Plagiarism and the Kennedy assassination

[Greg Parker]

When it first became publicly known that Gerald Posner had been plagiarizing material for some of his books, it was manna from Heaven for some in the critical community.

It was an opportunity to verbally kick the living daylights out of a sworn enemy of the truth.

But as I have discovered in another thread, if you complain about others in this community plagiarizing your work, you are the problem - not them.

It is bizarre.

The simple definition of "plagiarism" is "using the words or ideas of others and passing them off as your own". That is according to the standards used at the University of NSW.

With that definition in mind, here is yet another example of my work being copied, pasted and used without acknowledgement.

In 2005, Gary Buell contacted me seeking permission to reproduce one of my posts here at his website. I had no problem with him doing that.

In looking for that piece of work just now, I found a chunk of it embedded in a 2008 story by something called the San Francisco Sentinel

Here are the passages in question as published at Gary's site:

These were mostly outrageous lies. In fact, about the only truth was that he had been in Europe--specifically, Montreaux in Switzerland. There, on August 18, he headed a group of 25, possibly including Billy Graham, in a secret meeting to discuss how they could derail Kennedy's election bid (this places Peale in Switzerland at the same time Oswald would have been there had he followed through with what appears were his original plans). The result, of course, of this secret meeting, was the formation of the Washington group and the alliance with Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

So who were some of his cohorts in these groups? There was William C. Jones, a board member of The Billy Graham Foundation; Gen. William Kelly Harrison Jr (ret); OK Armstrong, ultra-conservative Republican of Missouri; Unitarian Minister and anti-Catholic polemicist, Paul Blanshard; evangelist, Dr Harold Ockenga and; Dr L. Neslon Bell, father-in-law of Billy Graham. Two other members, Robert Grant and Donald Ellis, had murky histories of involvement in the KKK.

http://www.coverthistory.blogspot.com.au/2005/07/oswald-and-albert-schweitzer-college.html

Here is what was published by the Sentinel:

In 1960, the Billy Graham circle meet in Switzerland to discuss derailing election of John F. Kennedy to the United States Presidency due to Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith.

Billy Graham himself was possibly among participants in the August 18 gathering at Montreaux, attended by William C. Jones, a board member of The Billy Graham Foundation; Gen. William Kelly Harrison Jr (ret); OK Armstrong, ultra-conservative Republican of Missouri; Unitarian Minister and anti-Catholic polemicist, Paul Blanshard; evangelist, Dr Harold Ockenga and; Dr L. Neslon Bell, father-in-law of Billy Graham.

Two other members, Robert Grant and Donald Ellis, had murky histories of involvement in the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?m=200812&paged=6

This is not an isolated occurrence. Passages I wrote have been used (or most often, misused) in books as well as in a number of web articles.

Again - it is not about me, or wanting recognition. It is about properly citing work so that readers can evaluate it on that basis. The other issue (as I said above) is the misuse of the work. Some of my stolen work has been used to prop up ideas and theories I do not support.

Those who are bitching about me bringing this type of thing up, would themselves probably sue over it. That said, some of them are in no danger of having their words appropriated. They are just bitter little squib magnets who can't stand the thought that not everyone is at their level.

[Ed LeDoux]

Sorry Greg I "thought" this same thing.
I can't prove it.
But by my saying I did and before you did I am obviously the originator....

I've seen some of my work in other webpages without credit.
Some real pieces of work around these parts

[Thomas Graves]

Sorry Greg I "thought" this same thing.

I can't prove it.

But by my saying I did and before you did I am obviously the originator....

I've seen some of my work in other webpages without credit.

Some real pieces of work around these parts

I wish somebody would plagiarize me.

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

Sorry Greg I "thought" this same thing.

I can't prove it.

But by my saying I did and before you did I am obviously the originator....

I've seen some of my work in other webpages without credit.

Some real pieces of work around these parts

How can I argue against that?

[Ed LeDoux]

Sorry Greg I "thought" this same thing.

I can't prove it.

But by my saying I did and before you did I am obviously the originator....

I've seen some of my work in other webpages without credit.

Some real pieces of work around these parts

I wish somebody would plagiarize me.

--Tommy

Tommy! You devil. ;-)

[Kenneth Drew]

Sorry Greg I "thought" this same thing.

I can't prove it.

But by my saying I did and before you did I am obviously the originator....

I've seen some of my work in other webpages without credit.

Some real pieces of work around these parts

Gee, Ed, I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that I did a Google search for you and couldn't find any quotes attributed to you. So whatever you said, if it lives on, it's by quotes from others. Sorry.

[Steven Gaal]

http://www.ciajfk.com/Russ-Baker-X.html

THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN IN THE JFK community. ,gaal

[Greg Parker]

http://www.ciajfk.com/Russ-Baker-X.html

THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN IN THE JFK community. ,gaal

Golly! Do you think maybe that's why I called the thread "Plagiarism and the Kennedy Assassination"?

[Mark Knight]

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth.

And we all already know what I just posted.

In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site.

Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth.

And we all already know what I just posted.

In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site.

Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims depends on which 'claims'. If he's referring to the 'first time anyone ever questioned Baker's story was 13 or 15 years ago. Then I'd say 'not likely'. It's obvious from the records that there was clearly a discrepancy no later than 11/24/63. It's hard to believe that 'no one' questioned that for 35 years.

[Greg Parker]

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth.

And we all already know what I just posted.

In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site.

Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims depends on which 'claims'. If he's referring to the 'first time anyone ever questioned Baker's story was 13 or 15 years ago. Then I'd say 'not likely'. It's obvious from the records that there was clearly a discrepancy no later than 11/24/63. It's hard to believe that 'no one' questioned that for 35 years.

Kenneth,

I'm not for a minute disputing no one ever questioned Baker's story. You guys keep repeating the same refrain and I keep agreeing with you. This is a mountain of proof for such questioning. But you all keep avoiding the actual issue I'm raising - that is that no one ever specifically put forward that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter was false in its entirety.

As for the discrepancies between Baker and Truly's first day statements - no one questioned that. Why? Because Baker's statement got buried and he was kept away from the media. In all of the subsequent years when he was interviewed or questioned - including by the WC and BBC trial - no one - NO ONE ever produced Baker's first days statement, waved it front of him and grilled him about it.

So your whole premise that it seems impossible to you that no one ever questioned it in all that time, is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. They were not. It was deep-sixed.

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth.

And we all already know what I just posted.

In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site.

Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims depends on which 'claims'. If he's referring to the 'first time anyone ever questioned Baker's story was 13 or 15 years ago. Then I'd say 'not likely'. It's obvious from the records that there was clearly a discrepancy no later than 11/24/63. It's hard to believe that 'no one' questioned that for 35 years.

Kenneth,

I'm not for a minute disputing no one ever questioned Baker's story. You guys keep repeating the same refrain and I keep agreeing with you. This is a mountain of proof for such questioning. But you all keep avoiding the actual issue I'm raising - that is that no one ever specifically put forward that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter was false in its entirety.

As for the discrepancies between Baker and Truly's first day statements - no one questioned that. Why? Because Baker's statement got buried and he was kept away from the media. In all of the subsequent years when he was interviewed or questioned - including by the WC and BBC trial - no one - NO ONE ever produced Baker's first days statement, waved it front of him and grilled him about it.

So your whole premise that it seems impossible to you that no one ever questioned it in all that time, is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. They were not. It was deep-sixed.

is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. I'm sure I heard the story back at the time that Baker said he had encountered LHO in his search of the building. Hundreds of stories were run on all the channels back then and they put everyone that wanted to be on tv on to tell their stories. I know I heard of the encounter. I did not write a book saying that I didn't believe the story,, I just took it for what it was. I do know just from what I see now that on day one, Truly said the encounter was in the lunchroom. As far as I know, the stories were told independently on 11/23 with Baker saying 3rd or 4th floor and Truly saying 2nd floor lunchroom. Were they both supposed to say the same thing. Is it possible that was part of the conspiracy. Sure.

[Kenneth Drew]

One other question Greg. If you are basing your preposition on the difference in Baker's story, 3rd or 4th floor vs Truly's 2nd floor lunchroom, then how much credence do you give to LHO's statement that he and Baker encountered each other in the lunchroom? LHO didn't change his story.

[Greg Parker]

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth.

And we all already know what I just posted.

In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site.

Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims depends on which 'claims'. If he's referring to the 'first time anyone ever questioned Baker's story was 13 or 15 years ago. Then I'd say 'not likely'. It's obvious from the records that there was clearly a discrepancy no later than 11/24/63. It's hard to believe that 'no one' questioned that for 35 years.

Kenneth,

I'm not for a minute disputing no one ever questioned Baker's story. You guys keep repeating the same refrain and I keep agreeing with you. This is a mountain of proof for such questioning. But you all keep avoiding the actual issue I'm raising - that is that no one ever specifically put forward that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter was false in its entirety.

As for the discrepancies between Baker and Truly's first day statements - no one questioned that. Why? Because Baker's statement got buried and he was kept away from the media. In all of the subsequent years when he was interviewed or questioned - including by the WC and BBC trial - no one - NO ONE ever produced Baker's first days statement, waved it front of him and grilled him about it.

So your whole premise that it seems impossible to you that no one ever questioned it in all that time, is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. They were not. It was deep-sixed.

is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. I'm sure I heard the story back at the time that Baker said he had encountered LHO in his search of the building. Hundreds of stories were run on all the channels back then and they put everyone that wanted to be on tv on to tell their stories. I know I heard of the encounter. I did not write a book saying that I didn't believe the story,, I just took it for what it was. I do know just from what I see now that on day one, Truly said the encounter was in the lunchroom. As far as I know, the stories were told independently on 11/23 with Baker saying 3rd or 4th floor and Truly saying 2nd floor lunchroom. Were they both supposed to say the same thing. Is it possible that was part of the conspiracy. Sure.

Baker was kept away from the media until he got on board the 2nd floor lunchroom story. There was no lunchroom on the 3rd or 4th floors - no door with window to look through. Baker's man was 30 years old, 165 pounds and wearing a brown jacket. It was not Oswald. It was not on the 2nd floor.

I did not come to this via any one else's work. I came to it by having the time and discipline to force myself back in 2001 to read through every single DPD file.

[Thomas Graves]

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth.

And we all already know what I just posted.

In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site.

Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

Mark,

Aside from the fact that it's the "right" thing to do, it also benefits the research community as a whole for us to "source" (give credit for) films, photographs, enhancements, documents, previous research and perhaps even theories of other researchers / "researchers" for the simple fact that it makes it easier to "fact check" and "compare notes."

I hereby confess that I am just as guilty as "the next guy" in failing to do so.

--Tommy

Edited July 28, 2015 by Thomas Graves