I don't know why I have experienced some success in finding what no one else has been able to. I've learned not to question the inspiration and the methods that
permit me to achieve unique results. It speaks volumes that my experiences in reaction to what I have presented indicates most book authors do not really care
if they continue to mislead their readers. I can almost understand their motive resulting in confirmation they have higher priorities than truth telling...they have product, ego, and sometimes, financial interests to protect.
However, when you, a book author,
present yourself as a challenger, with supporting evidence, of official narrative, for example, you should at least act appreciative when stronger evidence corrects flaws in what you have published.
Forum posters do not have an understandable excuse for shooting the messenger who corrects what they have posted in forum threads.
It fascinates me that I receive very few requests to find anything, despite my demonstrated ability. Could it be, for example, many who regard themselves as researchers simply do not want to know? I freely share this gift I have been given but there are so few takers. I've come to believe a majority of WCR supporters are
committed to the conclusions in that report above actually wanting to know what happened, and many of those who believe the WCR is fatally flawed or an intended cover up are more committed to belief Oswald was an innocent "patsy" than actually wanting to know what happened.
I offer as an example, the diverse reactions of the late author Leo Damore's researcher, member of this forum Mark O'Blazeny, compared to the reactions to
my research results, of Peter Janney and his friends Douglas Horne and John Simkin. Another example; the proven fact that Jim Garrison deceived author Joan Mellen and the editor of Garrison's autobiography, Oliver Stone's co-screenplay writer, Zachary Sklar, is met by complete indifference of those who I have made aware of Garrison's cover up. Apparently the majority prefers to be entertained much more than they prefer to be more accurately informed.
Example; this month my research resulting in identifying the Southwest Publishing employee described by Geneva Hine ended due to the death of that woman.
I include this to give readers a sense of how I achieve results I present.;
R.I.P. Carol Hughes, on phone, Locked Door @SW Publishing Geneva Hine Described
« on: September 06, 2019,....
I much prefer to take requests for help from sincere truthseekers. I find myself instead revealing that there are very few actual truthseekers, people pursuing the verifiable facts wherever they actually point to. There is no way I know of to construct an OP such as this one without risking coming across to readers as if I am very full of myself. If I could accomplish it in one sentence it would read something like;
I am so frustrated and disappointed there are so many more Janney, Simkin, and DiEugenio types than there are Mark O'Blazeny types.
Peter Janney:
Janney's good friend, Douglas Horne:
Jim DiEugenio, reacting to proven fact Jim Garrison deliberately deceived DiEugenio, himself, Oliver Stone, Zachark Sklar, and Joan Mellen:
.....
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?17025-The-Crimes-of-Quillette&p=126009#post126009
Tom Scully posted 09-01-2019,
Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio
Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.
But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland.....
I am taking the risk it is worth influencing some or most readers of this that I am merely a pompous ass if I am able to influence any number of readers to ask
themselves who they identify with, of the names i have included in the examples in this poorly worded OP and in examples planned but not yet posted in this thread,
Mark O'Blazeny who exhibits the curiousity and comportment of a serious researcher who simply appreciates exposure to newly discovered, verfiable fact, or the many burdened with confirmation bias or 'turf" they indicate a vigorous defense of, truth be damned!