[Ernie.cal]

EM2VN:

Perhaps I misunderstand your point. If you make a statement or conclusion, doesn't that statement or conclusion stand or fall based upon its merits i.e. the factual evidence you present and the way you put facts together to form an argument?

If a reader disagrees with you and has compelling factual evidence to demonstrate that your conclusion is incorrect, doesn't that compelling evidence merit your consideration?

Perhaps I mean something different by "credentials" than you? I am asking FR readers to accept certain statements contained in my postings. However, that information is NOT simply wild surmise, idle chatter, or unsupported personal opinion.

The statements I have made are based upon 20 years of research and the acquisition, by me, of over 200,000 pages of documents in FBI files as well as documents from military intelligence and other sources.

You objected to my information. But you still have not provided ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to indicate what research YOU have done on this topic.

If you cannot or will not specify what research you have done into FBI files or in the private papers of prominent JBS members and officials---then everything you have written thus far is kind of silly, isn't it?

Finally, just as an aside, I have been cited in several books and doctoral dissertations as a source of information. In addition, I have sent material to numerous newspaper reporters as well as organizations who have inquired about my research. However, I do NOT expect anyone to accept anything I write simply because of this--because, frankly, I think it's irrelevant.

Ernie

[em2vn]

Nice sleight of hand but no cigar. What I questioned were you claimed credentials, not your post. It's clear that you have no credentials. Seeking to present the fact that you have been writer's source, as a credential, simply indicates the extremes you will go to fabricate credibility.
Anyone can be a source, valid or not.