Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chemtrails, not by Jack White.


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wish I had my camera handy one day last week when chemtrail planes, after

a long absence, did some "skywriting" over downtown Fort Worth. Maybe

ZORRO was piloting one of the three planes, because from my house they

laid three strokes that formed a large letter Z. On the other hand, from the

north or south it would have looked like the letter N. I guess they got bored

with the usual parallel lines or crisscross grids. Was this done on orders,

or were the three pilots acting on their own?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wish I had my camera handy one day last week when chemtrail planes, after

a long absence, did some "skywriting" over downtown Fort Worth. Maybe

ZORRO was piloting one of the three planes, because from my house they

laid three strokes that formed a large letter Z. On the other hand, from the

north or south it would have looked like the letter N. I guess they got bored

with the usual parallel lines or crisscross grids. Was this done on orders,

or were the three pilots acting on their own?

Jack

To understand the cost of your constructs, read Monty's "Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had my camera handy one day last week when chemtrail planes, after

a long absence, did some "skywriting" over downtown Fort Worth. Maybe

ZORRO was piloting one of the three planes, because from my house they

laid three strokes that formed a large letter Z. On the other hand, from the

north or south it would have looked like the letter N. I guess they got bored

with the usual parallel lines or crisscross grids. Was this done on orders,

or were the three pilots acting on their own?

Jack

To understand the cost of your constructs, read Monty's "Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying".

I protest Parker's repeated unprovoked attacks on me.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had my camera handy one day last week when chemtrail planes, after

a long absence, did some "skywriting" over downtown Fort Worth. Maybe

ZORRO was piloting one of the three planes, because from my house they

laid three strokes that formed a large letter Z. On the other hand, from the

north or south it would have looked like the letter N. I guess they got bored

with the usual parallel lines or crisscross grids. Was this done on orders,

or were the three pilots acting on their own?

Jack

To understand the cost of your constructs, read Monty's "Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying".

I protest Parker's repeated unprovoked attacks on me.

Jack

Put your tinfoil hat on and relax, Jack. You started this.

To end it, all you have to do is stop using my threads to sell Armstrong's literary equivalent of snake oil.

And while you're contemplating that, you might want to try answering the questions posed here at post #7.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry132149

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM)

To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee.

Jack

Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me.

Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time.

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."

Greg,

I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above.

"Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few."

"Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time.

A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid.

None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong.

Respectfully,

Charles

Edited by Evan Burton
removed section of quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM)

To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee.

Jack

Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me.

Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time.

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."

Greg,

I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above.

"Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few."

"Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time.

A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid.

None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong.

Respectfully,

Charles

Thanks, Charles, for your lucid defense of me. However, I cannot say the accusations (?) are lucid.

QUOTING, WITH MY REPLIES IN ALL CAPS...

........

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

THESE ARE BLATANTLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS. I HAVE LIED ABOUT NOTHING. ONLY PROVOCATEURS

SEARCH THREADS FROM YEARS AGO FOR INCONGROUS STATEMENTS. I HAVE TOLD NO LIES. I AM

A FOREMOST ADVOCATE OF TRUTH. IF I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, I AM ANXIOUS TO CORRECT IT.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

I WAS PRESENT WHEN JOHN INTERVIEWED "MANY WITNESSES". THREE OF THESE WITNESSES

WERE STUDENTS AT STRIPLING WHEN LHO WAS THERE. OTHERS, SUCH AS MYRA BELL, WERE

NEIGHBORS OF MARGUERITE. NITPICKING OVER SEMANTICS ADDS NOTHING TO RESEARCH

AND IS A BLATANT SMEAR TACTIC.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

FRANK KUDLATY AND I BOTH ATTENDED TCU 1946-49. HE WAS CAPTAIN OF THE BASKETBALL TEAM.

I WAS EDITOR OF THE UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER. BOTH OF US WERE IN STUDENT GOVERNMENT. WE

WERE NEVER CLASSMATES IN A COMMON CLASSROOM, BUT KNEW EACH OTHER.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I KNEW KUDLATY'S FIANCEE (LATER WIFE) MARIE (WE CALLED HER RIE) MUCH BETTER THAN I DID

FRANK. RIE AND I WORKED ON THE STUDENT YEARBOOK TOGETHER AND WERE CLASSMATES AND

HAD MUTUAL FRIENDS.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE. AFTER GRADUATION WE WENT OUR SEPARATE WAYS IN 1949. WHEN

JOHN INTERVIEWED FRANK I HAD NOT SEEN HIM IN ABOUT A HALF CENTURY.

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."

SINCE FRANK, HIS WIFE AND I WERE ALL IN THE "CLASS OF 1949", WE WERE CLASSMATES. MAYBE

IN YOUR COUNTRY YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND THIS VERNACULAR. IN ANY EVENT THIS IS SEMANTICAL

NONSENSE.

I AGREE WITH CHARLES. THIS ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JFK CASE.

YOUR ATTEMPT TO SMEAR JOHN ARMSTRONG ALONG WITH ME IS DESPICABLE.

Jack

Edited by Evan Burton
Removed prohibited accusation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM)

To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee.

Jack

Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me.

Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time.

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."

Greg,

I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above.

"Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few."

Charles, by definition, "many" is a large but indefinite number. Jack's "many" got amended to "three" after I raised the issue of whether or not his friendship with Kudlaty had been declared in Armstrong's book. It was the start of his attempt to distance himself from Kudlaty and also the extent of his involvement in assisting Armstrong.

"Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time.

Fine, but it was Jack who drew the distinction - not me, when he amended his original statement that he "has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate" to "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her." The aim again was to distance himself from Kudlaty, fully aware now that Armstrong should have declared that relationship in his book.

A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid.

Great. But presumably you are not currently helping someone write a book in which Mr Robina will be touted as a witness.

None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong.

What it says is that Jack was made aware of the lack of ethics Armstrong displayed by not informing his readers that one of his main assistants was a friend of one of his "witnesses", and tried to limit the damage by attempting to minimize his association with Kudlaty.

Respectfully,

Charles

Edited by Evan Burton
removed prohibited accusation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I understand that you do not believe Armstrong's theory, and that's fine.

But I think when it gets to the really "fine tuning" to debunk a theory, even to the point of arguments over words like "many", or the amount of time needed to spend with someone to call them "friend" etc., that this may be a case of picking gnat "something" out of pepper.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM)

To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee.

Jack

Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me.

Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time.

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."

Greg,

I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above.

"Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few."

"Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time.

A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid.

None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong.

Respectfully,

Charles

Thanks, Charles, for your lucid defense of me. However, I cannot say the accusations (?) are lucid.

QUOTING, WITH MY REPLIES IN ALL CAPS...

........

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

THESE ARE BLATANTLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

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"

I HAVE LIED ABOUT NOTHING. ONLY PROVOCATEURS

SEARCH THREADS FROM YEARS AGO FOR INCONGROUS STATEMENTS. I HAVE TOLD NO LIES. I AM

A FOREMOST ADVOCATE OF TRUTH. IF I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, I AM ANXIOUS TO CORRECT IT.

Oh dear, here we go... Firstly, I'm glad you recognize, however belatedly, that your statements were incongruous. You're the expert on provocateurs, not me. I thought they were involved in inciting illegal activity. I don't recall ever doing that - let alone searching out your statements quoted here. What I did do was repeat the questions I asked, but which you failed to answer on a previous occasion.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

I WAS PRESENT WHEN JOHN INTERVIEWED "MANY WITNESSES". THREE OF THESE WITNESSES

WERE STUDENTS AT STRIPLING WHEN LHO WAS THERE. OTHERS, SUCH AS MYRA BELL, WERE

NEIGHBORS OF MARGUERITE. NITPICKING OVER SEMANTICS ADDS NOTHING TO RESEARCH

AND IS A BLATANT SMEAR TACTIC.

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.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

FRANK KUDLATY AND I BOTH ATTENDED TCU 1946-49. HE WAS CAPTAIN OF THE BASKETBALL TEAM.

I WAS EDITOR OF THE UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER. BOTH OF US WERE IN STUDENT GOVERNMENT. WE

WERE NEVER CLASSMATES IN A COMMON CLASSROOM, BUT KNEW EACH OTHER.

I'm glad you feel comfortable in vouching for the honesty of someone you now seem to be saying you barely knew in any deep sense, and hadn't actually seen since 1949.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I KNEW KUDLATY'S FIANCEE (LATER WIFE) MARIE (WE CALLED HER RIE) MUCH BETTER THAN I DID

FRANK. RIE AND I WORKED ON THE STUDENT YEARBOOK TOGETHER AND WERE CLASSMATES AND

HAD MUTUAL FRIENDS.

But she is irrelevant to this. You introduced her into it by way of distancing yourself from Kudlaty (to paraphrase: "I barely knew him, honest! I knew his future wife much better!!!")

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE. AFTER GRADUATION WE WENT OUR SEPARATE WAYS IN 1949. WHEN

JOHN INTERVIEWED FRANK I HAD NOT SEEN HIM IN ABOUT A HALF CENTURY.

... and yet could vouch for his honesty...

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."

SINCE FRANK, HIS WIFE AND I WERE ALL IN THE "CLASS OF 1949", WE WERE CLASSMATES. MAYBE

IN YOUR COUNTRY YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND THIS VERNACULAR. IN ANY EVENT THIS IS SEMANTICAL

NONSENSE.

Not at all. You 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.

I AGREE WITH CHARLES. THIS ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JFK CASE.

You discredit yourself, Jack, with your own statements. The JFK case doesn't need the tin foil hat brigade.

YOUR ATTEMPT TO SMEAR JOHN ARMSTRONG ALONG WITH ME IS DESPICABLE.

Uh huh. Reveling in your self-proclaimed martyrdom won't distract one iota from your avoidance of the key issue brought to light: Armstrong's deceit in not advising his readers of your relationship with Kudlaty.

Jack

My offer stands. You started this. You can finish it by ceasing to use my threads for pitching Armstrong's book.

Edited by Evan Burton
removed prohibited accusation from quotes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I understand that you do not believe Armstrong's theory, and that's fine.

Kathy, thanks! I had no idea an exemption from the mods was required before one could be a non-believer in bs! :unsure:

But I think when it gets to the really "fine tuning" to debunk a theory, even to the point of arguments over words like "many", or the amount of time needed to spend with someone to call them "friend" etc., that this may be a case of picking gnat "something" out of pepper.

You are mistaking debunking Armstrong's theory (been there, done that) with a discussion on the ethics of non-disclosure of information pertinent to his readership's ability to make a properly informed judgment - and Jack's attempts to make the question on ethics go away.

btw, what's your position on posters who continually try and change the subject of threads toward their own agenda - despite being asked on numerous occasions to desist? Didn't another poster recently get put on moderation for just this very thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM)

QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM)

To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee.

Jack

Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me.

Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time.

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."

Greg,

I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above.

"Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few."

Charles, by definition, "many" is a large but indefinite number. Jack's "many" got amended to "three" after I raised the issue of whether or not his friendship with Kudlaty had been declared in Armstrong's book. It was the start of his attempt to distance himself from Kudlaty and also the extent of his involvement in assisting Armstrong.

"Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time.

Fine, but it was Jack who drew the distinction - not me, when he amended his original statement that he "has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate" to "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her." The aim again was to distance himself from Kudlaty, fully aware now that Armstrong should have declared that relationship in his book.

A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid.

Great. But presumably you are not currently helping someone write a book in which Mr Robina will be touted as a witness.

None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong.

What it says is that Jack was made aware of the lack of ethics Armstrong displayed by not informing his readers that one of his main assistants was a friend of one of his "witnesses", and tried to limit the damage by attempting to minimize his association with Kudlaty.

Respectfully,

Charles

What absurdity. As far as I remember, my acquaintance with Kudlaty is not

mentioned in Armstrong's book. There are NO inconsistencies in my statements,

nor are they of any significant importance. You do not understand what I said anyway:

I was present when when John interviewed "many local witnesses". That is more

than one or two. INCLUDED in those many witnesses were THREE Stripling

witnesses. If I spoke in generalities instead of naming the specific witnesses, it

is possibly because I wrote about five years later, and do not remember ALL the

names and specifics. It is insignificant that I accompanied John. I was merely

an observer as he questioned them, and we discussed what they said to him as

we drove around town. My most vivid memory is his interview with the quite

elderly Georgia Bell, who had a very sharp remembrance of Marguerite,

who lived across the street. Oddly, as with several of Marguerite's residences,

the house had been demolished. I went to the courthouse with John to check

ownerships of her residences, and some were very peculiar. If I made any

mistake in my descriptions it was because the events happened long ago.

John spent 12 years researching and writing his book, and of course his

research happened years before the publication of the book.

Nitpicking semantics is not research and is counterproductive.

Jack

Edited by Evan Burton
As per previous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Parker accuses me of diverting HIS THREADS. I am not aware that

anyone OWNS any particular subject. He was lecturing the forum on

activities of Oswald; I suggested that he should acquaint himself with

the book of Mr. Armstrong before espousing opinions unrelated to

facts revealed therein by actual documentary research.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

btw, what's your position on posters who continually try and change the subject of threads toward their own agenda - despite being asked on numerous occasions to desist? Didn't another poster recently get put on moderation for just this very thing?

No. that was not the case. Hijacking threads occurs in abundance in this forum.

I was not exempting, as a moderator, your statement about being a non believer in bs. I just thought that if you debunk something, you should be able to do it without being hypercritical with respect to teensy things. If something is incorrect, you shouldn't have to continue to dig through it with tweezers.

And I don't mind a bit if you're catty. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What absurdity. As far as I remember, my acquaintance with Kudlaty is not mentioned in Armstrong's book.

That's the point, Jack - it should have been.

There are NO inconsistencies in my statements, nor are they of any significant importance. You do not understand what I said anyway: I was present when when John interviewed "many local witnesses". That is more than one or two. INCLUDED in those many witnesses were THREE Stripling witnesses.

Here is the original exchange:

GP: But speaking of honesty, since you say above, you were involved in [many of] those [stripling] interviews, should not your friendship with Kudlaty have been disclosed to readers of "School Daze"? Perhaps such disclosure was made in Armstrong's book? If so, it would show Armstrong does have integrity.

I am curious about one thing concerning that friendship. Did Frank tap you on the shoulder during your time at the HSCA and let you know then that he had handed over Oswald files to the FBI and that they were never returned? If not, when did your friend come forward?

JW response: I was not present when John interviewed Frank Kudlaty. I don't know where you got that idea. At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling....

The exchanges had been about the Stripling interviews. You originally said you'd been present for many of those. But after I raised the ethics question, you did a backflip and changed your account to of how often you'd attended from "many" to "three". This is not semantics on my part, no matter how often you and others squeal that it is. By no definition can "many" include the number "three". You were in damage control, and still are.

Mr. Parker accuses me of diverting HIS THREADS. I am not aware that anyone OWNS any particular subject.

Then why did you "protest" my first post in this thread? After all, all I did was recommend a book to you, just as you did. You really do have a problem making consistent statements, don't you Jack...

He was lecturing the forum on activities of Oswald; I suggested that he should acquaint himself with the book of Mr. Armstrong before espousing opinions unrelated to facts revealed therein by actual documentary research.

I was not "lecturing" anyone about anything. Least of all was I "espousing opinions unrelated to facts revealed therein by actual documentary research" since the thread was not about Armstrong or his book (presumably that is what you were attempting to say?). I presented a link to a time-line chart based on the "documentary research" of myself and Jim Olmstead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...