Where the heck is Albert Doyle?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Yawn.

Why not reply to Tom's post?

[John Kowalski]

This year 2017 I was privileged to be the only person in the world to read through, and offer a critique of, a 450-page sequel to Harvey & Lee. The author & I had corresponded privately from 2009-11 about Armstrong's work and the personal experiences this author had had with one of the Lee Harvey Oswalds. This author, who lives in Texas, sure looks to me like he has nailed- among other things- the correct origins of Harvey & Lee, and documentary proof of dual military enlistments. Armstrong hasn't wanted to look through this material as it upsets his own apple cart. This author is in his upper 70's and it would be nice to see him get a well-deserved chance to present his material at a JFK conference. Maybe you or someone reading this can help make that happen.


Richard:

Is the author of the Harvey and Lee critique planning to publish it so the JFK community to read it?

John

[Peter Lemkin]

This year 2017 I was privileged to be the only person in the world to read through, and offer a critique of, a 450-page sequel to Harvey & Lee. The author & I had corresponded privately from 2009-11 about Armstrong's work and the personal experiences this author had had with one of the Lee Harvey Oswalds. This author, who lives in Texas, sure looks to me like he has nailed- among other things- the correct origins of Harvey & Lee, and documentary proof of dual military enlistments. Armstrong hasn't wanted to look through this material as it upsets his own apple cart. This author is in his upper 70's and it would be nice to see him get a well-deserved chance to present his material at a JFK conference. Maybe you or someone reading this can help make that happen.


Richard:

Is the author of the Harvey and Lee critique planning to publish it so the JFK community to read it?

John

I find it hard to believe that John Armstrong would not follow up on and read any valid information related to 'Oswald' or 'Oswalds' no matter if it supported his thesis or not. He is just not that kind of person, IMHO. What does this 70+ year-old have [generally, if you don't want to steal his thunder]? Why is he not posting here or elsewhere? If he has valid information, he'll have no trouble getting to speak at some conference. in Dallas now there is only one, but there are others in Pittsburgh and elsewhere. I'm always willing to hear what people have to say, but I think Harvey and Lee is hard to fault in its entirety - one can certainly critique or disagree with parts of it.

[Peter Lemkin]

Hey everyone on this and other JFK 'jousting' threads. Please remember the Forum rules and abide by them. No ad hom attacks, no name calling etc. If you disagree with someone's thesis, fine - but state your reasons for an alternate view and do not attack the other person, only his or her position on some topic with your supporting evidence or alternate viewpoint.

I am one of the moderators, so if people don't want to follow this 'advice' you might find yourself being warned by PM and then if not shaping up on moderation. Please, keep it civil, or find another place to vent your spleen. So many other JFK Forums are just food fights. We don't want, nor do we tolerate very long, that kind of juvenile behavior here. Food fights, ad homs, and trolling are really not welcome - no matter how much a small group may enjoy that kind of puerile behavior.

This is a Deep Politics Forum, trying to explore the Deep issues in a sober and informed manner. It has a JFK sub-forum that many of you stay on exclusively, as if JFK's assassination had nothing to do with the rest of history nor Deep History/State - before or since. That is your prerogative, but I think it is a overly narrow and sophomoric vision of the broad stroke of our common history and plight. Also something I think JFK would not approve of - that his treasonous murder was only about how many bullets, bullet angles, number or shooters, who's in a doorway or not, where LHO was at one moment or another, et al. I've studied all that myself, but find the need to go beyond that to the why and the who [at the top], and then the how we counter the coup. Playing marbles in the plaza or the TSBD for life is not going to change the World that desperately needs change that can only come from understanding what went wrong in the past, how we were deceived, and how evil people have endlessly murdered more moral people so as to gain power and money, money and power.

Anyone that sees what they think is an inappropriate post can click on the dark triangle with the exclamation mark below - which signals to the moderators.

Thank you.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Albert Doyle is on moderation? Great news, although an outright ban for life would have pleased me more.

I may just come back to this forum and begin posting again, as Albert's insanity was the reason I stopped posting here.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Albert Doyle is on moderation? Great news, although an outright ban for life would have pleased me more.

I may just come back to this forum and begin posting again, as Albert's insanity was the reason I stopped posting here.

Yes, Mr. Prudhomme, I'm afraid Brian is the prayer man, at least for now. Being right in the thick of that beast Irma must have been traumatic. Hope you're safe, little dude !! Give us a shout-out to let us know you're still sucking air, eh ?

[Richard Gilbride]

John Kowalksi & Peter Lemkin-

I have not heard from my author friend for a couple of months. I offered to write him a review and urged him to publish his book as is, warts and all. He declined. He had a major squabble going on with his print-on-demand publisher at the time.

I had pointed out some embarrassing errors he made identifying DPD in photos, which led to big fat errors in some tangent conspiratorial filler stuff in his text. There were other fat mistakes. And I didn't think he needed to incorporate Liftonesque scenarios into his book- they gave it a grandiose conspiratorial touch, but detracted from his own findings.

So I assume he's working on a revised edition. He trusted me 'cause I'll tell it to him straight. And he knows I'll keep his identity private.

Without giving away the store, I will say that his military experience helped him get a correct bead on Harvey & Lee's individual service deployments that John Armstrong got mixed up. He also makes a fairly good case, but no certainty, that there was a substitution in Russia.

We speculated, during our correspondence 6-7 years ago, that biology was the surefire method to get a lookalike at ages 6, 12 and 18. We initially concluded there might have been some sort of incestual affair that get kept off the record. But this author did a ton of geneological work- the 1940 census records got released in 2015, and also at ancestry.com and through the Mormon database. The answers he found fit the puzzle pattern, a big improvement over Armstrong's Hungarian refugee hypothesis.

All I can say is just trust in the passage of time- probably he needs another winter to get it revised and go through a re-set with a publisher. Maybe November 2018 would be a good target for a conference date.

*****************************

Tom Scully-

Gary Mack said everyone who gets into JFK research generally has some sort of mental health issue. I side naturally with Albert Doyle, because philosophically we're on the same side of the railroad tracks- virtual one-man bands campaigning against what we see as fatally flawed tenets of the Murphy cult. We've both experienced unhealthy levels of psychological abuse, from people who are not paragons of emotional wellness. It is a sickness of the research community that it indulges in so much ad hominem abuse. It is a madhouse, a house divided against itself, and my considered opinion is that situation has only escalated during the ascendancy of Murphyism.

I have held Doyle in high esteem during my 8 years as a poster on JFK forums. We got along splendidly during my 2 years at Lancer- there were a couple of threads only the two of us posted on and the exchange was furthering. And I read many of his posts here at Deep Politics while I wasn't a member and found him to be a tough cookie with valid points. And the week I spent reading the PrayerMan giga-thread at Duncan's forum changed my outlook for keeps on that critical issue. Doyle's insights won the day, and he's consistently expressed them since then, and he's still targeted with an overload of ad hominem attacks.

I have no problem stepping in to defend him against the stupid mob, and will continue to do so.

**********************************************

This thread has shown that the moderators here at Deep Politics turn a blind eye to the caprices of Jim DiEugenio. The link to Bart Kamp's full essay is right in the beginning portion of Jim's excerpts. Yet he professes that the essay is not about PrayerMan, but about Oswald's possible 1st-floor whereabouts.

Yet those possible 1st-floor whereabouts revolve entirely around the PrayerMan possibility- which Kamp, in his full essay, wholeheartedly endorses. And Jim omitted this decisive belief from his excerpts.

Albert Doyle called him on this academic sleight-of-hand, and as a consequence his posting privileges have been suspended for 5 months now. And the Deep Politics forum rules only pretend that all members shall be accorded equal treatment. Because in this case, DiEugenio got a pass, and Doyle got dumped. And so the bad blood continues flowing, courtesy of another Murphyite clash with the real world.

The overriding reason for the animosity against Doyle stems from his repudiation of the PrayerMan possibility. His height argument excludes Oswald from consideration. My own photo-analysis, fairly precise, determined the height of the figure is only 5' 2 1/2". I have not seen any reputable challenges to that result, particularly from the photography professionals in the research community.

High school geometry and the laws of perspective aren't sufficient for the devoted followers of the Oswald-is-PrayerMan hypothesis. They demand a better image. And although Chris Davidson's enhancement suggests a woman's face- which correlates with the height determination- the Murphyites still call for an even better image.

They require a picture to convince them of what their reasoning skills cannot.

It is high time to get that better image- to get a digital scan made of the relevant 20 or so frames of the Darnell film. This task is firmly upon Jim DiEugenio's shoulders, since he has so clearly allied himself with the Murphyites. Get on your steed, sir!! Get this thing accomplished.

Is there not a copy of Darnell at NBC HQ in New York? Milicent Cranor worked with film from the vault there, and she might know something about that. There must be a digital film scanner in that city.

The services of a copyright lawyer might come in handy, although there should be no legal obstacle for obtaining permission to scan the film. Copyright protection still allows "fair use" for educational purposes. And it needn't even be mentioned that the possibility of Oswald on the TSBD landing is being investigated. Rather, you simply hope to identify the people on the landing for a potential documentary. The more you put into the legal argument yourself, the less it will cost, but a "power of attorney" writ may have to be served to NBC to get them to comply.

If 50 people put in $100 that gives you $5000, which should be plenty of money to achieve this scan. Whether the film obtainable is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation copy is relatively unimportant, since a top-of-the-line 2017 scanner should be sufficient to yield an answer to the question- Is PrayerMan Oswald?

As an alternative source, doesn't Robert Groden have a Darnell copy that he spliced to the Couch film?

It would be important also to video-record the making of the digital film scan, and the processing of its result, so that the image achieved is completely trustworthy, beyond reproach.

Until that Darnell film scan occurs, the PrayerMan-is-Oswald argument remains a fallacy, disproven by Doyle's height argument. And that fallacy is the fulcrum for the fallacious argument that the lunchroom incident was a hoax.

Just because a bunch of people believe in these fallacies doesn't make them a fact, any more than a million people believing that Oswald was a gunman puts him in the sniper's nest.

In any case, once this is done we will know as a stone cold fact whether Oswald was on the landing, and whether the lunchroom incident was hoaxed. Be fearless with what you may discover. And brace yourself for a profound disappointment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0GAuexrVzo

[John Kowalski]

[quote=Richard Gilbride]John Kowalksi & Peter Lemkin-

I have not heard from my author friend for a couple of months. I offered to write him a review and urged him to publish his book as is, warts and all. He declined. He had a major squabble going on with his print-on-demand publisher at the time.

I had pointed out some embarrassing errors he made identifying DPD in photos, which led to big fat errors in some tangent conspiratorial filler stuff in his text. There were other fat mistakes. And I didn't think he needed to incorporate Liftonesque scenarios into his book- they gave it a grandiose conspiratorial touch, but detracted from his own findings.

So I assume he's working on a revised edition. He trusted me 'cause I'll tell it to him straight. And he knows I'll keep his identity private.

Without giving away the store, I will say that his military experience helped him get a correct bead on Harvey & Lee's individual service deployments that John Armstrong got mixed up. He also makes a fairly good case, but no certainty, that there was a substitution in Russia.

Richard:

Thanks for the info.


John

[Jim DiEugenio]

The above comment is the epitome of what I was referring to with both Gilbride and Doyle previously. They really do not want anyone to read anything from ROKC about PM. In order to block any kind of entry to that, they do not want anyone to even link to anything that refers to that!

In the article as I excerpted it, there is no mention of the PM issue. Period.

At K and K there is a link to the longer version for anyone who wanted to read the rest of the work. Evidently, this is what drove Doyle up the wall. That although I had cut out any reference to PM in the excerpts, someone reading it at K and K could then link to the longer version. And therefore, to Doyle and to Rich, I was now the equivalent of a collaborator with Al Qaeda. If that is not the most bizarre and weird argument you have heard, please top it. And it proves my point. They really want everyone to build a wall around ROKC. if we don't then somehow the disease will spread outward.

What is so wacky about this is that ROKC believes JFK was killed by a high-level conspiracy. And they have done some good work on this case e.g. the first two parts of Parker's book are fine, and I like what people like Lee Farley did on the Bledsoe case.

But can someone explain to me the good work Duncan McRae has done on the JFK case in exposing the high level plot to kill him?

(Sound of crickets in the night)

I am waiting.

(More sounds of crickets in the night.)

In other words, its OK to have Duncan McRae--one of the worst WC propagandists ever, someone who has never stopped covering up the true facts of Kennedy's murder--as your poster boy. But its not OK to have anything to do with anyone from ROKC, even though they are trying to do so. And in a wide variety of ways. For instance, I look forward to the info that Parker will have on the Paines in his next volume on Oswald.

This is how obsessed, how zealous, how fanatical these two have become. To the point that Doyle even went over to Duncan's forum to trash me! In other words, the enemy of thine enemy is my friend, as long as they dis PM. Even if they say Oswald killed Kennedy.

In their almost mad crusade to trash PM and ROKC, Rich and Doyle remind me of Ahab and the Great White Whale. Except, unlike Ahab, they don't realize they have already crashed and burned.

[LR Trotter]

Have Mr Doyle's posting privileges been reinstated, unrestricted?::prison:: I would think he should have the unrestricted opportunity to respond to continued "comments" directed at him.::