Heads Up!

[Alan Ford]

With a tip of the hat to Mr. Hargrove (Jim), for caring enough about the research community to sound the alarm, please be aware folks that your comments may be in jeopardy of conveying more or less than what you are actually sharing, given the less than forthcoming tactics shared here --à

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=22690

[FONT=&amp]Given that anonymous "Guest" are allowed to read content here, one never really knows if the same tactics shared above leaves your integrity here subject to the same manipulation. Each of you have a right to have your research shared in the true essence of your genuine intent, void of something akin to a gutless sucker punch. It's one thing to openly challenge a fellow researcher in a fair & square manner...it's less than honest to do otherwise. IF the wrongfully accused really is guilty as we have been lied to, err, told, why would anyone need to doctor the proceedings?


[/FONT]

[Tom Scully]

With a tip of the hat to Mr. Hargrove (Jim), for caring enough about the research community to sound the alarm, please be aware folks that your comments may be in jeopardy of conveying more or less than what you are actually sharing, given the less than forthcoming tactics shared here --à

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=22690

[FONT=&amp]Given that anonymous "Guest" are allowed to read content here, one never really knows if the same tactics shared above leaves your integrity here subject to the same manipulation. Each of you have a right to have your research shared in the true essence of your genuine intent, void of something akin to a gutless sucker punch. It's one thing to openly challenge a fellow researcher in a fair & square manner...it's less than honest to do otherwise. IF the wrongfully accused really is guilty as we have been lied to, err, told, why would anyone need to doctor the proceedings?


[/FONT]

Alan,
You're up in arms as Hargrove sounds the alarm! Every comment copied is attributed, isn't it? On the other hand.... I am the only source of this portion of this "page"......but...:

......
BTW, I am the sole unique source of the research that influenced John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove to submit this "revision" to you, or to your webmaster, and as you can see, it is published on your site, attributed to the "work" of John Armstrong.:
http://www.ctka.net/2016/ArmstrongMa...ey_Orders.html



Kindly take it down, the portion of the page in the screenshot above consists entirely of two images I selected and presented, and my exact, unique
research details in the text directly above and below the two images. First I was ignored, then attempts were made to discredit both me and my research details, and then my unique research was appropriated and credited to the individual I proved was presenting inaccurate conclusions....

I hope the irony (hypocrisy) is not lost on you, Alan.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....5&p=325992
Jim Hargrove - February 19, 2016
......
DVP is NOT going to argue JA's article, Jim. Thanks much for hosting it!!!

[Alan Ford]

On the contrary, Mr. Scully, because the last I knew an open post bearing your name asked you repeatedly on more than several occasions to speak to Mr. Hargrove's good faith overtures directed towards you; however, unless I may have missed your response, I am still awaiting your response to his good faith overtures. Taking that stance, I thought was the fair thing to do; however, if you have actually responded to his repeated overtures, please bring me up to speed where and when. Otherwise, comparing the good faith efforts of Mr. Hargrove to the less than forthcoming tactics/antics of underhandedly destroying the integrity of others within the research community by altering their genuine intent is akin to comparing an apple to a sinister snake. Again, I am open to you bringing me up to speed as it concerns your response to Mr. Hargrove's good faith efforts.

[Tom Scully]

On the contrary, Mr. Scully, because the last I knew an open post bearing your name asked you repeatedly on more than several occasions to speak to Mr. Hargrove's good faith overtures directed towards you; however, unless I may have missed your response, I am still awaiting your response to his good faith overtures. Taking that stance, I thought was the fair thing to do; however, if you have actually responded to his repeated overtures, please bring me up to speed where and when. Otherwise, comparing the good faith efforts of Mr. Hargrove to the less than forthcoming tactics/antics of underhandedly destroying the integrity of others within the research community by altering their genuine intent is akin to comparing an apple to a sinister snake. Again, I am open to you bringing me up to speed as it concerns your response to Mr. Hargrove's good faith efforts.

Mr. Ford, a man presented my unique, new research, putting the name "John Armstrong" to it. I protested this and the page presenting my unique research under the name "John Armstrong". It is quite clear what is and is not
the research of John Armstrong. I ignored Hargrove because in my experience, in this matter, and in exchanges in other threads, he exhibits an ethics deficit.

U.S. Postal Money Orders... circa 1950 to 1963


This is background information for an upcoming new writeup by John Armstrong on the rifle that allegedly killed JFK, which should be completed and online in a few weeks.
....................

You've created a thread that only serves as an example of Hargrove acting indignant over a third party presenting the forum posts of others accompanied by the names of the authors. Now you are lecturing me?

Mr. Hargrove,

You have taken my unique research specifics, in some excerpts
almost word for word, not only without attribution, but deliberately
associated it with John Armstrong.

Please take down your link to your web page displaying my unattributed original research details here and on the Education Forum, and remove every detail of my original research, and images I am the original presenter of, from your web pages.

For comparison:

http://jfk.education/node/11 and http://jfk.education/node/13
Late 1950's - early 1960's automated check processing innovation.:
http://jfk.education/node/12

Throughout this process, from about November 1, 2015, this research has been collaborative, co-operative, and presented in a team like spirit, your new presentation being a disturbing exception.....

I had already pointed out what my unique, original research was comprised of.
See: http://jfk.education/node/11 and http://jfk.education/node/13 and https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post104555

I saw no need to reply further to him. He knows what he should do. Empathy and ethics are what are lacking. My response to his repeated demands to be
shown the obvious again, are a tactic, and your opinion is a result of that tactic. Ignoring him is reasonable since he usurped my material, attributed it to another, was challenged, and then made demands and set deadlines.
If you are saying I waived or forfeited my standing as discoverer of new money order details because I ignored Hargrove's demands and deadlines after protesting his transference of my new research to John Armstrong, you exhibit
a loack of empathy or understanding.

[Tracy Riddle]

DVP does the same thing with Amazon comment threads. I've seen some of my debates with him end up (in edited form) on his webpages. Reminds me of that Robert De Niro movie, King of Comedy, where he has a fake TV studio in his basement, with cardboard cutouts and recorded audience noise, pretending to be a famous comedian.

[Alan Ford]

So there is no misunderstanding here, Mr. Scully, let's be clear about a couple of things: first, I'm not suggesting you waive or forfeit anything you are entitled to, nor am I lecturing you or anyone else for that matter.

Now, the issue as I see it is between you and Mr. Hargrove. As I said, I have seen a number of posts here, where he exercises good faith in simply asking you to weigh in on your assertions. Why you choose to ignore those ample opportunities is none of my business. To date, I haven't been privy to any response from you to his repeated good faith overtures, where he actually offers you every opportunity to address your concerns/grievances. Your choice to abstain, in spite of his good faith efforts in reaching out to you, is yours to make. I have come to respect you both as diligent researchers, and, quite frankly, it's something you and he will have to work out or not.

Now, that said, I still stand behind my initial sentiments in praising Mr. Hargrove for alerting the research community to the less than honest editing of their genuine statements/contributions in the context they made them. The integrity of those statements/contributions shouldn't be tampered with in any way, shape or form. In a sense, though I'm late to the party so to speak with only a mere year & a half to this undertaking, the contributions of the more experienced researchers are vital for the public record, so an informed populace can make up their own minds about this five decades old mystery. To tamper with the statements/contributions of other researchers is akin to a gutless sucker punch.

IF the wrongfully accused is indeed guilty, there is no need to doctor the proceedings...it's that simple really.

[Alan Ford]

DVP does the same thing with Amazon comment threads. I've seen some of my debates with him end up (in edited form) on his webpages. Reminds me of that Robert De Niro movie, King of Comedy, where he has a fake TV studio in his basement, with cardboard cutouts and recorded audience noise, pretending to be a famous comedian.

So, the plot thickens eh...Is anything sacred any more? Et tu, Amazon, you have fallen victim also?

rather than share an accurate accounting of the genuine statements/contributions of other researchers in the genuine context shared, guess it's much easier for some people to slant/tilt the proceedings in edited form...gutless sucker punching in true form.

[Michael Cross]

On the contrary, Mr. Scully, because the last I knew an open post bearing your name asked you repeatedly on more than several occasions to speak to Mr. Hargrove's good faith overtures directed towards you; however, unless I may have missed your response, I am still awaiting your response to his good faith overtures. Taking that stance, I thought was the fair thing to do; however, if you have actually responded to his repeated overtures, please bring me up to speed where and when. Otherwise, comparing the good faith efforts of Mr. Hargrove to the less than forthcoming tactics/antics of underhandedly destroying the integrity of others within the research community by altering their genuine intent is akin to comparing an apple to a sinister snake. Again, I am open to you bringing me up to speed as it concerns your response to Mr. Hargrove's good faith efforts.

Mr. Ford, a man presented my unique, new research, putting the name "John Armstrong" to it. I protested this and the page presenting my unique research under the name "John Armstrong". It is quite clear what is and is not
the research of John Armstrong. I ignored Hargrove because in my experience, in this matter, and in exchanges in other threads, he exhibits an ethics deficit.

U.S. Postal Money Orders... circa 1950 to 1963


This is background information for an upcoming new writeup by John Armstrong on the rifle that allegedly killed JFK, which should be completed and online in a few weeks.
....................

You've created a thread that only serves as an example of Hargrove acting indignant over a third party presenting the forum posts of others accompanied by the names of the authors. Now you are lecturing me?

Mr. Hargrove,

You have taken my unique research specifics, in some excerpts
almost word for word, not only without attribution, but deliberately
associated it with John Armstrong.

Please take down your link to your web page displaying my unattributed original research details here and on the Education Forum, and remove every detail of my original research, and images I am the original presenter of, from your web pages.

For comparison:

http://jfk.education/node/11 and http://jfk.education/node/13
Late 1950's - early 1960's automated check processing innovation.:
http://jfk.education/node/12

Throughout this process, from about November 1, 2015, this research has been collaborative, co-operative, and presented in a team like spirit, your new presentation being a disturbing exception.....

I had already pointed out what my unique, original research was comprised of.
See: http://jfk.education/node/11 and http://jfk.education/node/13 and https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post104555

I saw no need to reply further to him. He knows what he should do. Empathy and ethics are what are lacking. My response to his repeated demands to be
shown the obvious again, are a tactic, and your opinion is a result of that tactic. Ignoring him is reasonable since he usurped my material, attributed it to another, was challenged, and then made demands and set deadlines.
If you are saying I waived or forfeited my standing as discoverer of new money order details because I ignored Hargrove's demands and deadlines after protesting his transference of my new research to John Armstrong, you exhibit
a loack of empathy or understanding.

Wait a minute. You were asked, here publicly, over and over and over to supply, publicly, what you asserted to be your stolen research. And you think IGNORING someone you've accused of plagiarism to be the appropriate response? SERIOUSLY? If you're PUBLICLY accusing someone of plagiarism then IMO you should PUBLICLY respond when asked to explain your accusation. Wow.

[Alan Ford]

Top of the morning to you, Mr. Cross, saw your name and just wanted to wish you a good day (never had an opportunity to thank you in another thread for lending your photographic expertise to the ongoing discussions on an important matter at hand).

Now, here's an update everyone, in case someone hasn't been following along already over on the EF thread authored by Mr. Hargrove, his Paul Revere like ride is up to 5 pages now, with 64 generated comments ----> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=22690

For the life of me, IF the wrongfully accused is legitimately guilty of what he has been accused of, Why on earth would any LN need to tamper with the words of researchers who clearly know otherwise?

Not only is this underhanded, it is also unfair to people just coming to the debate. We can only imagine how many people, demonstrating an interest in this five decades old murder mystery, having clicked upon those deceptively misleading links are now sold on the idea that every legitimate argument put forth proving Mr. Oswald's innocence was deceitfully shown to be deposed by these slight of hand tactics (what a disservice to the entire research community as a whole, not to mention a backhand to a sense of something much bigger than all of us, a sense of truth and justice altogether).

Does integrity matter?

Does it matter to some people that an innocent man was framed? His young, innocent daughters vilified?

How far will some people go to prove they "won" an argument?! Isn't this case much more than a LN "winning" a mere argument? If "winning" is cheating I'd rather lose.

How anyone can claim "victory" after editing out another researcher's genuine thoughts and contributions, taking them out of context, bending them to their "victory", etc., while shamelessly discrediting a fellow researcher, displaying disrespect for their time and energy is troubling to say the least.

Five decades in denial, and even now some people choose to "cook the books" rather than let the genuine evidence (not contrived "evidence") speak for itself.

[Michael Cross]

Top of the morning to you, Mr. Cross, saw your name and just wanted to wish you a good day (never had an opportunity to thank you in another thread for lending your photographic expertise to the ongoing discussions on an important matter at hand).

Now, here's an update everyone, in case someone hasn't been following along already over on the EF thread authored by Mr. Hargrove, his Paul Revere like ride is up to 5 pages now, with 64 generated comments ----> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=22690

For the life of me, IF the wrongfully accused is legitimately guilty of what he has been accused of, Why on earth would any LN need to tamper with the words of researchers who clearly know otherwise?

Not only is this underhanded, it is also unfair to people just coming to the debate. We can only imagine how many people, demonstrating an interest in this five decades old murder mystery, having clicked upon those deceptively misleading links are now sold on the idea that every legitimate argument put forth proving Mr. Oswald's innocence was deceitfully shown to be deposed by these slight of hand tactics (what a disservice to the entire research community as a whole, not to mention a backhand to a sense of something much bigger than all of us, a sense of truth and justice altogether).

Does integrity matter?

Does it matter to some people that an innocent man was framed? His young, innocent daughters vilified?

How far will some people go to prove they "won" an argument?! Isn't this case much more than a LN "winning" a mere argument? If "winning" is cheating I'd rather lose.

How anyone can claim "victory" after editing out another researcher's genuine thoughts and contributions, taking them out of context, bending them to their "victory", etc., while shamelessly discrediting a fellow researcher, displaying disrespect for their time and energy is troubling to say the least.

Five decades in denial, and even now some people choose to "cook the books" rather than let the genuine evidence (not contrived "evidence") speak for itself.

Thanks Alan.

And yes, integrity matters. Researchers will be held to the highest possible standard by the LN group and those influencing them that lurk behind the scenes. More so, lies and disinformation will be routinely used against us. Which means we MUST hold ourselves to the highest possible standards of integrity. If we produce work that can stand on its own, then our work is done.