Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Danger of Conspiracy Theories


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Obviously I knew Greg was in the process of adding his colored fonts and that it was a matter of time before he edited his post. I was poking fun at him.

Hope this shade meets with your approval.

Len and Greg couldn't figure that out.

Um. Not true. Or did you miss this? The sleaze is all his because he would have seen I was working on the post at the time he made his reply. I had no idea what he'd said until I'd finished my post. But congratulations for fooling Len. You must be very proud - another major milestone for you.

Greg Parker wanted this confrontation. He couldn't stand that I was repeatedly ignoring his taunts on all the other threads so he figured he would go ahead and jump in and call me a coward on this one.

Oh yes, my "taunt"

Here it is again:

In the scheme of things, neither Janney nor his book will have any influence on history's final judgement regarding the assassination, so I find this whole debate a triple yawn and a triple waste of time.

It has also caused unnecessary divisions. You and Mike are on the same side regarding Armstrong's theory, so let me invite you both to show a united front here: http://educationforu...p?showforum=126

Absolutely vicious of me (apparently)

Before this thread I hadn't responded to anything he's written in well over a year, When people show they can't stick to the truth, it becomes a waste of time dealing with them at any length.

How convenient for you to see through me at the very time your accusation against me was proven false.

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

Doug Weldon chimed in 12/02/10

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously I knew Greg was in the process of adding his colored fonts and that it was a matter of time before he edited his post. I was poking fun at him.

Len and Greg couldn't figure that out.

Um. Not true. Or did you miss this? The sleaze is all his because he would have seen I was working on the post at the time he made his reply. I had no idea what he'd said until I'd finished my post. But congratulations for fooling Len. You must be very proud - another major milestone for you.

I've bolded the part above that Len and Greg couldn't figure out.

Greg Parker can continue to misrepresent what was said in threads long ago. I can't stop him.

He can continue to call members liars and cowards and use profanities in his posts without any moderator intervention

and complain about how he is treated. I can't stop him and what's more, I don't care.

The reason I've ignored him for so long is not because I couldn't counter his arguments. That is not hard to do. It just became too

tedious and unproductive to have any dialogue with him.

Doug Weldon's words remain the best description of what Greg Parker is all about.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late Doug Weldon was a fine researcher and by all accounts a good and honorable man. He measured his words and almost never spoke poorly of anyone.

In the thread referenced by Greg, this is what he had to say:

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Doug Weldon

I'm more than content to be aligned with the thoughts of members like Doug Weldon and Don Jeffries when it comes to Greg Parker.

Greg can have Scully and Colby. He's welcome to them.

I've ignored Colby for years. I learned to do the same thing with Scully too.

Here are all the exchanges from that thread between myself and Doug:

Me responding to comments made by Doug to Jim DiEugenio

Jim:

I am reading "Harvey and Lee' now for the second time. There is no possible way that any intelligent and reasonable person could have read the book thoroughly and then trash it.

I have not trashed the book. I have debunked parts of the theory as they appear on web sites or in forums such as this.

People are not comparing Oswald and Marguerite at diffent times in their life but at the same time.

Oh? Could have fooled me. From Jack White's post #19 showing a series of photos of Marguerite: "The YOUNGER woman at left.... which of the photos above depict the SAME WOMAN MANY YEARS LATER". In which universe is that not a comparing Marguerite at different times of her life? You guys crack me up...

Even as John was writing the book and talking with me there was some evidence that John was more impressed with than I. However, in its totality, I cannot fathom how thouroughly John followed and put the evidence together. It is amazing research. The only small criticism I had was that Armstrong had located John Pic (now deceased) and left a message that he would like to talk with him. Not getting a reply John let it go. I would have been at Pic's door.However, it is part of Armstrong's personality to act as he did. Simply an incredible book.

"To act as he did" includes omitting information critical to ethical historical scholarship - that is omitting any reference to a very longstanding friendship between Jack White who had been assisting Armstrong, and one of his star witnesses. I've asked your professional opinion about that a number of times. You have declined to answer. Care to now?

Best,

Doug Weldon

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

Jack and Greg:

Jack, You make a very good point. I began to look at the issue of the hole in the windshield back in 1993 because of a fluke circumstance. A friend of mine who is both a physician and an attorney saw me one day with a book on the assassination. He told me that his father used to talk about something unusual about the Kennedy assassination shortly after it happened. He could not remember what it was. It took months to set up a meeting with his father and the dam seemed to break. It was a remarkable fluke. If I not just happened to have a book with me that day I would never even had any interest in pursuing this line of inquiry and investigation . Does it sound strange or unusual that the father of a friend of mine would have this incredible account? Yes, it does, but it is what happened. Was it unethical or did it taint things that I talked with my friends father? I don't think so because he, like Kudlaty, is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Many of the people I talked with are now deceased but a number of them still survive. I know that many of the people in Armstrong's book are still alive. My ultimate point is rather than just engage in an academic discussion why do these critics never contact these people. The people I talked with were very friendly and open. It was frustrating to me that "experts" on the assassination never talked with them. The coincidences in life are amazing. When I interviewed Dr. Evalea Glanges on the phone after writing her how could anyone have known that she would die at age 59 within a month of our talk. I can't explain how odd it is. If I had waited four weeks the opportunity would have been lost forever. I talked with Crenshaw and he was very open but did not live for a long time afterwards. (The focus of many of my questions to him had not been asked before and do not relate to the limo.) I, like, Armstrong, found out about people by reviewing the records and then contacting these people. Yes, I find it unusual and coincidental that Jack once knew Kudlaty but as I have found ,the unusual is not so uncommon as one would think. Jack did not give the lead to Armstrong. You asked my opinion and no, I don't believe any ethical issue is involved. As I have expressed before and even with John I am impressed with some evidence more than others, (I would have tried very hard to talk with John Pic) but the overall volume of evidence is overwhelming. John is very unique in that he had the resources to put life on hold and literally contact people worldwide. It is unbelieveable how thorough he was. One cannot imagine the travel and time and expense that John incurred. As Jack states, Kudlaty's involvement was done well before John ever became interested in the matter.The teachers referred people to Kudlaty. Do you believe that Kudlaty had this story stashed away so that in the unlikely event that during his lifetime someone would contact him about it? The lead was provided by Robert Oswald, not Jack. I will admit that John actually phoned some of these people when I was on the phone line and people did not know that I was listening. There was nothing contrived at all. Everyone has the right to analyze evidence and accept or reject whatever they want. However, to earn that right with Armstrongs's work, one has to read the book and then, if they desire. go ahead, contact some of the witnesses. Call Kudlaty. I believe he is still alive. If Kudlaty bothers someone so much then disregard him. If people have problems with any of the witnesses I discovered I tell them to do the same. It will not affect anything. Armstrong's work is an amazing account and whatever one believes after reading it one cannot escape the conclusion that something very unusual and complex was going on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

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

My response to the above

Thanks for (finally) giving your opinion, Doug.

But this has no more to do with coincidence than it has to do with any actual acts of "plotting".

That you guys want to make it about "coincidences" versus "plots" is just setting up a false dichotomy.

I strongly suggest you brush up on your ethics. Conflicts of interest stand alone and apart from any and all other considerations.

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

Doug in response to above

Greg:

You asked me for my opinion than reject it which is certainly your right. Are you saying that Armstrong knew that Kudlaty and Jack had once been friends and he should not have followed up on questioning Kudlaty? Are you suggesting that Jack gave Armstrong the lead that "eventually" led to Kudlaty? If so, what proof do you have and how would it be unethical if Jack even had given him the lead? What do you think Armstrong should have done? If it does bother you, why don't you simply do as I suggest, forget Kudlaty, read the book, and contact any witnesses you desire? Most are not that difficult to find. I don't understand that there is a concern about any "plot" between Jack and Armstrong. I know both of them and to me, the character of each is beyond reproach. There are remarkable coincidences in life. It seems to me the longer I speak with almost any person that the name of a common acquaintance will emerge. The phrase "six degrees of separation" has a basis in fact. Are you suggesting that there was no independent way that things led to Kudlaty? Rather than create a mystery that I believe you will find leads nowhere why don't you humor people, read the book, contact who you desire and are able to, and form any opinion that you wish. There is nothing personal in this. Some of the people who disagree with me vehemently I consider to be good friends. Good luck.

Best,

Doug

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

My reply:

Doug, I asked for your opinion based on the misunderstanding that you knew at least as much about ethics and conflicts of interest as even a third rate ambulance chaser would know. My apologies for over-rating your professional skills.

You also seem to have difficulty in comprehending my posts. I'll take responsibility for that and try again. This time, I'll simply quote from wiki: "A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results"

I will add that the ethical consideration is in eliminating or minimising such conflicts. Here, I believe that could have been done simply by noting the relationship in the book.

That you continue to plough ahead with the false dichotomy of "coincidence" vs "plot" in disregard of all that I've said, tells me all I need to know.

regards,

greg

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

Doug

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Doug Weldon

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

My reply:

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly

Only if you call non-responsiveness in order to avoid reality your "responsibility".

and respectfully.

"Good manners" are no substiute for honest and responsive replies. Nor will it deflect from your attempts to change this into a debate over plots never mentioned nor hinted at by me.

I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views.

The only "confusion" is being deliberately created by you and others by introducing irrelevancies e.g your false dichotomy. In reality, it could not be more straightforward.

My response does not change.

No, it doesn't. You have persisted again and again with talk of "coincidences" vs "plots" despite many times being told it has nothing to do with either.

Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community.

No doubt. It's difficult having your illusions shattered,

This appears to be nothing more than a game to you.

Nope. I take ethical issues very seriously. You and others on this thread, appear not to be bothered by them at all. I find that rather disturbing.

It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book

Which is yet another irrelevancy. This is not about his book. It is not about the quality of his reserach. It is about an ethical issue, pure and simple.

and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks.

What can I say? I use up all my patience on my kids.

Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.

Your responses to the ethical issue prove that, unfortunately.

I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you.

Why would any of them stick their heads out of the trenches and risk being subjected to the barrage of propagandising and obfuscation I have had to deal with on this issue?

Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Yeah. Sure. "Sincere" to the bitter end.

Doug Weldon

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

Doug

Greg:

This is even more strange than I thought. As I understand your rant now it has nothing to do with whether you believe there is validity or not to Armstrong's book, which you have not read but choose to isolate bits and pieces from the internet, but your concern is that there is some ethical violation or lack of duty by Armstrong to disclose in his book that Kudlaty and Jack White had some sort of relationship as either acquaintances or friends in the past, something Jack says Armstrong could not have known when he interviewed Kudlaty. Since Armstrong did not disclose this in his book then this "ethical" violation casts dispersion on the veracity of his book and Kudlaty's crediility as a witness. Should Armstrong have brought a list of names of everyone he knew when he talked with any witness and inquire of the witness whether he/she recognizes any of the names on that list? Do you believe that should detract from Kudlaty's credibility as a witness though Kudlaty would not have had any way of knowing that Armstrong knew White? Is that what this is about? I have no idea when Armstrong found out about the Kudlaty-White "relationship." Let's assume it was after the book went to the publisher? What do you believe Armstrong should have done? It may be my shortcoming, but I don't see any connection with Jack knowing Kudlaty unless you somehow believe that there was some concerted effort by the three of them to contrive a story. As I mentioned before, if this bothers you so much then throw out Kudlaty's whole account. It is such a very small piece of the book. Armstrong's intent has always been to present his findings and allows one to reach their own conclusions. He does not like confrontation. He doesn't "argue" for his position but simply presents the evidence. It does not bother or upset him if somewhat rejects that evidence. On its face it is a very bizarre story and should be approached with skepticism. Unfortunately, my understanding of ethics is not based on the scholarly works of "wikepedia" so I may seriously be out of touch. However cheated I am by that lack of a broad education I simply do not see any ethical duty or breach, but obviously I am not going to persuade you otherwise. Perhaps some other people reading this thread will have a broader perspective than I do and may post their support for your posi.... Whoops, I think I just heard a fire engine. Gotta go.

Doug Weldon

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

Doug responding to comments I made to Jim

Greg:

This is legitimate. When there is a conflict in the evidence I am sure you would agree you have to examinine it in its totality to resolve the conflict. I have no idea whether the FBI was pushing the 1956 date or if it was independent recall. They tried to do that with Palmer McBride. Sometimes a conflict cannot be resolved and no conclusions can be reached. However, I believe it is important to at least examine how the Armstrong witnesses established the date.

Doug Weldon

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

Doug

Greg:

I have not followed this and any other Armstrong threads very much because it is not something I have wanted to devote much time to, Again, I know nothing about you but it is YOU who asked my opiniion about the ethical issue involved in this matter. You specifically asked my opinion, not anyone else's. I am uncertain why you sought my opinion rather than from others but when I responded with an answer you did not like your response was to childishly take some personal cheap shots. Again, I don't know you and you certainly do not know me. In subsequent posts you have complained how people attack you personally. Personally, I could care less about your cheap attack on me, but in my mind this is what casts a bad light on the whole research community.

Besides not wanting to focus time on issues such as this as I am frustratingly trying to finish writing my book. I especially have no desire to discuss Armstrong with someone who has not even bothered to read what Armstrong wrote. I have some criticisms of the book but you are not even close in determining where the book is weak and where it is strong. Futhermore, there are others on this forum who are far more equipped than I to discuss his book. As to the FBI reports it is legitimate to raise them and try to resolve which accounts are likely accurate but to accept these minor reports as gospel is foolish. My guess, as so often happened in interviews by the FBI and in testimony is that they were probably asked the questions predicated by something such as "When you worked with Oswald in 1956, did you.....? The statements are not even signed by the witnesses and the record is replete with witnesses who state what was presented is not what they said and sometimes where there are signatures witnesses have later said that it was not their signature on a statement. All statements, from both sides, should be weighed very carefully. It is a con if you are suggesting the whole issue is simply one of ethics. You are trying to discredit Armstrong. As both Jim and I have noted, with someone like Kudlaty, why don't you just pick up the phone and call him. Ask him how well he knew Jack White, ask him what he did when the FBI came to him.Read the book and phone the witnesses. You ask if Armstrong called the witnesses you raised as contradicting Armstrong. My response would be "Did you?"

You do not know me or my background. One of the things you do not know is that I taught school law at a university at the graduate level for 12 years to masters and PHD students. You state " Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says..." Actually you are way off base. That and subsequent laws have progessively tightened access to records and protected the privacy of students. Even parents are now limited in accessing their child's records once they have reached age 18. Before this time and in 1963 it was much easier for anyone, including newspapers and reporters to access those records. They certainly would NOT have been denied to law enforcement agencies. Things have changed much. If Oswald had confessed while being denied an attorney his case could have gone up to the Supreme Court with Miranda v Arizona. The Miranda case actually happened before Oswald was arrested and the case law could have now be known as Oswald v Texas, the Oswald case instead of the Miranda case.

It is a shame how you have blindly pursued this in attacking Jack and recklessly gone after Armstrong. If you want to attack him do so and hang your cap on the correct issues. There was NO conflict of interest and nothing ethically wrong here. Not one person has yet supported you on this issue. When can you let it go? You are only diminishing your own credibility.

Doug Weldon

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

My reply to the above:

http://educationforu...er/snapback.pngDoug Weldon, on 22 November 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

Greg:

I have not followed this and any other Armstrong threads very much because it is not something I have wanted to devote much time to, Again, I know nothing about you but it is YOU who asked my opiniion about the ethical issue involved in this matter. You specifically asked my opinion, not anyone else's. I am uncertain why you sought my opinion rather than from others

Why, Doug? Because you saw fit to stick your nose into this earlier in the year, then backed out when told what it was actually about (as opposed to what you thought/pretended it was about), and ignored my repeated requests at that time to offer your opinion. It was reasonable at that time to ask, since you did enter the fray. It is is still reasonable, since you ducked it then.

but when I responded with an answer you did not like your response was to childishly take some personal cheap shots.

You know damned well the answer you gave was nonsense because you falsely continue to try and tie the need for some nefarious act to the situation in order for it to qualify as a genuine ethical/conflict of interest concern.

In subsequent posts you have complained how people attack you personally. Personally, I could care less about your cheap attack on me, but in my mind this is what casts a bad light on the whole research community.

And the lack of comprehension continues apace. I have NOT complained about anything except the double standard involved which gives everyone else a free pass to do and say what they like, so long as they are Armstrong supporters, while searching for any perceived infringements from me to attack. What I listed were examples – not whines. I have already said Jack can say whatever he wants to me – it has zero effect. It's double-standards I can't abide.

As to the FBI reports it is legitimate to raise them and try to resolve which accounts are likely accurate but to accept these minor reports as gospel is foolish. My guess, as so often happened in interviews by the FBI and in testimony is that they were probably asked the questions predicated by something such as "When you worked with Oswald in 1956, did you.....? The statements are not even signed by the witnesses and the record is replete with witnesses who state what was presented is not what they said and sometimes where there are signatures witnesses have later said that it was not their signature on a statement. All statements, from both sides, should be weighed very carefully.

You can surmise how those interviews unfolded all you like. You miss the point. Unless Armstrong interviewed those witnesses, the whole thing reeks of merely searching out those who support his theory. It is pointless telling me how thorough he was if he ignored those witnesses.

It is a con if you are suggesting the whole issue is simply one of ethics. You are trying to discredit Armstrong.

The Kudlaty matter is most definitely a matter of ethics. I am not trying to discredit Armstrong. It is impossible to determine who was at fault because Jack won't clarify his contradictory statements.

You ask if Armstrong called the witnesses you raised as contradicting Armstrong. My response would be "Did you?"

Why would I? I wasn't writing a book. It was his responsibility to do that.

You state " Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says..." Actually you are way off base. That and subsequent laws have progessively tightened access to records and protected the privacy of students. Even parents are now limited in accessing their child's records once they have reached age 18. Before this time and in 1963 it was much easier for anyone, including newspapers and reporters to access those records. They certainly would NOT have been denied to law enforcement agencies.

I'm well aware that privacy laws have progressively tightened. But to suggest that anyone could go and access school/child records in 1963 is false on its face. Oswald's NYC school records were not handed over without going through appropriate channels; nor were Forth Worth's records. And the fact that LEGAL advice was sought before Oswald's court records were finally handed over indicates what to you, Doug? It indicates to me that legal advice was sought because of possible legal impediments. None of those records were simply handed over because the FBI asked for them nicely.

In short, your suggestion that such records would NOT be denied upon request by law enforcement is not supported by the evidence cited.

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

Doug, responding to comments I made to others

Greg:

Are you certain about Gunn? "Red Roses From Texas" was written in French and was then translated to English. I had the English version for several years before selling it but still see the French version pop up on e-bay occassionaly.

Doug

Greg:

You are correct. The book was written in French before being translated.

Nerin E. Gun, a free-lance journalist and writer, was born in Rome of Turkish and Italian parents. Educated in France and Germany, he entered the newspaper field in Berlin when WW II started, As a neutral, be became a correspondent for Swiss newspapers and the Turkish press service. For his reports to the world about the Warsaw ghetto and predictions of the defeat of the German armies in Russia, he was arrested by the Nazis and sent to eleven prisons and three concentrations camps, ending at Dachau. He was one of two foreign correspondents accredited to Berlin to have been arrested and put into a concentration camp solely because of journalistic activities.

Mr. Gun shown above during a recent visit to Dachau, is now an American citizen who lives in New York with his American wife and child. He makes frequent trips throughout the world as a foreign correspondent for American and European magazines.

No American publisher would touch his book Red Roses from Texas, so the book was published in London. A used copy, if you can find it, will cost you $750.00. It was the FIRST book on the assassination of President Kennedy.

Best:

Doug Weldon

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

http://educationforu...opic=16943&st=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never fully understood why two researchers whom I both like and admire have such antipathy toward each other. They are welcome to it, I suppose, but it seems a damned shame that so much of their time and attention is now being squandered on bickering over personal slights when both could be contributing far more substantive posts that show their best attributes.

I assume it is far too late to ask for cooler heads to prevail. But, likely foolishly, I will beg you both to reconsider what a furious food fight like this contributes to the poisoning notion that all of us are a little light in the head.

Ironic that this exchange takes place in a thread titled The Danger Of Conspiracy Theories.

You are two good men. Please, please, please consider that any man can argue endlessly, but the bigger man walks away.

I intrude here solely because of my admiration for you both.

End of Howdy Doody sermon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I knew Greg was in the process of adding his colored fonts and that it was a matter of time before he edited his post. I was poking fun at him.

Len and Greg couldn't figure that out.

Um. Not true. Or did you miss this? The sleaze is all his because he would have seen I was working on the post at the time he made his reply. I had no idea what he'd said until I'd finished my post. But congratulations for fooling Len. You must be very proud - another major milestone for you.

I've bolded the part above that Len and Greg couldn't figure out.

There was nothing more to figure out than I've already said. If it was a joke, you took it a step too far in your reply to Len - that was the appropriate time to declare any alleged joke. John called it correctly. It was simply a diversion to get the spotlight off you.

Greg Parker can continue to misrepresent what was said in threads long ago. I can't stop him.

In other words, I'll make all these claims and I have no intention of supporting them with anything. I'm Mike Hogan. I don't have to support my claims with trifles like direct quotes or facts.

But here are your own words from that 2010 thread:

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

Greg, can you tell me where Armstrong used that quote?

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

I saw that when I Googled. Those sources were for that author's entire essay. I don't believe that Armstrong

ever used that quote and would have to be shown where he did in order to be convinced otherwise.

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

But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not and justify doing so by referencing some obscure blogger that didn't even claim that Armstrong said it, it reminded me of the discussion I had with you over AMORC, Rosicrucianism, and radionics. It was back then that I saw what lengths you would go to to try and prove the unprovable and what questionable internet sources you would summon.

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

Greg, can you tell me where Armstrong used that quote?

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

Finally, your claim that most people reading the blogger's quote of Marina would make the same assumption that you did, that it came from Armstrong, is specious. Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that Marina Oswald said those exact words. There were other authors cited by the blogger; what made you think that it was something Armstrong claimed? I'll give you a one word answer - vendetta.

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

Then the following after being shown by Doug he was wrong:

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

I was always willing to be convinced.

Doug Weldon convinced me. You didn't.

I didn't accuse you of making anything up. Let me note that you were the one that coined the word vendetta in our discussion, claiming that I had one against you. Before this thread, when's the last time I've commented on anything you've posted?

And yeah, I've taken my time in responding to you. I did so, knowing you would bump the topic sooner or later, which you did. I really didn't want to go back and revisit how you think I have an obligation to criticize others for what they write about you in order to demonstrate my fairness, or ask John Simkin whether or not you are a whiner, or how you think I have a vendetta against you.

So in essence, yes you did ask for a source - in your first and third posts right smack bang in the middle of a series of posts accusing me of being specious; that anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize I was being specious; that I made a claim that Armstrong said things he would never say.

I'm not surprised you want to forget all that and concentrate on your request for a cite bookended by those allegations. But it is dishonest.

All because I asked you for your source:

He can continue to call members liars and cowards and use profanities in his posts without any moderator intervention

and complain about how he is treated. I can't stop him and what's more, I don't care.

Nope. My complaint is, and always has been, about double-standards. You do what I do - except you are sly about it, couching your insults in metaphors. Cowardly.

The reason I've ignored him for so long is not because I couldn't counter his arguments. That is not hard to do.

And even easier to say you can.

It just became too tedious and unproductive to have any dialogue with him.

Translation: I couldn't admit error; let alone apologize for the false allegations arising from that error.

Doug Weldon's words remain the best description of what Greg Parker is all about.

I have reposted my 2010 exchanges with Doug in this thread, without commentary, and in full context so anyone can make up their mind about it.

edit: add one more quote from Mike I'd missed the first time.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, thank you for addressing this to both, instead of just to me as do the moderators - who are actually the ones who are supposed to be even-handed.

This could have all been settled in 2010. I made the effort. It was rebuffed.

Here's a sample of the xxxx i put up with in that 2010 thread:

Jim DiEugenio: "Greg goes into ultra violent mode whenever Armstrong is brought up".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16943&st=15#entry212075

Go back and read all my posts up to that point. They were polite to the point of deference. I mean, I was even apologizing for things I wasn't even sure I was guilty of (and as it turned out, was not) just for the sake ending the feud. So where did Jim get off making the above comment?

This from Jack White because I had the temerity to suggest that the differences seen in photos of Marguerite were based on aging.:

Parker is visually impaired. He probably does not recognize his own mother. Not a word from Don - yet later, he saw fit to threaten me with "heightened warning levels" or some such crap later in the thread.

On top of that, I had to contend with Jim and Doug constructing straw men to knock down regarding Kudlaty, and Mike's game playing alternately asking for cites from a book he knew I didn't have (but which I assume - yes - perhaps wrongly -he did, given his love affair with it), and stating I was being specious because Armstrong - according to Mike - would never say that. Trouble is - he did say it.

Since Mike has made it clear he has no intentions of accepting any olive branches from me, the only way this is ending is for me to end my membership here, because while Mike won't accept an olive branch - I won't accept being bullied, lied about, or having to continue to battle straw arguments and Howdy Doody lectures from moderators determined to skew everything I say.

To John Simkin, over the next fortnight or so, I intend saving posts of mine that I want to keep before I start editing out all my content. When I'm done, I will let you know. At that point, please delete my membership and remove my biography.

Despite recent differences - nothing personal. Am grateful for the opportunities provided.

I have never fully understood why two researchers whom I both like and admire have such antipathy toward each other. They are welcome to it, I suppose, but it seems a damned shame that so much of their time and attention is now being squandered on bickering over personal slights when both could be contributing far more substantive posts that show their best attributes.

I assume it is far too late to ask for cooler heads to prevail. But, likely foolishly, I will beg you both to reconsider what a furious food fight like this contributes to the poisoning notion that all of us are a little light in the head.

Ironic that this exchange takes place in a thread titled The Danger Of Conspiracy Theories.

You are two good men. Please, please, please consider that any man can argue endlessly, but the bigger man walks away.

I intrude here solely because of my admiration for you both.

End of Howdy Doody sermon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Mike has made it clear he has no intentions of accepting any olive branches from me, the only way this is ending is for me to end my membership here, because while Mike won't accept an olive branch - I won't accept being bullied, lied about, or having to continue to battle straw arguments and Howdy Doody lectures from moderators determined to skew everything I say.

To John Simkin, over the next fortnight or so, I intend saving posts of mine that I want to keep before I start editing out all my content. When I'm done, I will let you know. At that point, please delete my membership and remove my biography.

Greg I'm one of the few people who is supportive of you over this but even I think you need to chill, let it drop. Every one know you don't believe Armstrong's theory and think he was a fraud. We get it move on.

And this time you reignited the dust up with Mike so playing the victim doesn't wash. But let's assume you are right and Mr. Hogan is a bully wouldn't disappearing from the EF be letting him win? At exactly would the point be of deleting your posts. You must have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours writing and researching them. Deleting your posts would be a gift to backers of the "Harvey and Lee" nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Mike has made it clear he has no intentions of accepting any olive branches from me, the only way this is ending is for me to end my membership here, because while Mike won't accept an olive branch - I won't accept being bullied, lied about, or having to continue to battle straw arguments and Howdy Doody lectures from moderators determined to skew everything I say.

To John Simkin, over the next fortnight or so, I intend saving posts of mine that I want to keep before I start editing out all my content. When I'm done, I will let you know. At that point, please delete my membership and remove my biography.

Greg I'm one of the few people who is supportive of you over this but even I think you need to chill, let it drop. Every one know you don't believe Armstrong's theory and think he was a fraud. We get it move on.

And this time you reignited the dust up with Mike so playing the victim doesn't wash. But let's assume you are right and Mr. Hogan is a bully wouldn't disappearing from the EF be letting him win? At exactly would the point be of deleting your posts. You must have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours writing and researching them. Deleting your posts would be a gift to backers of the "Harvey and Lee" nonsense.

seconded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Mike has made it clear he has no intentions of accepting any olive branches from me, the only way this is ending is for me to end my membership here, because while Mike won't accept an olive branch - I won't accept being bullied, lied about, or having to continue to battle straw arguments and Howdy Doody lectures from moderators determined to skew everything I say.

To John Simkin, over the next fortnight or so, I intend saving posts of mine that I want to keep before I start editing out all my content. When I'm done, I will let you know. At that point, please delete my membership and remove my biography.

Greg I'm one of the few people who is supportive of you over this but even I think you need to chill, let it drop. Every one know you don't believe Armstrong's theory and think he was a fraud. We get it move on.

And this time you reignited the dust up with Mike so playing the victim doesn't wash. But let's assume you are right and Mr. Hogan is a bully wouldn't disappearing from the EF be letting him win? At exactly would the point be of deleting your posts. You must have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours writing and researching them. Deleting your posts would be a gift to backers of the "Harvey and Lee" nonsense.

seconded

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Posting the more complete exchanges between you and Doug Weldon did not exactly help your case. Unfortunately, to almost anyone reading them, they provide a clearer indication of how reasonable Doug was trying to be, and how you were anxious to be confrontational towards him. Doug was one of the most mild-mannered researchers in a field full of huge egos; it must have taken a lot to get him upset at you.

As for my not chastising Jack White over his comment towards you-which was unpleasant and unnecessary-remember that Jack was well into his 80s. I don't apologize for admiring him, and yes I guess I was reluctant to scold him because of that. Call it a respect for my elders kind of thing. Regardless, Jack never posted anything as nasty as you and numerous others on this forum have many times. If he had, I would have said something to him. What is the point of continuing to bring him up?

Think about what RCD was trying to say. You may not respect me, but you probably respect him. At this point, you just look petty and seem to be figuratively stomping your feet and yelling, "but I'm right!"

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Posting the more complete exchanges between you and Doug Weldon did not exactly help your case. Unfortunately, to almost anyone reading them, they provides a clearer indication of how reasonable Doug was trying to be, and how you were anxious to be confrontational towards him. Doug was one of the most mild-mannered researchers in a field full of huge egos; it must have taken a lot to get him upset at you.

As for my not chastising Jack White over his comment towards you-which was unpleasant and unnecessary-remember that Jack was well into his 80s. I don't apologize for admiring him, and yes I guess I was reluctant to scold him because of that. Call it a respect for my elders kind of thing. Regardless, Jack never posted anything as nasty as you and numerous others on this forum have many times. If he had, I would have said something to him. What is the point of continuing to bring him up?

Think about what RCD was trying to say. You may not respect me, but you probably respect him. At this point, you just look petty and seem to be figuratively stomping your feet and yelling, "but I'm right!"

Agreed. Thanks RCD. Always the voice of reason.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could have all been avoided by a good old fashioned apology from Mike. After all, he accused Greg of wrongly attributing a statement to Armstrong which was subsequently confirmed as accurate. Where is the apology? This forum now seems to have a well-established Harvey/Lee Mafia that will not have people pricking its fantasy. Like a cosy little club of those who are truly 'in the know' ...yet this must be the umpteenth time now where one of its proponents has had to be put straight on the details of the book. Without doubt this theory has all the hallmarks of a cult. And like all cults it will never have the honesty to take an objective step back and where neccessary re-evaluate. It's all or nothing!

For those of you believe in evolution ask yourself whether you've ever read Darwin's Origin of the Species. For those who don't...the same question. For those who don't believe in the bible: have you read it cover to cover? Would you need to? Who on this forum doesn't believe the Warren Commission? Have you read all 26 volumes? Because if not, maybe that's why you think Oswald is innocent... Getting a bit sick of that tacky logic now. You put your wares on the table...the shiniest ones you've got...and they don't sell. More, when punters start inspecting them closer and PROVE they are counterfeit you scream we should see all the good stuff you have in your warehouse!!! And when that tacky tactic fails you gang up and push the punter away from the stall.

Personally I'm glad Greg is leaving. I have seen the quality of this forum nose dive over the last few years and hardly anything of any consequence comes from it but endless bitching and blatant one-sided moderating. Greg and a few others on here should re-evaluate whether your efforts are being squandered in this constant bun fight against well entrenched, well organised 'spoilers' (and that includes the H/L supporters)!

I too would like to hand in my membership and request that a moderator contact me so that can be arranged.

Best regards,

Bernie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg; please take a step back, a deep breath, and let it go, you have shown in the past and present what a great researcher you are, nothing more need be said, in reference to such, we all from time to time, get fed up and cantankerous and dig in our heels, but to leave for such a reason, is imo, unreasonable on your part, though i can see the why you are upset and fedup, none of us are perfect, the differences in what we each believe should not be allowed to rule the roost, imo, you have always known, i believe in parts the Harvey and Lee info, that difference should be allowed and not for some reason be allowed to colour others feelings about such and such a member, i do not see a cult, and never have,and really their are i believe so few of us, the subject has ,mainly been brought up by you, on this forum, not the other way around, and i know that i and some have always enjoyed your research within, and to me the accusation of a cult has always made the accuser appear somewhat feeble,there have always been and will always be differences within the research community, that imo has been accepted many years ago, but does not make those differences into being most important because they are not, they are simply, one person's beliefs in a difference of opinion,, no matter what the subject..Never let that difference become so great that it rules your feelings and self actions, jfk is dead and nothing, no differences nor agreements within the research are ever going to bring him back....learn to walk away Greg, for your own sake and the sake of your health now and in the future,..from whatever differences occur in your life , no matter what....i wish you all the best, whatever you have or will decide,i wish you and your family good health, good luck and a good life and God's love, and caring.......best b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Mike has made it clear he has no intentions of accepting any olive branches from me, the only way this is ending is for me to end my membership here, because while Mike won't accept an olive branch - I won't accept being bullied, lied about, or having to continue to battle straw arguments and Howdy Doody lectures from moderators determined to skew everything I say.

To John Simkin, over the next fortnight or so, I intend saving posts of mine that I want to keep before I start editing out all my content. When I'm done, I will let you know. At that point, please delete my membership and remove my biography.

Greg I'm one of the few people who is supportive of you over this but even I think you need to chill, let it drop. Every one know you don't believe Armstrong's theory and think he was a fraud. We get it move on.

And this time you reignited the dust up with Mike so playing the victim doesn't wash. But let's assume you are right and Mr. Hogan is a bully wouldn't disappearing from the EF be letting him win? At exactly would the point be of deleting your posts. You must have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours writing and researching them. Deleting your posts would be a gift to backers of the "Harvey and Lee" nonsense.

seconded

I agree.

Fourthed by me, this is Fred Colby, the "other" Colby, Len is letting me use his account

But seriously now Greg we've had some good debates, the Darwin bombings, John Pic, Marina's dental filling, the 11/63 U2 shoot down etc. you were always pretty civil but for some reason you blow a gasket over the Harvey and Lee (and now Fred and Len) nonsense. Unless someone else gives it a hard push let it drop. And even if someone does don't get so worked up.

Fred and Len

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...