Where the heck is Albert Doyle?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Gilbride's reply above is an absolute crystallization of my original point in comparing these discussions with a religious crusade. And as to why I stay out of them.

If we examine what he is saying, its the same thing Doyle was saying when I decided to stop talking to him about this issue:

You cannot use material from ROKC, because if you do then you are endorsing their ideas about, say something, like PM.

What Doyle and Rich want to do is to essentially exterminate any reference to, or material from, any ROKC member. In the most drastic terms they want to install a sort of apartheid system of intellectual confinement to them. Therefore, its not enough to edit Bart's work, because to them that still gets his name out there and someone might then read the original.

My reply to this:I will be damned if I adopt that kind of intellectual censorship simply because Doyle and Rich have deep-seated personal problems with ROKC. In a way its kind of shocking that they even propose this kind of intellectual system of Jim Crow. And its a bit crazy that we are even talking about it. But fundamentally, that is what these guys are advocating: a religious crusade. Which, ironically, has Duncan McRae as their poster boy. You know, the guy who lost his original data. ::

Sorry, I won't be a part of the Doyle/Gilbride campaign to stamp out the ROKC. I won't take their pledge. That is not what K and K is about. And it should not be what DPF is about either.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Gilbride's reply above is an absolute crystallization of my original point in comparing these discussions with a religious crusade. And as to why I stay out of them.

If we examine what he is saying, its the same thing Doyle was saying when I decided to stop talking to him about this issue:

You cannot use material from ROKC, because if you do then you are endorsing their ideas about, say something, like PM.

What Doyle and Rich want to do is to essentially exterminate any reference to, or material from, any ROKC member. In the most drastic terms they want to install a sort of apartheid system of intellectual confinement to them. Therefore, its not enough to edit Bart's work, because to them that still gets his name out there and someone might then read the original.

My reply to this:I will be damned if I adopt that kind of intellectual censorship simply because Doyle and Rich have deep-seated personal problems with ROKC. In a way its kind of shocking that they even propose this kind of intellectual system of Jim Crow. And its a bit crazy that we are even talking about it. But fundamentally, that is what these guys are advocating: a religious crusade. Which, ironically, has Duncan McRae as their poster boy. You know, the guy who lost his original data. ::

Sorry, I won't be a part of the Doyle/Gilbride campaign to stamp out the ROKC. I won't take their pledge. That is not what K and K is about. And it should not be what DPF is about either.

Gosh, we're getting old, Jim. Now suppose something came out of those soon-to-be released files that proved our boy Lee Harvey really did shoot our president?

What was half of this dialogue about then ?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Well, maybe Duncan was right then?

But I kind of doubt it Mark. I mean after we have proven its the wrong rifle, the wrong bullet and the wrong brain?

I don't think so.

[Cliff Varnell]

Now suppose something came out of those soon-to-be released files that proved our boy Lee Harvey really did shoot our president?

That wouldn't change the fact 2+ shooters struck JFK.

There could be nothing in those files to dispel the salient fact of conspiracy.

[Richard Gilbride]

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 DiEugenio]

Will you give it a rest Rich?

I have said three times so far that I have refused to take part in these debates, since they are not actually debates. They are more like pissing contests.

Everything I said about Bart's essay is true and neither you nor Trotter can show me where that reference he used is in the edited essay at K and K.

Why? Maybe because its not?

So what did Trotter do? He did what Doyle did, he found the much longer version, which I had edited down for posting. Doyle and Trotter, and you now attack me for what was not in my ​edited version.

Yep, that is what they do folks. And this is my point about a religious crusade. Rich and Doyle want to set up a kind of barbed wire intellectual fence around anything that ROKC writes on this issue. And so they use me as their trampoline to launch another thread on this. Which, to me, is pretty low. But they don't care. That is how religiously obsessed they are.

I signed off on this debate at EF when I saw how crazy it had gotten. I signed off on any debate here when Doyle started using these kinds of nutty tactics against me. I have said more than once the PM issue will not be decided until you get a better copy of the film(s). And I tried to do that, but failed. Which is a lot more constructive than anything Doyle and Gilbride have done.

The article posted at K and K is about where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. It is also about whether or not the Baker/Truly/Oswald incident occurred at the soda machine. It contains valuable information not available elsewhere on those issues. That is why we published it. Sorry, I do not practice intellectual apartheid.

10-4, Over and out.

[Tom Bowden]

I would suggest water pistols at high noon in Dealey Plaza to settle this dispute. Two rocks arguing does not make research.

[Richard Gilbride]

Jim is still in denial that he made a mistake. Because Kamp, in no uncertain terms, placed Oswald on the Depository landing. Just because the excerpt doesn't mention that critical pronouncement, doesn't give Jim the right to proclaim that Kamp's essay "is about whether or not he was on the first floor eating his lunch as the motorcade went by." There is nothing impartial about that endorsement, and that point was very easily misconstrued. Albert confronted Jim about it and got suspended without explanation.

That injustice is why I started this thread. It isn't DiEugenio who is the victim in this situation. Moderator Lauren Johnson violated the site rules by punishing Doyle's correct objection to DiEugenio. Had a LNer made a similar endorsement, Jim would have pounced on it without mercy. As a professional academic he knows that if he promotes excerpts from an essay, he's promoting the contents of the entire essay.

As regards constructive input, my opening post in the thread Sean Murphy- Wrong Again!! (presently on p. 8 of the topics) details my effort to determine the height of PrayerMan. That photo-analysis is out in the open, right at my website, and the originals have been sent to the Sixth Floor Museum. That work helps constructively answer the question "Is PrayerMan Oswald?", not the question "How Can We Turn PrayerMan into Oswald?" An honest question is an open inquiry into finding out the truth, not a rigged investigation to conform to a pre-determined answer.

DiEugenio, like ROKC, continues calling for a better image- but any expert would tell you that Chris Davidson's metadata enhancement is that better image. It settles the issue, once and for all- we can see a woman's face on PrayerMan, and almost certainly this is Sarah Stanton. Yet Jim keeps ignoring the Davidson enhancement. And ignoring Doyle's height argument, and my own work refuting the lunchroom hoax. He pretends to be above the fray while tacitly siding with the Murphyites. And tells us he's the one getting censored and encircled with barbed wire.

Murphyism has become a flagrant politicization of objectively-determined truth.

[Tom Scully]

,...Albert confronted Jim about it and got suspended without explanation.

That injustice is why I started this thread...

Doyle is not Albert but he is an even bolder liar than you demonstrate you are and it is obvious to anyone
not struggling with mental illness that he was suspended only after innumerable warnings to cease his
constant trolling. Brian Doyle needs treatment and instead of making his symptoms acted out relentlessly here and on
other forums a fake issue you think you need to somehow strengthen your arguments and moral stature, sign off until you get a grip on yourself. You have insulted most active posters and it escaped you when I posted proof you are clueless about the interpersonal relations here to the degree you displayed severe impairment of your judgment, flirting on paranoiac.

Readers familiar with the history of this forum have to wonder how much richer and more active the threads in this
forum might have been if Doyle, et al grieving here so intensely over their dead fathers were supported similarly to
posters afflicted with cancer or bone fractures, instead of almost everyone acting as if the cries for help that are their
posts here were not raining down, like tears, on other forum readers. It got old, and actual moderation finally kicked in.

[LR Trotter]

Will you give it a rest Rich?

I have said three times so far that I have refused to take part in these debates, since they are not actually debates. They are more like pissing contests.

Everything I said about Bart's essay is true and neither you nor Trotter can show me where that reference he used is in the edited essay at K and K.

Why? Maybe because its not?

So what did Trotter do? He did what Doyle did, he found the much longer version, which I had edited down for posting. Doyle and Trotter, and you now attack me for what was not in my ​edited version.

Yep, that is what they do folks. And this is my point about a religious crusade. Rich and Doyle want to set up a kind of barbed wire intellectual fence around anything that ROKC writes on this issue. And so they use me as their trampoline to launch another thread on this. Which, to me, is pretty low. But they don't care. That is how religiously obsessed they are.

I signed off on this debate at EF when I saw how crazy it had gotten. I signed off on any debate here when Doyle started using these kinds of nutty tactics against me. I have said more than once the PM issue will not be decided until you get a better copy of the film(s). And I tried to do that, but failed. Which is a lot more constructive than anything Doyle and Gilbride have done.

The article posted at K and K is about where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. It is also about whether or not the Baker/Truly/Oswald incident occurred at the soda machine. It contains valuable information not available elsewhere on those issues. That is why we published it. Sorry, I do not practice intellectual apartheid.

10-4, Over and out.

Speaking solely for myself, Mr DiEugenio, I can assure you that I sought the actual article for clarification, and did not seek any different version. I continue to believe your "that article as edited", or "the article as edited" comment was not a sufficient indication that your comment referred to "your edited version". Had I known that you were referring to "your edited version", I would have acknowledged that and posted accordingly. If I am due any criticism, it should be my failure to see past the ambiguity expressed in your comment. The accusations, name calling and association insults are uncalled for. And, as the saying goes, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

So, hopefully, this is my last post about this subject, and as well on this thread. But, I continue a sincere attempt to avoid character insults and name calling, and especially I prefer to avoid saying anything with a keyboard that I would not say in person.