Gordon Gray Wrote:Looking at photos of Steve Wilson, it could also be him IMO.
He was at No Name Key and later Lake Poncetrian.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4438[/ATTACH]
I try to constantly remind myself that I have had the opportunity to examine many, many photos, as well as film/video of the person identified as Lee Harvey Oswald. However, many, many "witnesses" of the events on or about 11/22/'63, only had a glance to be remembered. Assuming Mr Wilson is about the same size as LHO, he could, and does IMO, qualify as a LHO lookalike. I have seen other references regarding the somewhat similar appearance, but of course I have no knowledge other than that whether or not he was ever a LHO impersonator.
Greg... you know my work on the forums for many, many years....
As a result.... you know I defend a position vigorously and have on MANY occasions seen how a theory or conclusion of mine was wrong and say so.
Had anyone asked, "So DJ, what makes you think it was No Name before all others?" I would have gladly discussed my feelings and POV on the subject....
CD instead needed to "do his thing".... for whatever personal need, to display his self-perceived superiority...
He was then to only give me 30 seconds more of his time... which he immediately proceeded to ignore
and informed me how he had nothing to learn from me at all...
Sounded an awful lot like a child having a tantrum... so I treated him as such.
So yes Greg...
I let the big bully punch himself out.... was it truly constructive in requesting a response to repost a simple spelling error like he was wearing a badge of honor on his chest?
When that did not get the response he wanted... the tantrum got even uglier with accusations and sucker punches.
As I posted before, MY FAULT... I should have controlled my own responses and not be baited into angry tit-for-tat BS.
You and I have found ourselves in that dance with posters whose names are legendary in JFK circles... and it usually leads nowhere.
What surprises me the most is that a person's body of work is not considered... just THAT COMMENT at THAT MOMENT.... "Up agains the Wall with him!"
Have I ever come across as anything but sincere about what I post and what my conclusions are and why? EVER?
Has anyone who has read my posts here come to the conclusion I am a "third-rate agitator" ? That I try to conceal an agenda?
I will continue to present my POV and support it as best I can....
I will NOT acknowledge holier-than-thou tantrums (Fetzer's demands on Unger as an example) nor have a conversation with a man
who is so sure of his position and knowledge that he has nothing to learn from me... where if you disagree with him you're branded either an idiot or a criminal...
(but he's NOT insulting the "people" whose hearts and minds he is trying to sway.... please)
He seems to forget that my taking on "Doyle" and his cohort regarding Dimona and that awful book helped him to seeing thru "Doyle's" multiple personalities.
==============
In the end, we still have what appears to me as a photo of "an" Oswald with a striking similarity to the man Ruby killed, although the fingers, the height and weight do not align with that man... only the facial features do.
Could THIS photo have been created for some purpose... IDK.
I'm moving on now... I think the idea that only 2 of the tramps were planted while one was actually Abrahms is worth investigating. Those pictured were not Gedney and Doyle... yet SOMEONE was booked and jailed under those names. I would welcome your input on that thread... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post65565
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
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.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
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.
Greg - words of wisdom and patience.
Yes - we all need to be prepared to provide the evidence, or identify the thinking, that leads us to draw a particular conclusion.
Yes - we need to be aware that this is a war, and enemies and allies are watching - some to support our efforts, others to denounce them.
Yes - the best of us are passionate about these battles and about the truth.
However, the path to the truth is a difficult one, with tentative steps, looking around, surveilling the undergrowth, taking a bold step forward and then retracing as a new fact is uncovered lurking in the shadows.
The best researchers are never afraid to have their work and their interpretations challenged, because they know that rigorous questioning often reveals the worth of their work and interpretations.
Sometimes strengthening them. Sometimes causing revisions and perhaps a fresh path of inquiry or interpretation.
A rigorous dialectic is at the heart of research.
But that interrogation should be civil and respectful unless we have overwhelming reasons to suspect the enemy is amongst us.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
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
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David Josephs Wrote:In the end, we still have what appears to me as a photo of "an" Oswald with a striking similarity to the man Ruby killed, although the fingers, the height and weight do not align with that man... only the facial features do.
Here we have, before our very eyes, the core distraction.
My objections and indignation NEVER were related to the identification of the individual.
Rather, they CLEARLY were in response to the certainty of Josephs's baseless No Name Key conclusion.
Don't let Josephs distract you from this all-important distinction.
Greg Burnham Wrote: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.
You honor and flatter me, Greg.
Please know -- EVERYONE, please know -- that I trust Greg implicitly and completely.
