Stephen Roy

Members
  • Content count

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stephen Roy

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

17,156 profile views
  1. Scott, why did you feel the need to take my sincere and polite advice over to another forum and slag both me and the EdForum? QUOTE ON: I did not copy his entire post only because I couldn't read past his first point of trying to sound intelligent. He says: "1) All researchers are not created equal. Some of the researchers you have engaged here and on the DPF have been at this for a long time and, despite my occasional disagreement with certain interpretations or conclusions, they have earned their gravitas and respect, they have made their bones and chops. You're a relative newbie at this and have not yet earned an automatic gravitas. By all means, make your claims, but they would be better accepted if you do it with more humility. This discussion is at a considerably higher level than a schoolyard fight." I suppose I didn't make my claims with "humility?" In the beginning of my post, I said, Jim, "this is partially true", then, I explained myself in-full. I'm the one who immediately gets attacked by the opposing idiots is that not humble enough? Sounds to me that if it's not their way it's the highway. I may not be humble when it comes to providing facts to prove my case, but then again, they're two faced. I would like to point out that in his post, I had no earthly idea that we were to suppose to provide interpretations and/or conclusions and present them as factual evidence! Slaps my forehead, now I know! Lastly, I have no idea what he means when he says I'm a "newbie" when none of these people lived the life I have, now, I find that ironic. I suppose you have to "earn" your way into a spot that I've lived a life of, now that I find funny as hell. I wonder what some of their bona-fides are? QUOTE OFF I'm trying to help you, and you can't even comprehend that my comments in the second line were NOT directed at you. "I'm finished with this guy...": Vinny Gambini
  2. Scott: A few points worth making: 1) All researchers are not created equal. Some of the researchers you have engaged here and on the DPF have been at this for a long time and, despite my occasional disagreement with certain interpretations or conclusions, they have earned their gravitas and respect, they have made their bones and chops. You're a relative newbie at this and have not yet earned an automatic gravitas. By all means, make your claims, but they would be better accepted if you do it with more humility. This discussion is at a considerably higher level than a schoolyard fight. 2) It is said that it is impossible to prove a negative to a certainty: While it's often easy to prove that something did happen, it's much more difficult to prove that it didn't. How can you be so sure that it didn't happen, but that you (or your source) just didn't know about it? 3) It all comes down to citing evidence. Scholars cite sources and stand or fall on them. They don't make vague claims to have the evidence but not cite it. Frankly, the evidence cited by the others is pretty convincing.
  3. Knock it off, Scott.
  4. Dunning-Kruger effect?
  5. Jim, could you dial back the combative tone a bit? Restraint is always more persuasive than counterattack, even in the face of multiple challenges. Aggressiveness is an automatic disqualification, in my view.
  6. Just for clarity: It is not widely known that the original Copyright Act was intended less to discourage the use of protected material than to encourage the propagation of knowledge, especially informational works as opposed to creative works (fiction, art, music, etc,), in a structured manner. If you post it on the internet (which implies consent), it is generally available for another person to quote (to propagate knowledge), but not if that other person makes profit from it. There is no magic formula, but a person may use reasonable quotes (much like a book briefly quotes another book) but (1) not in large proportion, (2) not for profit and (3) not if it diminishes the profit potential of the protected material. I relate this with a sigh, as I was the victim of wholesale theft of intellectual property in recent years.
  7. I wish we could disagree and debate without being condescending.
  8. I see where you're coming from. I've seen you around various JFK forums talking about your book, and I was looking to see how closely (if at all) it related to my area of interest (New Orleans). But I seem to have pushed a button, sorry! In answer to your question: If I correctly suss your book as offering contextual info about anti-Castro operations and personalities, yes. There was some of that in the Turner-Hinkle "Fish is Red," and I know a researcher from Miami who has done lot of work in this area. Bot nothing exactly like your work, no. But it's hard to say as I'm seeing only little glimpses of it in the words you write here. Thanks for the replies.
  9. I don't understand your response. I may be interested in the book but I'm trying to find out more about it before I buy. I want to find out if the connection to the JFK case is clear and substantial or vague and speculative. That shouldn't be a problem to answer.
  10. Can I just have a quick overview of how it connects to the JFK assassination?
  11. Does this story connect with the JFK assassination?
  12. Some tantalizing entries here. Thanks, Douglas. >Sigh<, now I'll have to spend days combing 146 pages of tiny print to highlight the ones I will want copies of... Here, by the way, is the pdf list itself: http://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/JFK-List-of-Denied-Docs-redacted.pdf
  13. William Weyand Turner, 88, of San Rafael, CA passed away on Saturday, December 26th after a long struggle with Parkinson's. He was born April 14, 1927 in Buffalo, NY. He served in the Navy during WWII and then attended Canisius College in Buffalo, NY where he obtained a Chemistry degree and was their first goalie. He was drafted by the New York Rangers, but ended up working for the FBI as a Special Agent for 10 years. He "resigned" after testifying to Congress about problems at the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. After leaving the FBI he worked as a journalist investigating the JFK assassination, then as an Investigator for Jim Garrison's inquiry into the JFK assassination. This led to his becoming an author and authority on both Kennedy assassinations. He wrote such books as Hoover's FBI, The Fish is Red, and the 10 Second Jailbreak that was made in to the movie "Breakout" with Charles Bronson. He loved tennis, golf, reading, and spending time with friends and family. He is survived by his loving wife of 51 years, Margaret, two children Mark and Lori, two sisters Janet and Maggie, 3 grandchildren Austin, Cassidy, and Kolton, and great grandson Michael. Assisted by Monte's Chapel of the Hills, San Anselmo, CA Published in San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 3, 2016 http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sfgate/obituary.aspx?n=william-turner&pid=177103326&fhid=24159
  14. A source who has furnished verifiable info in the past. A source who has never furnished clap-trap. I ask because there's some wrong Banister info circulating out there.