Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59

Thread: Where the heck is Albert Doyle?

  1. Default

    Dawn Meredith,

    You have inadvertently proven one of my points ("With loyalty comes a loss of intellectual independence") by jumping in to Jim DiEugenio's defense, apparently before your morning coffee kicked in. Because I did not complain about Doyle's banishment, but rather about his suspension.

    And my choice of "His sycophants abound here" was probably unfair- longtime friends is better phrasing. But the end result is the same. What we have here is a high-school clique all over again. And like it or not you are one of Deep Politics' modern-day Warren Commission.

    Surely you know Drew Phipps, a fellow attorney in your city, and recall his brief career as a poster here. He used his familiarity with trigonometry to estimate the height of PrayerMan. A stellar contribution, and what was his payback? Malicious abuse from the ROKC hooligans. Because Phipps' work certified that Oswald could not have been PrayerMan. And he stopped posting, stunned that his honest effort would be so rudely received.

    You know what it's like to be targeted by ROKC- you looked me in the eye and told me about it at the 50th COPA in 2013. They have a long hit list. I have been one of their favorite targets the past 3 years.

    Shortly before I resigned as an administrator there, I initiated a thread about the lunchroom incident in April 2014. I was outnumbered about 30 to 1, and the mudslinging got ferocious.

    And in February 2016, while a member of the Education Forum, I got involved in another contentious thread about the lunchroom. In one post I was challenged by ROKC's Terry Martin about the Stroud document, and he excerpted a statement of mine from the 2014 thread, where I had stated "Just about any numbers can be plugged into the time estimates". How could I be so arrogant as to make such a vague and generalized statement? he complained.

    And I explained to him that he had taken my statement out of context, and that fortunately I had the full statement readily available, since I had downloaded it. I had stated, "Just about any numbers can be plugged into the time estimates, as long as we stay within the parameters that Adams & Styles did not reach the 1st floor freight elevators before Truly & Baker, and Adams & Styles arrived at the 4th floor landing before Truly & Baker."

    And when I subsequently looked for that 2014 ROKC thread I found that it had been deleted. And within a couple of days Terry Martin's 2016 post at the Edforum got deleted. He had simply tried to make me look bad. And the reason that 2014 thread had been deleted was because, in it, Lee Farley had threatened to punch me in the mouth. Which is a cyber-crime, making a threat of physical violence. Pretty stupid stuff.

    I share these war stories as examples of the dishonesty that abounds at ROKC. Don't kid yourself. These people are vipers at their computer keyboards, and half their schtick has been invested in the misbegotten theories of Sean Murphy. And they are sore losers.

    My conclusion about the lunchroom incident is 100% correct, and will remain 100% correct in 2063. It happened. And Doyle's conclusion about PrayerMan is 100% correct, and will remain 100% correct in 2063. It isn't Oswald. Whether people like or dislike the messenger, or the topic, is only a tangent affair- delivering the truth isn't about winning a popularity contest.

    We have a mutual friend, John Armstrong, who also isn't very popular at ROKC. At the urging of Jones Harris, in 2010 I sent John a copy of my book Matrix for Assassination, which has a chapter entitled Harvey & Lee. My wish was to encapsulate his discoveries, so researchers could find them somewhere in the event his initial print run ran out.

    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.

    I can't post every day since I have to work my tail off, still making up for not getting paid over $6000 by a former building-trade associate's son, a junkie who fled the state. I hope to get a response together for Jim DiEugenio by Sunday night.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYVaZZaV3Xc

  2. Default I would not think he would "conspire to frame himself"...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Rich is Richard Gilbride.

    It did not include LHO as I recall.

    I would not think he would "conspire to frame himself".

    In any event, are you saying that you do not believe any employees of and/or at the TSBD were involved in any conspiracy to frame LHO by their actions and/or false statements/testimony?

    Larry
    StudentofAssassinationResearch


  3. Default

    Rich:

    Albert was not banished or suspended. That is what Dawn was clarifying.

    As per a response to me, for what? As I said, I had nothing to do with whatever Doyle got moderated for.

    And I gave up posting on the whole PM issue long ago. As I said, it had become too polarized for any rational argument. I also said it will not be solved until you get a better image. Which I tried to help do.

    That was about the last thing I had to do with the affair.

    PS Larry, that is not what I am saying. But that is not what Rich was arguing either.

  4. Default

    You have inadvertently proven one of my points ("With loyalty comes a loss of intellectual independence") by jumping in to Jim DiEugenio's defense
    Not a great start there Richard. Couldn't Dawn have independently decided that Jim was worth defending? Perhaps even by using her intellect to come to that decision? And why is she supposed to be 'loyal' to Jim, anyway? Does she owe him money and he's decided to defer payments? You're a smart guy (I've enjoyed what I've seen of your writing) and you can do better than that.

    Some of us are probably fond of Jim's writing because he spends more time than most - not necessarily you, but 'most' - digging into the subject, and generally seems on target and well intentioned in an area where a lot of people don't manage to be either. This is a page about the JFK assassination on a forum devoted to deep politics. Please forgive us if some of us enjoy a writer treats both the assassination and deep conspiratorial politics in general with some degree of seriousness.

    I know a couple of the ROKC guys personally. That noted, I regret the hostility that some of the members there have brought into some discussions. Who needs it? I don't, you don't, none of us do as far as I can tell. If anyone has been 'targeted' by ROKC then ROKC should give it a rest. It's off putting and does no-one any favours.

    I hope that 450 page book sees print. I'm certainly curious to read it.

  5. Default

    Would like to read this book as well. Does anyone know when the author will publish it?

  6. Default ...your statement...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Rich:

    Albert was not banished or suspended. That is what Dawn was clarifying.

    As per a response to me, for what? As I said, I had nothing to do with whatever Doyle got moderated for.

    And I gave up posting on the whole PM issue long ago. As I said, it had become too polarized for any rational argument. I also said it will not be solved until you get a better image. Which I tried to help do.

    That was about the last thing I had to do with the affair.

    PS Larry, that is not what I am saying. But that is not what Rich was arguing either.

    AS I stated, I was seeking clarification for your statement about a "pet theory" that your statement indicated involved, in the "pet theory", employees of/or at the TSBD being involved in "the plot to kill Kennedy and frame Oswald".

    I am not familiar with the essay you mentioned, nor do I recall ever seeing, or hearing, anything about said "pet theory", or for that matter any such "plot", prior to your post that my reply referred to.

    Larry
    StudentofAssassinationResearch


  7. Default

    Mr. Trotter:

    Why don't you then PM Rich and have him send you his essay?

  8. Default Because the question was for you...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Mr. Trotter:

    Why don't you then PM Rich and have him send you his essay?
    Because the question was for you to answer as to why you referred to an essay as a "pet theory", and what about it you believe to be false. You brought it up.

    Larry
    StudentofAssassinationResearch


  9. Default

    You want me to do an in depth analysis of an essay that maybe 50 people have read, and to my knowledge has not been published anywhere?

    Just for you?

    Are you serious?

  10. Default If directed at me, absolutely not...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    You want me to do an in depth analysis of an essay that maybe 50 people have read, and to my knowledge has not been published anywhere?

    Just for you?

    Are you serious?
    If directed at me, absolutely not. And, I never indicated as such. You brought up what you labeled a pet theory, and I sought simple clarification for your reasoning for said labeling. If you wish to avoid doing so, that is fine, and if not for your posted questions here, I would not have continued this discussion. Unless otherwise prompted, specific said discussion is complete, IMO.

    Larry
    StudentofAssassinationResearch


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •