Armstrong on Oswald's Employment at Tujagues

[Jack White]

QUOTE

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

UNQUOTE

This is an inexcusable slur on the honesty of both John Armstrong and Jack White! An apology is in order.

There was NO conflict of interest. John found and interviewed Frank Kudlaty without my knowledge. John

was unaware that more than 50 years previously Frank Kudlaty and I attended the same university.

Frank was on the basketball team. We only had a nodding relationship. I was in some classes with his

girlfriend and knew her quite well as we were both on the annual staff. She is now deceased, I think.

I think Frank was in student government, and had a high reputation. I have MADE NO CONFLICTING

STATEMENTS about him. He was unaware of my interest in JFK research. I talked with him for the

first time in more than 50 years at our class 50th reunion. This occurred AFTER John had interviewed

him, and this was the first he knew of my connection to John. To imply that there was some sort of

interference by me in what he said is totally absurd. The fact that I knew someone 50+ years ago

is irrelevant, and no mention was made of it BECAUSE it is irrelevant. I stand by my statement about

his integrity, since he rose to the position of Superintendent of Schools for Waco, and was one of

ten outstanding educators chosen to make a trip to China.

This slur on the reputation of John and me is not excusable. I have not "utterly refused" to admit to

conflicting statements because there are none, unless in your mind.

Jack

Edited April 21, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

You are correct. I have not followed the thread. I do not mean to cast stones and hide behind anything. If I came across that way, I apologize. I have viewed a number of John's witnesses. I have tried to be clear that I don't agree with everything about John, some evidence I was not impressed by, but there were other things I found extremely interesting and important. I try to glance at a number of threads and sometimes it is easy to look at something out of context and perhaps make an observation that doesn't fit. Perhaps that is the case here. I have caught a lot of stones and I try to be very careful when throwing them,

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, your apology is accepted. Your carefully-crafted lawyerly response is not.

[Doug Weldon]

Greg:

You are correct. I have not followed the thread. I do not mean to cast stones and hide behind anything. If I came across that way, I apologize. I have viewed a number of John's witnesses. I have tried to be clear that I don't agree with everything about John, some evidence I was not impressed by, but there were other things I found extremely interesting and important. I try to glance at a number of threads and sometimes it is easy to look at something out of context and perhaps make an observation that doesn't fit. Perhaps that is the case here. I have caught a lot of stones and I try to be very careful when throwing them,

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, your apology is accepted. Your carefully-crafted lawyerly response is not.

Greg:

i have been called worse than a lawyer. On second thought, I guess I haven't.

Best,

Doug

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

However it fits I was impressed by Kudlaty.

Well, that's peachy. I'm sure he's an impressive individual. But again, his credibility is not the issue, no matter how hard you or Jack try to make that the focus.

If you know Jack his principles are very high.

I don't know Jack, but I readily recognise sh*t when I see it.

Again, I will try and read the whole post.

Thank you.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Parker]

QUOTE

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

UNQUOTE

This is an inexcusable slur on the honesty of both John Armstrong and Jack White!

I don't think so. The conflict of interest is transparently obvious. Doug knows it is which is why he won't go there.

An apology is in order.

Yes. But somehow, based on past experience with you, I don't think you'll make it.

There was NO conflict of interest. John found and interviewed Frank Kudlaty without my knowledge.

Well then who was the "we" in this quote from Jim Marrs to the ARRB:

"However, just very recently we located and spoke with a Mr. Frank Kudlaty who now lives in Waco just south of here."

John was unaware that more than 50 years previously Frank Kudlaty and I attended the same university.

That is not the issue and is therefore not part of the dispute.

Frank was on the basketball team. We only had a nodding relationship. I was in some classes with his

girlfriend and knew her quite well as we were both on the annual staff. She is now deceased, I think.

This most definitely IS in dispute. Here are your original words made in 2007 on this board:

"Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when

he was a college classmate."

I think Frank was in student government, and had a high reputation. I have MADE NO CONFLICTING

STATEMENTS about him. He was unaware of my interest in JFK research. I talked with him for the

first time in more than 50 years at our class 50th reunion. This occurred AFTER John had interviewed

him, and this was the first he knew of my connection to John. To imply that there was some sort of

interference by me in what he said is totally absurd.

I'm not implying anything. I am stating as a fact that there was an undeclared conflict of interest.

The fact that I knew someone 50+ years ago is irrelevant, and no mention was made of it BECAUSE it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? You were the one who invoked your 50 year friendship with him as a means of verifying his credibility - a friendship you quickly re categorized as a mere acquaintanceship with a 50 year gap when you realized the problem that friendship created. It's a neat trick to be able to verify the credibility and honesty of a nodding acquaintence unseen for 50 years, but that was the ludicrous position in which you placed yourself.

I stand by my statement about his integrity, since he rose to the position of Superintendent of Schools for Waco, and was one of

ten outstanding educators chosen to make a trip to China.

Again, not the issue. In any case, by this reasoning, Judyth was an outstanding student chosen to attend a science fair, so her integrity must also be beyond dispute.

This slur on the reputation of John and me is not excusable. I have not "utterly refused" to admit to

conflicting statements because there are none, unless in your mind.

They are there for all to see, Jack. I honestly wish it were not so, but you brought this on yourself back in 2007 by stalking my every post with your "Harvey & Lee" sales pitch.

Jack

[Jack White]

QUOTE

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements.

UNQUOTE

This is an inexcusable slur on the honesty of both John Armstrong and Jack White!

I don't think so. The conflict of interest is transparently obvious. Doug knows it is which is why he won't go there.

An apology is in order.

Yes. But somehow, based on past experience with you, I don't think you'll make it.

There was NO conflict of interest. John found and interviewed Frank Kudlaty without my knowledge.

Well then who was the "we" in this quote from Jim Marrs to the ARRB:

"However, just very recently we located and spoke with a Mr. Frank Kudlaty who now lives in Waco just south of here."

John was unaware that more than 50 years previously Frank Kudlaty and I attended the same university.

That is not the issue and is therefore not part of the dispute.

Frank was on the basketball team. We only had a nodding relationship. I was in some classes with his

girlfriend and knew her quite well as we were both on the annual staff. She is now deceased, I think.

This most definitely IS in dispute. Here are your original words made in 2007 on this board:

"Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when

he was a college classmate."

I think Frank was in student government, and had a high reputation. I have MADE NO CONFLICTING

STATEMENTS about him. He was unaware of my interest in JFK research. I talked with him for the

first time in more than 50 years at our class 50th reunion. This occurred AFTER John had interviewed

him, and this was the first he knew of my connection to John. To imply that there was some sort of

interference by me in what he said is totally absurd.

I'm not implying anything. I am stating as a fact that there was an undeclared conflict of interest.

The fact that I knew someone 50+ years ago is irrelevant, and no mention was made of it BECAUSE it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? You were the one who invoked your 50 year friendship with him as a means of verifying his credibility - a friendship you quickly re categorized as a mere acquaintanceship with a 50 year gap when you realized the problem that friendship created. It's a neat trick to be able to verify the credibility and honesty of a nodding acquaintence unseen for 50 years, but that was the ludicrous position in which you placed yourself.

I stand by my statement about his integrity, since he rose to the position of Superintendent of Schools for Waco, and was one of

ten outstanding educators chosen to make a trip to China.

Again, not the issue. In any case, by this reasoning, Judyth was an outstanding student chosen to attend a science fair, so her integrity must also be beyond dispute.

This slur on the reputation of John and me is not excusable. I have not "utterly refused" to admit to

conflicting statements because there are none, unless in your mind.

They are there for all to see, Jack. I honestly wish it were not so, but you brought this on yourself back in 2007 by stalking my every post with your "Harvey & Lee" sales pitch.

Jack

You are full of ......it.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

You are full of ......it.

Jack

Jack, that hurts.

Look, as an olive branch, if you ever come to Australia, I promise to personally make sure you are not attacked by drop bears. Fair enough? But if I somehow get delayed in meeting you, the proper way to detect a drop bear, is to lie down under a tree and spit straight up in the air. If one is sleeping in that tree, he will wake up, and spit back at you. It's also wise to rub vegemite behind your ears, if you are in drop bear territory. It acts as a deterrent. Toothpaste works as well.

Here's one in action http://www.kadaitcha.com/wp-content/upload...0/dropbear1.jpg You don't want one of those bad boys dropping on you, believe me!

Okay, now that we've made up in a civilized fashion, maybe some of the issues raised can finally be addressed?

1. Who was the "we" mentioned by Jim Marrs to the ARRB who found and videotaped Mr Kudlaty?

2. According to Armstrong, the statements of Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956 and that their recollections represent the best available evidence for the length of time Oswald was at Tujugue's.

Robert Oswald did suggest Oswald was working there in July, 1955. He did not suggest any particular end date. He did get other things wrong.

Lillian Murret merely took a cue from Jenner that Oswald was working there in 1955 - no month to go with that, and no end date provided, so based solely on that, her testimony fits the official version just as well as Armstrong's.

3. According to Armstrong, DiBenetto described Oswald as "well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair." Armstrong also described DiBenetto as Oswald's supervisor - which makes it sound like he worked closely with Oswald and would therefore remember him fairly well. However, DiBenetto told the FBI back at the time that he had no contact with Oswald in or outside of work http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=12

4. Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=15

5. From the "Palmer McBride" thread:

Paul Fiorello remembered Oswald working at the dental lab for "not more than" a few months in early '56.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=21

Lionel Slater remembered Oswald working at the dental lab for "several weeks" in '56.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=22

John Ulmer remembered a person who looked like the person in the photo shown him by the FBI as having worked at the dental lab for a few weeks in 1956.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=29

On top of this is the sheer number of people who did not recall Oswald as working there at all (go through the above document and count them!) This is exactly what would be expected if he only worked there a short period about 7 or 8 years previous. To put it another way, if he had worked there for the amount of time stated by McBride, you would expect far more than just 3 or 4 people to recall him.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

You are full of ......it.

Jack

Jack, that hurts.

Look, as an olive branch, if you ever come to Australia, I promise to personally make sure you are not attacked by drop bears. Fair enough? But if I somehow get delayed in meeting you, the proper way to detect a drop bear, is to lie down under a tree and spit straight up in the air. If one is sleeping in that tree, he will wake up, and spit back at you. It's also wise to rub vegemite behind your ears, if you are in drop bear territory. It acts as a deterrent. Toothpaste works as well.

Here's one in action http://www.kadaitcha.com/wp-content/upload...0/dropbear1.jpg You don't want one of those bad boys dropping on you, believe me!

Okay, now that we've made up in a civilized fashion, maybe some of the issues raised can finally be addressed?

1. Who was the "we" mentioned by Jim Marrs to the ARRB who found and videotaped Mr Kudlaty?

2. According to Armstrong, the statements of Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956 and that their recollections represent the best available evidence for the length of time Oswald was at Tujugue's.

Robert Oswald did suggest Oswald was working there in July, 1955. He did not suggest any particular end date. He did get other things wrong.

Lillian Murret merely took a cue from Jenner that Oswald was working there in 1955 - no month to go with that, and no end date provided, so based solely on that, her testimony fits the official version just as well as Armstrong's.

3. According to Armstrong, DiBenetto described Oswald as "well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair." Armstrong also described DiBenetto as Oswald's supervisor - which makes it sound like he worked closely with Oswald and would therefore remember him fairly well. However, DiBenetto told the FBI back at the time that he had no contact with Oswald in or outside of work http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=12

4. Armstrong claims there is no other evidence showing when Oswald worked at Tujague's, apart from the words of the people mentioned above, yet there is such evidence. A tax form was found at the JR Michels Co located at the same address as Tujague's which showed he started work with them on Feb 17, 1956. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=15

5. From the "Palmer McBride" thread:

Paul Fiorello remembered Oswald working at the dental lab for "not more than" a few months in early '56.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=21

Lionel Slater remembered Oswald working at the dental lab for "several weeks" in '56.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=22

John Ulmer remembered a person who looked like the person in the photo shown him by the FBI as having worked at the dental lab for a few weeks in 1956.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=29

On top of this is the sheer number of people who did not recall Oswald as working there at all (go through the above document and count them!) This is exactly what would be expected if he only worked there a short period about 7 or 8 years previous. To put it another way, if he had worked there for the amount of time stated by McBride, you would expect far more than just 3 or 4 people to recall him.

To all of Armstrong's supporters,

some of you have recently, and properly (not to mention repeatedly), asked others to substantiate their claims with evidence. Yet, as the above clearly demonstrates, Armstrong is given a free pass to twist, spindle and otherwise mutilate the vidence in whichever fashion suits his theory.

The double standard is breath-taking.

But I'm nothing if not a believer in the capacity of individuals to redeem themselves.

So here's another chance.

And to Doug, I note you are all too happy to offer an opinion on whether a murder has been committed. Surely an opinion on whether Jack and Kudlaty's undeclared 50 year friendship created a conflict of interest for Armstrong should be a snap.

[Greg Parker]

Jack White quote from April 26, 2010:

"memories from years ago are very weak evidence."

Jack White quote today:

John Armstrong relied heavily on PRIMARY RESEARCH in writing his heavily footnoted book, citing each of his sources. He relied heavily on interviewing of witnesses.

And those witnesses had.... "memories from years ago...."

Okay. I shouldn't laugh. It's actually just f8**& sad.

Not to mention destructive of efforts to get this case taken seriously.

[Jack White]

You are quoting me out of context...sad.

Of course memories from May 2, 1970 would be rather meaningless, unless that was a SPECIAL DAY TO YOU.

Memories from NOVEMBER 22, 1963 are CRYSTAL CLEAR, as if it was just yesterday. I can tell you exactly

what I was doing from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., who I was with, what we were doing, where we were, what I had

for lunch, exactly what I was doing at the exact moment JFK was shot, when and how we first learned of

the shooting, and what I did afterward...and be 100 percent accurate. And that is NOT UNIQUE. Everyone's

memory of that day is likely as sharp as mine if they were alive then. I will be glad to recite to everyone

how I spent every minute for two hours on November 22, 1963...if anyone is interested.

Equally memorable, of course, would be Frank Kudlaty's memory of the morning of November 23, when he

was asked to meet two FBI agents at Stripling Junior High School, where he was vice principal, and turn over

to them the schools records of Lee Harvey Oswald, a Stripling student. That was NOT an everyday event.

Also equally memorable would be Franchetta Schubert immediately recognizing LHO on television November 22

as one of her fellow classmates at Stripling, and how he went home for lunch across the street from the

school. The EVENTS OF NOVEMBER 22 WERE MEMORABLE. Your attempts to impeach Armstrong, me, Kudlaty

and other witnesses about that memorable day are.........sad. I would say more about your attempts to smear

Armstrong and me, but forum rules prohibit such language.

Jack

Jack White quote from April 26, 2010:

"memories from years ago are very weak evidence."

Jack White quote today:

John Armstrong relied heavily on PRIMARY RESEARCH in writing his heavily footnoted book, citing each of his sources. He relied heavily on interviewing of witnesses.

And those witnesses had.... "memories from years ago...."

Okay. I shouldn't laugh. It's actually just f8**& sad.

Not to mention destructive of efforts to get this case taken seriously.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Parker]

You are quoting me out of context...sad.

Didn't need to be Nostradamus to see that coming.

Here is the full quote:

It is naive to speculate about "the other Judyth Vary Baker". The only evidence of this relies

on the memory of Ed Haslam. While his memory may be accurate, it is possible that he

misremembered the precise name or occasion; in any event, memories from years ago

are very weak evidence.

You were discussing a specific memory and ended with a GENERAL comment about old memories to buttress your conclusion about the specific memory.

Now you are trying to add meaning and context that were not present in the original message.

Of course memories from May 2, 1970 would be rather meaningless, unless that was a SPECIAL DAY TO YOU.

Memories from NOVEMBER 22, 1963 are CRYSTAL CLEAR, as if it was just yesterday. I can tell you exactly

what I was doing from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., who I was with, what we were doing, where we were, what I had

for lunch, exactly what I was doing at the exact moment JFK was shot, when and how we first learned of

the shooting, and what I did afterward...and be 100 percent accurate. And that is NOT UNIQUE. Everyone's

memory of that day is likely as sharp as mine if they were alive then. I will be glad to recite to everyone

how I spent every minute for two hours on November 22, 1963...if anyone is interested.

Equally memorable, of course, would be Frank Kudlaty's memory of the morning of November 23, when he

was asked to meet two FBI agents at Stripling Junior High School, where he was vice principal, and turn over

to them the schools records of Lee Harvey Oswald, a Stripling student. That was NOT an everyday event.

Also equally memorable would be Franchetta Schubert immediately recognizing LHO on television November 22

as one of her fellow classmates at Stripling, and how he went home for lunch across the street from the

school. The EVENTS OF NOVEMBER 22 WERE MEMORABLE.

I got it long ago, Jack. If you are an Armstrong witness, old memories are infallible primary evidence and if you're not an Armstrong witness, you may get a pass mark for old memories if your evidence is Armstrong neutral. If however, your evidence may possibly clash with Armstrong's theory, then your comment "memories from years ago are very weak evidence" kicks in.

Your attempts to impeach Armstrong, me, Kudlaty

and other witnesses about that memorable day are.........sad. I would say more about your attempts to smear

Armstrong and me, but forum rules prohibit such language.

Not trying to impeach you, Jack. Trying to ENGAGE you. In a discussion. On the evidence. The evidence that I have outlined here in this and other threads concerning Oswald's New Orleans employment.

I have also been trying to get Doug to run his legal mind over your undeclared friendship with Kudlaty for an opinion on whether that created a conflict of interest, and for someone to own up to who found and interviewed Kudlaty because you have told me previously it was Armstrong (which I took to mean Armstrong and Armstrong alone) , while Jim Marrs indicated "we" found him when he gave evidence before the ARRB.

Why won't Doug answer? And why won't you talk directly to the evidence I have posted in this thread?

I don't care what you call me. Just address the evidence.

Jack

Edited May 3, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Jack White]

Having known Kudlaty briefly in 1949 and not having seen him for more than 50 years IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When John Armstrong found and videotaped Kudlaty many years later John was unaware that I had known Kudlaty in 1949,

so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When Kudlaty was interviewed by John, Kudlaty was unaware that in the intervening 50 years I had become interested in

the JFK case, so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Because Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that) IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

In your eagerness to pursue your agenda "to get Jack" you are grasping at straws. It is very transparent.

Jack

You are quoting me out of context...sad.

Didn't need to be Nostradamus to see that coming.

Here is the full quote:

It is naive to speculate about "the other Judyth Vary Baker". The only evidence of this relies

on the memory of Ed Haslam. While his memory may be accurate, it is possible that he

misremembered the precise name or occasion; in any event, memories from years ago

are very weak evidence.

You were discussing a specific memory and ended with a GENERAL comment about old memories to buttress your conclusion about the specific memory.

Now you are trying to add meaning and context that were not present in the original message.

Of course memories from May 2, 1970 would be rather meaningless, unless that was a SPECIAL DAY TO YOU.

Memories from NOVEMBER 22, 1963 are CRYSTAL CLEAR, as if it was just yesterday. I can tell you exactly

what I was doing from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., who I was with, what we were doing, where we were, what I had

for lunch, exactly what I was doing at the exact moment JFK was shot, when and how we first learned of

the shooting, and what I did afterward...and be 100 percent accurate. And that is NOT UNIQUE. Everyone's

memory of that day is likely as sharp as mine if they were alive then. I will be glad to recite to everyone

how I spent every minute for two hours on November 22, 1963...if anyone is interested.

Equally memorable, of course, would be Frank Kudlaty's memory of the morning of November 23, when he

was asked to meet two FBI agents at Stripling Junior High School, where he was vice principal, and turn over

to them the schools records of Lee Harvey Oswald, a Stripling student. That was NOT an everyday event.

Also equally memorable would be Franchetta Schubert immediately recognizing LHO on television November 22

as one of her fellow classmates at Stripling, and how he went home for lunch across the street from the

school. The EVENTS OF NOVEMBER 22 WERE MEMORABLE.

I got it long ago, Jack. If you are an Armstrong witness, old memories are infallible primary evidence and if you're not an Armstrong witness, you may get a pass mark for old memories if your evidence is Armstrong neutral. If however, your evidence may possibly clash with Armstrong's theory, then your comment "memories from years ago are very weak evidence" kicks in.

Your attempts to impeach Armstrong, me, Kudlaty

and other witnesses about that memorable day are.........sad. I would say more about your attempts to smear

Armstrong and me, but forum rules prohibit such language.

Not trying to impeach you, Jack. Trying to ENGAGE you. In a discussion. On the evidence. The evidence that I have outlined here in this and other threads concerning Oswald's New Orleans employment.

I have also been trying to get Doug to run his legal mind over your undeclared friendship with Kudlaty for an opinion on whether that created a conflict of interest, and for someone to own up to who found and interviewed Kudlaty because you have told me previously it was Armstrong (which I took to mean Armstrong and Armstrong alone) , while Jim Marrs indicated "we" found him when he gave evidence before the ARRB.

Why won't Doug answer? And why won't you talk directly to the evidence I have posted in this thread?

I don't care what you call me. Just address the evidence.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

Having known Kudlaty briefly in 1949 and not having seen him for more than 50 years IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When John Armstrong found and videotaped Kudlaty many years later John was unaware that I had known Kudlaty in 1949,

so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When Kudlaty was interviewed by John, Kudlaty was unaware that in the intervening 50 years I had become interested in

the JFK case, so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Because Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that) IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

So you are now admitting that when you said: "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." it was a blatant and desperate lie designed solely for the purpose of being able to vouch for Kudlaty's honesty from the point of view of a longstanding friendship?

And I note your avoidance of the question as to who else was involved in "finding" and interviewing Kudlaty (the "we" referred to by Jim Marrs).

In your eagerness to pursue your agenda "to get Jack" you are grasping at straws. It is very transparent.

You brought this on yourself, Jack, when you continued to hijack my threads with the Harvey and Lee crap long after being asked to cease doing it. In continuing with your sales pitches, you put your foot in it with Kudlaty. So no, I'm not out to "get you". Just make you accountable for your own words, and to, as I have already said, engage you in the debate on the evidence that you actually asked for.

Your avoidance of that is also noted, as are your attempts to deflect from it with your allegations. Transparent? That would be you, Jack.

As for your mate, Doug, he invited himself into this thread dispensing advice based on a false assumption, but as soon as he realised what he was really getting into was a dispute over a conflict of interest, he disappeared quicker than Dolamite at a Klan rally. Some support you got there!

Jack

[Jack White]

I do not admit anything. Your attacks are transparent. "Get Jack" is your motive. This has gone on for years with others. Now you.

Jim Marrs' use of "we" apparently referred to Armstrong...a generic "we" as in "we know that JFK was killed in Dallas".

No threads on this forum are private, proprietary, or owned by the originator. All members are free to post on any thread.

Who is my "mate" Doug? My only mate is my wife Sue.

Your attacks are without merit.

Having known Kudlaty briefly in 1949 and not having seen him for more than 50 years IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When John Armstrong found and videotaped Kudlaty many years later John was unaware that I had known Kudlaty in 1949,

so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When Kudlaty was interviewed by John, Kudlaty was unaware that in the intervening 50 years I had become interested in

the JFK case, so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Because Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that) IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

So you are now admitting that when you said: "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." it was a blatant and desperate lie designed solely for the purpose of being able to vouch for Kudlaty's honesty from the point of view of a longstanding friendship?

And I note your avoidance of the question as to who else was involved in "finding" and interviewing Kudlaty (the "we" referred to by Jim Marrs).

In your eagerness to pursue your agenda "to get Jack" you are grasping at straws. It is very transparent.

You brought this on yourself, Jack, when you continued to hijack my threads with the Harvey and Lee crap long after being asked to cease doing it. In continuing with your sales pitches, you put your foot in it with Kudlaty. So no, I'm not out to "get you". Just make you accountable for your own words, and to, as I have already said, engage you in the debate on the evidence that you actually asked for.

Your avoidance of that is also noted, as are your attempts to deflect from it with your allegations. Transparent? That would be you, Jack.

As for your mate, Doug, he invited himself into this thread dispensing advice based on a false assumption, but as soon as he realised what he was really getting into was a dispute over a conflict of interest, he disappeared quicker than Dolamite at a Klan rally. Some support you got there!

Jack

[Greg Parker]

I do not admit anything.

Fact is, Jack, you don't have to. The contrast between these statements:

Having known Kudlaty briefly in 1949 and not having seen him for more than 50 years IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When John Armstrong found and videotaped Kudlaty many years later John was unaware that I had known Kudlaty in 1949,

so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

When Kudlaty was interviewed by John, Kudlaty was unaware that in the intervening 50 years I had become interested in

the JFK case, so that IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Because Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that) IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

and the following statement could not be starker:

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.

Either you lied when you said he "has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate", in which case, your credibility is shredded, or you are lying now

when you say that you only knew "Kudlaty briefly in 1949" and did not see him "for more than 50 years" in which case you credibility is shredded and there was a conflict of interest. The only other option is that you have a huge problem in writing with clarity, but that can be discounted through the evidence provided in your other writings.

Your attacks are transparent. "Get Jack" is your motive. This has gone on for years with others. Now you.

I know you love having people think everyone is out to get you, Jack. But it is your own words that bring you grief. What is transparent is your constant attempts to deflect away from this issues I have raised in this and other threads.

Maybe we could conduct a poll? Who wants to put their credibility on the line by agreeing with Jack that there is no difference between saying you knew someone briefly in 1949 and didn't see them again for 50 years and saying you have been a friend of that person since the '40s when you were classmates and therefore can vouch for their honesty?

Jim Marrs' use of "we" apparently referred to Armstrong...a generic "we" as in "we know that JFK was killed in Dallas".

As in "we" will be happy to believe this if someone will corroborate it?

No threads on this forum are private, proprietary, or owned by the originator. All members are free to post on any thread.

Yay! We agree on something. But what you forget is that there is an expectation placed on the poster to be on topic. "Harvey and Lee" was not the topic of my threads back then and you were asked to start your own threads on that topic if that is what you wanted to discuss. THis and other threads I've started since then ARE on the subject of "Harvey and Lee" but for some reason, you suddenly don't want to discuss that subject.

Who is my "mate" Doug? My only mate is my wife Sue.

Playing dumb now. Okay.

Your attacks are without merit.

They are not attacks, and there is merit in making you, on the one hand, accountable for what you say, and on the other, getting you to discuss the evidence I Have provided which shows Armstrong's theory is built on sand.

Come on. Humor me. We'll take baby steps just one issue at a time. How about we start with this one?

According to Armstrong, DiBenetto described Oswald as "well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair." Armstrong also described DiBenetto as Oswald's supervisor - which makes it sound like he worked closely with Oswald and would therefore remember him fairly well. However, DiBenetto told the FBI back at the time that he had no contact with Oswald in or outside of work http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=12

p.s.

I do find it hard to swallow that you never mentioned to Armstrong prior to the publication of the book that you had known Kudlaty in college. Normal human behaviour would have been to mention it as soon as you learned that Armstrong "found" Kudlaty.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Greg Parker