25-08-2017, 01:04 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2017, 02:50 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Mr Trotter,
Can you please show me where that appears in the article as edited at Kennedysandking.com?
As per Gilbride, on page 42 of Whitewash 2, Harold writes about the WC version of the lunchroom encounter and what Baker's testimony means to it for the Report. He then writes:
"The following documents and God knows how many more as yet undiscovered, destroy the basic parts of Baker's story."
After referring to file numbers, Harold immediately begins to quote from Baker's first day affidavit. He then quotes Truly and Marvin Johnson, and those also contradict the official story.
That is what intrigued me to write about the incident.
Can you please show me where that appears in the article as edited at Kennedysandking.com?
.
Where and when did I say anything about Kennedysandking.com? I read that part, and my post is factual, as I stated, and includes my statement, "at least as edited when I read/viewed said reference." So, while it may be "edited out" on your site, it was not "edited out" where and when I looked it up. The bottom line is, the reference is made in the essay/article. So, I have to agree with RichardGilbride's assessment about the connection, and I see no need to do otherwise.
Can you please show me where that appears in the article as edited at Kennedysandking.com?
As per Gilbride, on page 42 of Whitewash 2, Harold writes about the WC version of the lunchroom encounter and what Baker's testimony means to it for the Report. He then writes:
"The following documents and God knows how many more as yet undiscovered, destroy the basic parts of Baker's story."
After referring to file numbers, Harold immediately begins to quote from Baker's first day affidavit. He then quotes Truly and Marvin Johnson, and those also contradict the official story.
That is what intrigued me to write about the incident.
Richard Gilbride Wrote:Larry is on the same wavelength as me, and my post contains a repetition of some of his information, as I composed it while he was composing his.
On April 17 Jim DiEugenio wrote in post #29 of the Second Floor Lunchroom thread:
"Bart's essay is not about whether or not Oswald is out front in the portal. It is about whether or not he was on the first floor eating his lunch as the motorcade went by the building. I don't know how anyone can misconstrue that point. Bart makes a good case he was."
On p. 29 of Kamp's essay, Bart shows the Wiegman frame and puts a number 1 above PrayerMan. And on the previous page he states:
"In case you were wondering who is below No. 1 that is PrayerMan who is Lee Oswald."
What Jim DiEugenio inexplicably fails to realize is- once Kamp identifies PrayerMan as being Oswald, his Lunchroom essay then becomes a PrayerMan essay. This has already been proven on April 18 by Albert Doyle in post #44 of the Lunchroom thread. And the moderator Lauren Johnson failed in his responsibilities, claiming that Kamp & DiEugenio weren't "arguing that LHO is on the front porch"- but they were doing exactly that.
What DiEugenio & Johnson inexplicably fail to comprehend is a basic fact- once you prove that Kamp is using his essay to claim that Oswald is PrayerMan, then the essay can't be used to impartially study the question of whether Oswald was on the 1st floor, or 2nd floor, during the shooting. Once Kamp places Oswald as PrayerMan he is committing to Oswald's position on the Depository landing. And Doyle tried to explain this to Johnson but got put on unexplained moderation. And the result was that DiEugenio's wrong information was protected, but Doyle's correct information was punished.
Rule #13 of the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT in the Code of Etiquette states that "All members, including DPF moderators and founders, shall receive identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement."
In the very first paragraph of this thread I asked for specific details and reasons, i.e. the official explanation for Doyle's suspension. No answer has been provided, and it doesn't need to be provided at this point in time. Because DPF members are not accorded identical treatment, and the dice here are weighed in favor of Jim DiEugenio. That behavior must refine itself, if we are to continue the tradition here of vigorous but impartial discussion of the assassination.
*****************************************
I own copies of the relatively rare Whitewash and Whitewash II. Nowhere in the relevant pp. 36-38 of the former, nor the Baker's Dozen
chapter of the latter, is there even a remote suggestion that a lunchroom hoax occurred. Author Harold Weisberg railed about the traditional problem with Baker- the timing of his movements as compared to that of the alleged sniper, Oswald.
A Groden-Lifton comparison is not appropriate to my complaint with Kamp. Because we are not at loggerheads like them- Kamp did not even address my cogent arguments negating the very idea that a hoax occurred.
Imagine you found new evidence about fairies & elves- ignoring the accounts of witnesses who saw the neighborhood photographer snapping pictures of children in costume, who must have made double-exposures. You don't want to hear about that, because fairies & elves gets more hits at your website.
No one has put more time, energy and effort into the lunchroom evidence than myself. And you could get together with Kamp, Murphy and the whole ROKC team and you will not be able to put together an argument which refutes mine- one that is cogent, rational and honors the evidence. The hoax hypothesis has been eviscerated, and I shall soon be slurping on its entrails.
And the reader should understand that you & the whole ROKC gang & several unnamed JFK heavyweights have lost​ the wider debate going on here- the lunchroom incident happened, and PrayerMan isn't Oswald. There's no shortage of duncecaps to pass out in this caper.
Mr Gilbride has made a strong effort to provide factual evidence based conclusions, obtained by keen observation and due diligence applied research. And, I have to conclude that he has done so. ::thumbsup::
In other words, Mr. Trotter, what you--quoting Doyle used-- is not in the article at Kennedysandking.com.
And you utilize all of the sidestepping verbiage above to avoid admitting the following: I was right when I said there is nothing in the article that refers to PM. And you did not check the article before you wrote the following:
""There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM", if as indicated, a reference to the BartKamp article, ANATOMY OF THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM ENCOUNTER, said statement appears to me to be incorrect."
In your reply, you plaintively ask: "when did I say anything about Kennedysandking." Thereby avoiding the point that this is what I said, and you were directly quoting my statement, as is proven from the above pull quote. In fact, you actually headed your post with the rubric "There is not anything", so as to accent the idea that I was either wrong or lying about the article. Now, if you are going to do something as portentous as that, then you had better check in advance to see if you are correct.
You did not. Apparently, you were so eager to try and show that I was being deceptive that you decided to jump on without checking, as a pretext to attack me. Or what is even worse, you knew that my statement was true, and you then dragged in something that did not appear in the edited article to try and impeach me. But you then did not discern that fact for the reader. And then your tag team partner, Gilbride, jumps in and falsely accuses me on another account. Nice little network you guys have, sort of like the bad boy Gallagher brothers from the golden days of professional wrestling. But, like them, you are now shown to be a phony sideshow.
If the whole point of this phony Gilbride/Trotter back and forth is to spread the lunchroom encounter discussion outwards from where it should be--on that other thread--then it will not succeed, at least not with me. For the reasons that I stated in my original post. Which Mr. Trotter either failed to comprehend, failed to check, or perhaps deliberately distorted.
If the idea was to bait me into debating the whole PM issue, again, that will not work. And again, its because of the reasons I stated above and I repeat here: I won't take part in a debate which has become so polarized and angry that it has lost any semblance of rationality. And if you needed any more proof of that state of affairs, the latest Trotter/Gilbride stunt just provided it.
Well said, Mr. DiEugenio @ your respectful stance on Weigman's figure.
IF the United States Senate membership had just half your decorum, the emphasis in that grand body would be less upon who is right and wrong as much as about moving policies forward with the people's best interests at heart.
Kudos to you & others within the community sharing your neutrality on this ultra sensitive issue. There is nothing wrong with respectfully disagreeing to agree.
Best wishes as your joint presentation at the Virginia Military Institute with Mr. Newman rises higher upon the horizon. May you both continue to eclipse and erase the lies surrounding this five decades old murder mystery. Hear! hear!
[quote=Jim DiEugenio]In other words, Mr. Trotter, what you--quoting Doyle used-- is not in the article at Kennedysandking.com.
And you utilize all of the sidestepping verbiage above to avoid admitting the following: I was right when I said there is nothing in the article that refers to PM. And you did not check the article before you wrote the following:
""There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM", if as indicated, a reference to the BartKamp article, ANATOMY OF THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM ENCOUNTER, said statement appears to me to be incorrect.
[size=12]
In response:
There is nothing false or untrue in the statement regarding quoting your statement:
""There is not anything in that article as edited that refers to PM"","if as indicated, a reference to the BartKamp article, ANATOMY OF THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM ENCOUNTER, said statement appears to me to be incorrect"
Removing the particulars of an article from your reproduced version, if that is the case, does not remove it from the article. And, my statement includes, "if as indicated, a reference to the BartKamp article, ANATOMY OF THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM ENCOUNTER, said statement appears to me to be incorrect".
So yes, you supplied a caveat, but so did I. And, I stand by my thoughts as posted. But, I will not resort to name calling and insults, especially while using a keyboard and behind a monitor. Certainly, Mr Jim DiEugenio, your attempt to attack me is meaningless, and the respect I once had for you and your research, is far and away long gone.
On August 18th, nine days ago, Dawn Meredith suggested it was time to take Albert Doyle off moderation. He has been suspended since late April and when I started this thread on August 14th I requested an official explanation. But there has been no explanation, and no lifting of his suspension.
The moderator Lauren Johnson clearly broke the Deep Politics board rule #13- identical treatment for all members- which is there to help keep everyone straightforward, to help keep some semblance of order in this Athenian town-square discussion. No one is infallible, and considering the sheer volume of information & dialogue, it's a credit to the JFK research community that more mistakes aren't made. But they pop up constantly.
And it is an injustice to Albert Doyle that he has been suspended all this time for confronting Jim DiEugenio as regards his mis-statement
when promoting Bart Kamp's essay:
"Bart's essay is not about whether or not Oswald is out front in the portal. It's about whether or not he was on the first floor as the motorcade went by the building."
DiEugenio can't use the excuse that just because he posted an edited version of Kamp's essay, he isn't responsible for the contents of the unedited version. Isn't that a bit like posting an edited version of the Warren Report, taking out the key arguments about that LNer Oswald, and then saying you can't be held responsible for praising the Report?
Because Kamp's IDing of PrayerMan as Oswald is the linchpin for his further arguments that LHO was on the 1st floor at the time in question. And once he does that, he's over the Rubicon- he's passed the point of no return as to any impartial determination of whether or not LHO was on the 1st or 2nd floor at the time in question.
**************************************
The entire hoax construction is closer to creative confabulation than criminology- it has a seductive conclusion, but is ultimately flawed. And I will repeat myself- DiEugenio, Kamp, Murphy & the whole ROKC team can get together and attempt to defeat my arguments. They are laid right out in full view at post #82 of the Second Floor Lunchroom thread (add in the Holmes testimony). They form an impregnable aggregate, because I honed them to withstand an assault by 50 fanatical Murphyites.
Their hoax is pure sophistry- misleading but clever reasoning. And Kamp's essay failed to address counter-arguments of which he was well aware, and DiEugenio's endorsement was given without mastering the pertinent lunchroom material. Caveat emptor as regards their position- a years-long politicalization of Truth.
Harold Weisberg is probably the best evidence-theorist in the history of our research community, and in the admirable search for Truth, we must bear in mind that even in inspiration we will oftentimes reach untrue conclusions.
And I do hope we can give this a rest, by re-instating Doyle's posting privileges. No explanation needed. We all have other business to attend to.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:What you did, and you admit it above, is you played a shell game: substituting one version for the other.
Even though you knew I was referring to the one at K And K.com. The key phrase being "as edited". Which refers to me.
And then you tried to say that somehow it was me who was wrong, without alerting the reader to the difference.
Thanks you Alan.
You are certainly welcome, Mr. DiEugenio, before departing the lions den here until Thanksgiving Day break, here's wishing you all the best with your presentation next month ----->
Hopefully--though I'm not holding my breath, a genuine release of all of the documents will miraculously be released in good faith in late October. Actually possessing a BIG jackpot lottery winning ticket has much better odds I'm sure.
