Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Evan Burton]

Got your PM, and have sent a reply. If you don't get my original PM (quite long), let me know and I'll resend it.

Hell, I'll resend it in a few minutes anyway.

[Charles Drago]

Greg's earlier responses to Jack are in red.

I retract including you as having "no ethics" That was poorly worded and unintentional. I stand by the rest. Mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true. I gave you the opportunity previously to clarify them. You declined. And you have only done so now after Charles' attempt to offer some sort of defense on your behalf. Armstrong's lack of ethics is shown in both his dishonest use of evidence, and by his failure to advise his readers of your relationship to one of his new "witnesses"

CHARLES DRAGO' COMMENTS IN GREEN:

Greg, you are correct in characterizing my earlier post as a "defense" of Jack White. I was NOT commenting on the merits of John Armstrong's research, about which I remain ... conflicted.

Nothing semantical going on here except Charles' attempt to turn "three" into "many". This latest version makes no sense when placed back in the context of the original thread.

Here, Greg, is where I must take issue with you. The use of "many" is so subjective in many if not most instances that your condemnation of Jack's usage of the word -- even in this context -- is simply "pickin' nat xxxx out of pepper," to quote Walter Matthau as Russel Long in JFK.

If anyone is guilty of semantic antics, I'm afraid that it's you.

You're bright enough to realize this. And your work is far too important to be sidetracked in such a manner.

You [Jack] have admirably admitted the incongruous nature of your statements, and taking courage from Charles' attempt at coming to your defense, you have now, not entirely successfully, tried to clarify them.

Greg, take it from a monotheist who believes that God didn't act alone in creating the universe, it is overwhelmingly likely that Jack's "unique" use of the mother tongue is as guileless as it is consistent. The problems you have with Armstrong and his most vocal supporters are worthy of respectful consideration. But surely you can do better than quibble over the distinctions between "many" and "three."

To be clear, I was opining that my defense of Jack was not to be confused with an endorsement of Armstrong's research, upon which I'm not even close to being able to comment cogently.

I've edited this post to add a closing comment.

Jack White is my friend (see below), and I respect his integrity and courage without reservations. He doesn't need me to defend him, although I instinctively did so in this exchange. In the fullness of time, Jack's immense contributions to the struggles for truth and justice for JFK will be celebrated.

I have met Jack White on but three occasions. We have not broken bread together, we do not exchange Christmas cards, I have not been to his home, and he has not been to mine.

Jack White is my friend.

Anybody have a problem with that usage?

Charles

Edited January 1, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Greg Parker]

Here, Greg, is where I must take issue with you. The use of "many" is so subjective in many if not most instances that your condemnation of Jack's usage of the word -- even in this context -- is simply "pickin' nat xxxx out of pepper," to quote Walter Matthau as Russel Long in JFK.

If anyone is guilty of semantic antics, I'm afraid that it's you.

Charles, the third version offered by Jack is that he did in fact attend "many" of those interviews and that "three" was a subset of those many. So even Jack sees the problem and has attempted to cover for it. The problem is there was never any mention of any subset. Jack's "three" in context, was an amendment of his "many" for the purpose I've mentioned in previous posts.

You're bright enough to realize this. And your work is far too important to be sidetracked in such a manner.

If you believed that, you would be taking issue with Jack's continual attempts to hijack my threads with Armstrong's snake oil.

Greg, take it from a monotheist who believes that God didn't act alone in creating the universe, it is overwhelmingly likely that Jack's "unique" use of the mother tongue is as guileless as it is consistent. The problems you have with Armstrong and his most vocal supporters are worthy of respectful consideration. But surely you can do better than quibble over the distinctions between "many" and "three."

The many/three "changed story" was only one of a number of issues I raised. It is you and others who have zeroed in on this on as the easiest to attack. The substantive issue is the one you all avoid: the question on ethics and non-disclosure.

Jack White is my friend (see below), and I respect his integrity and courage without reservations. He doesn't need me to defend him, although I instinctively did so in this exchange.

Really? Until you jumped to his defense and clued him in on possible lines of rebuttal, all he could muster was a whine of protest.

In the fullness of time, Jack's immense contributions to the struggles for truth and justice for JFK will be celebrated.

Time will tell. My concern is his contributions here which consist mostly of whining when he's not discussing "chemtrails", arguing over photos, or trying to bait me.

I have met Jack White on but three occasions. We have not broken bread together, we do not exchange Christmas cards, I have not been to his home, and he has not been to mine.

Jack White is my friend.

Anybody have a problem with that usage?

Of course not. And it a straw argument, since no ethical questions arise from your friendship in relation to a book by a third party, and nor have you tried to "redefine" your friendship as a mere acquaintance.

[Charles Drago]

You're bright enough to realize this. And your work is far too important to be sidetracked in such a manner.

If you believed that, you would be taking issue with Jack's continual attempts to hijack my threads with Armstrong's snake oil.

We'll have to agree to disagree on all but the business above.

You surely have the right to choose not to believe me when I write for the record that I respect your mind and its product. Your implicit accusation of disingenuousness on my part when I do so is duly noted -- and just as duly laughed away.

Respectfully,

Charles

[Jack White]

Thanks, Charles, for your perceptive comments on what has to be the

most inane and inconsequential JFK thread ever...which somehow got

diverted onto the Political Conspiracies Section.

Nit picking definitions over whether "three" constitutes "many" or a

"subset" of "many"...or whether I am constantly changing and revising

and amending my original story is inane and absurd and ridiculous

(that is three, right? Or is it many?).

My original comment was that I could verify John's research because

I had accompanied him when he interviewed many witnesses years before.

I certainly considered my role inconsequential, and would have taken

notes had I realized that nitpickers would challenge my account 15

years later. I did not keep a list. I do not remember all the details, just

certain ones. A few of the people were not even home when we knocked.

In one case I remember I stayed in the car when he went to talk to a

man in Benbrook where LHO was supposed to have stayed briefly. I stayed

in the car when he knocked on the door of the house where Robert lived.

I went with him to LHO's elementary school, West Benbrook Elementary,

where he sought information regarding a teacher and LHO records.

I stood around in the hall while he talked to the principal. MY ROLE

WAS VERY MINOR. But I did accompany him on "many" interviews.

Perhaps it would have been better to say"several", but that is an

unnecessary "distinction without a difference" in such a trival matter.

Thanks.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

You're bright enough to realize this. And your work is far too important to be sidetracked in such a manner.

If you believed that, you would be taking issue with Jack's continual attempts to hijack my threads with Armstrong's snake oil.

We'll have to agree to disagree on all but the business above.

You surely have the right to choose not to believe me when I write for the record that I respect your mind and its product. Your implicit accusation of disingenuousness on my part when I do so is duly noted -- and just as duly laughed away.

Respectfully,

Charles

Charles, maybe this is another of those "cultural" things. But then, maybe it's just me. In any case, I like to see action match people's words when an opportunity arises for that to occur. To me, it does not make sense that on the one hand, you can call my work "far too important to be sidetracked" - yet not raise a voice of protest when my threads are hijacked, sidetracked, or used as a sales arena for a book I've made patently clear is a tawdry collection of misused and misquoted evidence.

I have said in the past how much I admire your stance on the assassination and your writing ability. I backed those words up with action when I sent you a PM some time back (Let me add as an aside that neither the fact that nothing eventuated from it, nor your friendship with Jack has tarnished that admiration).

[Greg Parker]

Thanks, Charles, for your perceptive comments on what has to be the

most inane and inconsequential JFK thread ever...which somehow got

diverted onto the Political Conspiracies Section.

Nit picking definitions over whether "three" constitutes "many" or a

"subset" of "many"...or whether I am constantly changing and revising

and amending my original story is inane and absurd and ridiculous

(that is three, right? Or is it many?).

My original comment was that I could verify John's research because

I had accompanied him when he interviewed many witnesses years before.

I certainly considered my role inconsequential, and would have taken

notes had I realized that nitpickers would challenge my account 15

years later. I did not keep a list. I do not remember all the details, just

certain ones. A few of the people were not even home when we knocked.

In one case I remember I stayed in the car when he went to talk to a

man in Benbrook where LHO was supposed to have stayed briefly. I stayed

in the car when he knocked on the door of the house where Robert lived.

I went with him to LHO's elementary school, West Benbrook Elementary,

where he sought information regarding a teacher and LHO records.

I stood around in the hall while he talked to the principal. MY ROLE

WAS VERY MINOR. But I did accompany him on "many" interviews.

Perhaps it would have been better to say"several", but that is an

unnecessary "distinction without a difference" in such a trival matter.

Thanks.

Jack

Again proving what I said to Charles; "The many/three "changed story" was only one of a number of issues I raised. It is you and others who have zeroed in on this on as the easiest to attack. The substantive issue is the one you all avoid: the question on ethics and non-disclosure."

[Charles Drago]

You're bright enough to realize this. And your work is far too important to be sidetracked in such a manner.

If you believed that, you would be taking issue with Jack's continual attempts to hijack my threads with Armstrong's snake oil.

We'll have to agree to disagree on all but the business above.

You surely have the right to choose not to believe me when I write for the record that I respect your mind and its product. Your implicit accusation of disingenuousness on my part when I do so is duly noted -- and just as duly laughed away.

Respectfully,

Charles

Charles, maybe this is another of those "cultural" things. But then, maybe it's just me. In any case, I like to see action match people's words when an opportunity arises for that to occur. To me, it does not make sense that on the one hand, you can call my work "far too important to be sidetracked" - yet not raise a voice of protest when my threads are hijacked, sidetracked, or used as a sales arena for a book I've made patently clear is a tawdry collection of misused and misquoted evidence.

I have said in the past how much I admire your stance on the assassination and your writing ability. I backed those words up with action when I sent you a PM some time back (Let me add as an aside that neither the fact that nothing eventuated from it, nor your friendship with Jack has tarnished that admiration).

Thank you, Greg. As far as I'm concerned, nothing has been broken in terms of our positive connections and mutual respect. (As far as the PM content goes, I regret not having produced as yet. If apologies are owed, consider them offered.)

Indeed, talk is cheap and action truly counts. Frankly -- and this is not intended as a value judgment -- I don't share your proprietary sense of any thread I've started. But each to his own.

And I'd submit that there likely are more effective ways of counteracting efforts (real or imagined) to diffuse or otherwise render moot your posts than initiating the sort of exchanges in which you and Jack have been engaged.

(You may well argue that Jack "started it," but such is hardly the point at this stage of the match.)

I'll defend to the death (someone's ... not necessarily mine) your right to do as you've done. And for what it's worth, I admire your willingness to fight for what we both believe is right.

Whether Armstrong's product turns out to be snake oil or water from Lourdes (same thing?), I believe Jack's defense of it is honest and well-intentioned -- and ultimately harm need not accrue.

If you're right about Armstrong, you are powerfully equipped to make your case. And you might see Jack's repeated efforts to sell/hype the work as opportunities to expose what I'm certain you consider to be its fatal shortcomings and overall disengenuousness.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this. I send my sincere best wishes to you and to Jack White for a 2008 overflowing with good health, prosperity, and great victories in our common cause.

Charles

Edited January 2, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Evan Burton]

If the discussion is going to go on, would Jack like it moved to a separate (new) thread? Perhaps in the JFK section? Or are you happy for things to remain as they are (not much discussion of chemtrails)?

[Michael Hogan]

Whether Armstrong's product turns out to be snake oil or water from Lourdes (same thing?), I believe Jack's defense of it is honest and well-intentioned -- and ultimately harm need not accrue.

Anyone that has ever held Armstrong's book in their hand and spent five or ten minutes examining it can easily come to the conclusion that the research contained within is far from snake oil.

It matters little whether or not one agrees with Armstrong's conclusion that there were two Oswalds, the quality of his overall research is evident.

The personal and financial sacrifices Armstrong made in researching and self-publishing Harvey & Lee have been well documented on this Forum.

That such a work could contain minor inaccuracies stands to reason and in no way diminishes the overall value of Armstrong's research.

Jack White's defense of Armstrong's research as a whole is not only honest and well-intentioned, it is 100% correct. Of course Jack has the distinct advantage of being familiar with Armstrong's book.

[David G. Healy]

Whether Armstrong's product turns out to be snake oil or water from Lourdes (same thing?), I believe Jack's defense of it is honest and well-intentioned -- and ultimately harm need not accrue.

Anyone that has ever held Armstrong's book in their hand and spent five or ten minutes examining it can easily come to the conclusion that the research contained within is far from snake oil.

It matters little whether or not one agrees with Armstrong's conclusion that there were two Oswalds, the quality of his overall research is evident.

The personal and financial sacrifices Armstrong made in researching and self-publishing Harvey & Lee have been well documented on this Forum.

That such a work could contain minor inaccuracies stands to reason and in no way diminishes the overall value of Armstrong's research.

Jack White's defense of Armstrong's research as a whole is not only honest and well-intentioned, it is 100% correct. Of course Jack has the distinct advantage of being familiar with Armstrong's book.

right on, Michael!

[Greg Parker]

Whether Armstrong's product turns out to be snake oil or water from Lourdes (same thing?), I believe Jack's defense of it is honest and well-intentioned -- and ultimately harm need not accrue.

Anyone that has ever held Armstrong's book in their hand and spent five or ten minutes examining it can easily come to the conclusion that the research contained within is far from snake oil.

I'm sure that's true, Michael. Some people come to the same conclusion reading the WCR. In both cases, it is only when you examine the evidence used, you can be begin to understand the deceit.

It matters little whether or not one agrees with Armstrong's conclusion that there were two Oswalds, the quality of his overall research is evident.

It is only truly evident when you examine the documents cited. I don't need his book to do that. His work is scattered all over the web.

Here is a classic example of Armstrong's handling of evidence: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;st=0&p=12

The personal and financial sacrifices Armstrong made in researching and self-publishing Harvey & Lee have been well documented on this Forum.

So what? How does that equate to quality? I'm sure the WC spent a hell of a lot more. Does that imbue it with credibility?

That such a work could contain minor inaccuracies stands to reason and in no way diminishes the overall value of Armstrong's research.

Lying about what the NYC records say is not a "minor inaccuracy". Nor is the example above an innocent error.

Jack White's defense of Armstrong's research as a whole is not only honest and well-intentioned, it is 100% correct. Of course Jack has the distinct advantage of being familiar with Armstrong's book.

Jack is able to start threads on Armstrong's work any any time he wants. Instead, he deliberately chooses to derail my threads with it. This is not, as has been characterized, about proprietary ownership of threads. It is about being on topic. And if Jack's motive is to defend Armstrong's work, he had the opportunity to do so AND be on topic in the Decker's File thread. His motive in bringing Armstrong's book up in threads where it is NOT the topic is to bait me.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Greg Parker

[Michael Hogan]

I'm sure that's true, Michael. Some people come to the same conclusion reading the WCR. In both cases, it is only when you examine the evidence used, you can be begin to understand the deceit.

The above faulty analogy and self-serving claim about examining the evidence....

Never mind.

I think I'll decline the bait.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Jack White]

Before this thread continues (WHICH I STARTED REGARDING CHEMTRAILS), I think

Mr.Parker owes it to his readers regarding the validity of HARVEY AND LEE to state

whether or not he has read the book which he demeans so vigorously.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

The above faulty analogy and self-serving claim about examining the evidence....

If you don't like the analogy, Mike, we can substitute Case Closed or some other LN book. The end result is the same. What is "self-serving" about examining evidence? A very odd comment on a forum which regularly examines evidence.

Never mind.

I think I'll decline the bait.

Translation: "I have no valid rebuttals."

Before this thread continues (WHICH I STARTED REGARDING CHEMTRAILS), I think

Mr.Parker owes it to his readers regarding the validity of HARVEY AND LEE to state

whether or not he has read the book which he demeans so vigorously.

Jack, you have asked, and I have answered this question numerous times in the past. One last time, I wouldn't waste my money on it, and don't need to. Armstrong's work is all over the web. If he no longer stands by any of the work that's out there in his name on the net, he needs to have it removed.