behavior--it is avoidance behavior. When pigeons are
frustrated and cannot reach grain behind a plate of glass, in cognitive
dissonance frustration, they peck at something they can reach instead!
Jack cuts grass and decides not to read the posts, like the fox and the
grapes, which the fox calls "sour" because he cannot reach them --
Jack is saying my posts are repetitive and predicable, when they are
no such thing, and he would rather mow grass. And at time like this!==
Jack can choose to: (1) attack, (2) apologize and join wholeheartedly
into trying to find out the whole truth, in a good spirit of cooperation --
hard on the ego but wonderful as to having his great skills available in
the matter -- or (3) he can ignore, and peck a something else besides
the glass -- in this case, at his grass==
I have not evaded anything. I have been busy with doctor and dental
appointments and mowing my grass. I spend little time on the computer
now that the weather is nice. The long ALL CAPS
==because of vision problems--I apologize wish I could do better==
and abusive ramblings of JVB
==Not ramblings. Not abusive. Trying to speak kindly and with respect,
despite the way I am being described by Jack. Now you see what Jack
'means' when he said I was 'abusive' at the DellaRosa forum....Am I
being abusive, or just pointing out what should not be ignored or even
proclaimed without careful inspection?==
are very difficult to wade thru, and I seldom read them
carefully because they are repetitive and predictable.
==Sorry -- he's 'seldom' reading my posts, but yet he expects me to
read his posts and answer him and, if not, I am being evasive.==
JVB
[quote name='Jack White' post='188000' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:23 PM']
I have not evaded anything. I have been busy with
doctor and dental appointments and mowing my grass.
I spend little time on the computer now that the weather
is nice. The long ALL CAPS and abusive ramblings of JVB
are very difficult to wade thru, and I seldom read them
carefully because they are repetitive and predictable.
To learn John Armstrong's methodology, read the book.
He footnotes extensively and tells about every source.
If you can find a questionable documentation, please
let us know about it.
He depended VERY LARGELY on interviews of people
who knew the Oswald family. He and Robert Groden
videotaped many of these interviews. He specifically
quotes interviews as sources. Interviews cannot be faked.
If there are fake documents, the WC was taken in by them
because most assassination documents he uses were also
used by the WC. There is no way other public record
documents can be faked, because he made extensive use
of city directories, phone books, court records, real estate
transactions, etc...none of which can be fabricated because
they pre-existed 1963. Fabrication of a telephone book
that was a print run of 200,000 is obviously impossible.
I am not aware of anything I have purposely evaded
if I know the answer. Please rephrase (brief one sentence
questions) any thing you want me to answer. I may have
missed them in the mass of ALL CAPS TYPING used by
JVB. The reason the previous posting seemed a combination
of writing by you and JVB was the ALL CAPS TYPING that
is her trademark. Some of the remarks seemed to be hers.
I do not understand your questioning of the authenticity of
certain publicly published photos. The funeral photo of
Marina, Robert and Marguerite, for instance, was taken and
published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the next day.
There was no reason for the newspaper or anyone else
to "fake" it, yet you question whether it is authentic.
As for his uncle Murret tying LHO to the mafia, that is
undocumented and undocumentable. LHO's association with
Uncle Dutz was under the age of 5 and around the age of 14.
It is most dubious that these childhood associations with
a relative would have made either LHO a mafioso.
I am growing very tired of unwarranted accusations about
me, my intelligence, my motives and my research.
I have nothing but pity for this poor quixotic person who has
abandoned a potentially productive life for a person of her
obvious intelligence in order to promote her illicit affair with
a married man.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187989' date='Mar 27 2010, 01:45 PM']
JIM DIRECTS SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK ABOUT ROBERT:
WHEN I ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF SELECTION
THAT JOHN ARMSTRONG USED TO DETERMINE WHICH RECORDS
AND DOCUMENTS WERE GENUINE AND WHICH NOT, YOU OFFER
NO RESPONSE. THAT SUGGESTS HE VACUUMED ALL OF THEM UP.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE PROVENANCE OF THE PHOTOS
OF THE SECOND MARGUERITE. MY FATHER'S SECOND WIFE WAS
ALSO NAMED "MARGUERITE". I COULD OFFER PHOTOGRAPHS OF
HER AND IDENTIFY HER AS A "SECOND MARGUERITE" AS WELL.
THE POINT I AM MAKING, JACK, IS THAT IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO
FIND PHOTOS AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE
SHOWN. IF JOHN HAD NO PRINCIPLES FOR SORTING DOCUMENTS,
WHAT DID HE DO TO DETERMINE THE PROVENANCE OF PHOTOS?
AND IT APPEARS RATHER OBVIOUS AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT
SOME OF THE IMAGES OF "THE TWO OSWALDS" ARE PHONY OR
FAKED. KATHY SPOTTED IT AND JUDYTH AGREES AS DO I THAT
ONE ON WHICH YOU HEAVILY DEPEND APPEARS TO BE ALTERED.
I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
MORE AND MORE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
CHILD'S PLAY TO CREATE A PARALLEL IMPERSONATION. I HAVE
HIS BOOK, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE HAVING SOME ANSWERS.
AND HASN'T ROBERT BEEN DISPOSED TO SUPPORT THE THEORY
THAT HIS BROTHER WAS THE ASSASSIN? SINCE THAT IS PURE
FANTASY, DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT HE (ROBERT) MAY HAVE
BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED? WHO BETTER TO IMPERSONATE LEE?
IF YOU AND JOHN DON'T HAVE DIRECT, CONVINCING ANSWERS
TO THESE QUESTIONS, THEN I AM GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME
TAKING ALL OF THIS SERIOUSLY. YOU HAD AN OBVIOUS DOUBLE
AT HAND. HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU SPENT IN STUDYING HIM?
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187966' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:18 AM']
IS IT POSSIBLE ROBERT COULD HAVE BEEN A "SECOND OSWALD"?
DID YOU AND JOHN ATTEMPT TO TRACK ROBERT'S WHEREABOUTS
ON CRUCIAL DATES? THE PHOTO ABOVE ON THE LEFT DOES NOT
LOOK TO ME REMOTELY LIKE LEE OSWALD. I DOUBT THAT IT IS.
[quote name='Jack White' post='187962' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:04 AM']
Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.
Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Jim, Jack's reply is a classic example of cognitive dissonance behavior.
He says he isn't reading my posts but then says that he "seldom read(s)
them carefully because they are repetitive and predictable." As anyone
knows who has been following this thread, this is a false characterization
of the nature of these posts. I have been presenting new information all
along, or little-known information. Jack prefers to mow the grass because
that is a different behavior--it is avoidance behavior. When pigeons are
frustrated and cannot reach grain behind a plate of glass, in cognitive
dissonance frustration, they peck at something they can reach instead!
Jack cuts grass and decides not to read the posts, like the fox and the
grapes, which the fox calls "sour" because he cannot reach them --
Jack is saying my posts are repetitive and predicable, when they are
no such thing, and he would rather mow grass. And at time like this!==
Jack can choose to: (1) attack, (2) apologize and join wholeheartedly
into trying to find out the whole truth, in a good spirit of cooperation --
hard on the ego but wonderful as to having his great skills available in
the matter -- or (3) he can ignore, and peck a something else besides
the glass -- in this case, at his grass==
I have not evaded anything. I have been busy with doctor and dental
appointments and mowing my grass. I spend little time on the computer
now that the weather is nice. The long ALL CAPS
==because of vision problems--I apologize wish I could do better==
and abusive ramblings of JVB
==Not ramblings. Not abusive. Trying to speak kindly and with respect,
despite the way I am being described by Jack. Now you see what Jack
'means' when he said I was 'abusive' at the DellaRosa forum....Am I
being abusive, or just pointing out what should not be ignored or even
proclaimed without careful inspection?==
are very difficult to wade thru, and I seldom read them
carefully because they are repetitive and predictable.
==Sorry -- he's 'seldom' reading my posts, but yet he expects me to
read his posts and answer him and, if not, I am being evasive.==
JVB
[quote name='Jack White' post='188000' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:23 PM']
I have not evaded anything. I have been busy with
doctor and dental appointments and mowing my grass.
I spend little time on the computer now that the weather
is nice. The long ALL CAPS and abusive ramblings of JVB
are very difficult to wade thru, and I seldom read them
carefully because they are repetitive and predictable.
To learn John Armstrong's methodology, read the book.
He footnotes extensively and tells about every source.
If you can find a questionable documentation, please
let us know about it.
He depended VERY LARGELY on interviews of people
who knew the Oswald family. He and Robert Groden
videotaped many of these interviews. He specifically
quotes interviews as sources. Interviews cannot be faked.
If there are fake documents, the WC was taken in by them
because most assassination documents he uses were also
used by the WC. There is no way other public record
documents can be faked, because he made extensive use
of city directories, phone books, court records, real estate
transactions, etc...none of which can be fabricated because
they pre-existed 1963. Fabrication of a telephone book
that was a print run of 200,000 is obviously impossible.
I am not aware of anything I have purposely evaded
if I know the answer. Please rephrase (brief one sentence
questions) any thing you want me to answer. I may have
missed them in the mass of ALL CAPS TYPING used by
JVB. The reason the previous posting seemed a combination
of writing by you and JVB was the ALL CAPS TYPING that
is her trademark. Some of the remarks seemed to be hers.
I do not understand your questioning of the authenticity of
certain publicly published photos. The funeral photo of
Marina, Robert and Marguerite, for instance, was taken and
published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the next day.
There was no reason for the newspaper or anyone else
to "fake" it, yet you question whether it is authentic.
As for his uncle Murret tying LHO to the mafia, that is
undocumented and undocumentable. LHO's association with
Uncle Dutz was under the age of 5 and around the age of 14.
It is most dubious that these childhood associations with
a relative would have made either LHO a mafioso.
I am growing very tired of unwarranted accusations about
me, my intelligence, my motives and my research.
I have nothing but pity for this poor quixotic person who has
abandoned a potentially productive life for a person of her
obvious intelligence in order to promote her illicit affair with
a married man.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187989' date='Mar 27 2010, 01:45 PM']
JIM DIRECTS SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK ABOUT ROBERT:
WHEN I ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF SELECTION
THAT JOHN ARMSTRONG USED TO DETERMINE WHICH RECORDS
AND DOCUMENTS WERE GENUINE AND WHICH NOT, YOU OFFER
NO RESPONSE. THAT SUGGESTS HE VACUUMED ALL OF THEM UP.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE PROVENANCE OF THE PHOTOS
OF THE SECOND MARGUERITE. MY FATHER'S SECOND WIFE WAS
ALSO NAMED "MARGUERITE". I COULD OFFER PHOTOGRAPHS OF
HER AND IDENTIFY HER AS A "SECOND MARGUERITE" AS WELL.
THE POINT I AM MAKING, JACK, IS THAT IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO
FIND PHOTOS AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE
SHOWN. IF JOHN HAD NO PRINCIPLES FOR SORTING DOCUMENTS,
WHAT DID HE DO TO DETERMINE THE PROVENANCE OF PHOTOS?
AND IT APPEARS RATHER OBVIOUS AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT
SOME OF THE IMAGES OF "THE TWO OSWALDS" ARE PHONY OR
FAKED. KATHY SPOTTED IT AND JUDYTH AGREES AS DO I THAT
ONE ON WHICH YOU HEAVILY DEPEND APPEARS TO BE ALTERED.
I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
MORE AND MORE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
CHILD'S PLAY TO CREATE A PARALLEL IMPERSONATION. I HAVE
HIS BOOK, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE HAVING SOME ANSWERS.
AND HASN'T ROBERT BEEN DISPOSED TO SUPPORT THE THEORY
THAT HIS BROTHER WAS THE ASSASSIN? SINCE THAT IS PURE
FANTASY, DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT HE (ROBERT) MAY HAVE
BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED? WHO BETTER TO IMPERSONATE LEE?
IF YOU AND JOHN DON'T HAVE DIRECT, CONVINCING ANSWERS
TO THESE QUESTIONS, THEN I AM GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME
TAKING ALL OF THIS SERIOUSLY. YOU HAD AN OBVIOUS DOUBLE
AT HAND. HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU SPENT IN STUDYING HIM?
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187966' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:18 AM']
IS IT POSSIBLE ROBERT COULD HAVE BEEN A "SECOND OSWALD"?
DID YOU AND JOHN ATTEMPT TO TRACK ROBERT'S WHEREABOUTS
ON CRUCIAL DATES? THE PHOTO ABOVE ON THE LEFT DOES NOT
LOOK TO ME REMOTELY LIKE LEE OSWALD. I DOUBT THAT IT IS.
[quote name='Jack White' post='187962' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:04 AM']
Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.
Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]