This is my reply to your latest Deep Foo Rant (DFR).
You have requested education as regards the lunchroom debate, and proceed to admit the non sequitor that you'd like to see a clear picture of Oswald as PrayerMan- which hasn't appeared so that's a bit much for you to swallow.
Clearly Lauren doesn't give a tinkers for the type of research that can actually lead to an outcome and is more at home with the belief that he and the rest of team at the Foo are somehow taking down the "Deep State" with their scintillating analysis.
The "Deep State" is quivering. Unfortunately it's from laughter.
I highly recommend that you read, or re-read, my recent essay Death of the Lunchroom Hoax at jfkinsidejob.com. There you will find a load of information which conclusively refutes the Hoaxers' argument. It was earnestly written and re-written, in order to present for common understanding's sake the double-edged sword of truth to prospective readers, now or 10 years from now.
Here is what you said in February after completing the essay:
"Please give it your careful attention. This will become the standard reference for the lunchroom encounter topic. Every last hoax argument has been refuted. "
You then got clobbered by the first person to read it - one of your own - David Josephs.
What is at stake here is that a tide of phonies- the Murphyites- have sought to impose their belief-system on the JFK research community the past 4 years. And they seek to impose it for the next 10 years. In the main, they are composed of pseudo-scholars with unaddressed substance-abuse issues. And they use Bolshevik tactics- censorship, erasing posts, ad hominem ridicule, relentlessly propagandizing a partial truth or one-sided analysis- in order to falsely present a "consensus" opinion among researchers that PrayerMan was Oswald and the lunchroom incident was hoaxed.
This is Richard's roundabout way of admitting he's got nothing except bluster.
I realized the truth that the lunchroom incident actually happened back in 2010, when The Girl on the Stairs came out. But I did not realize the truth about PrayerMan until 3 winters ago, when I read through the giga-thread at Duncan MacRae's forum and found Albert Doyle's correct analysis- for which he has been subjected to no end of immature abuse.
Ah yes. Mr Doyle, who for years, used his Hitler-loving father's name and on-line accounts to hide behind until his real identity was outed. He has since been banned permanently or temporarily by just about every place one can post because of his rants on his victim-hood and his superior skills. So superior are his skills, he still can't work out how to post media. Still, any port in a storm, eh Richard? I mean, the support of Doyle is better than nothing, right?
I realized Sean Murphy had a serious problem with alcohol abuse in the early pages of that giga-thread. He posted a half-dozen photos from inside a Dublin pub- friends holding Coke bottles and apples- and I recalled the Irish tradesmen I had worked beside 30 years earlier. They were illegals down on Martha's Vineyard. They related to me that it was common practice to begin drinking in the pubs in Ireland at age 12 or 13. (This is before the teenage growth spurt, and their developing brains sustained ethanol-induced damage.)
Wow! In a pub holding a coke + anecdotes of Irish drinking culture = Sean is a drunkard. This is a perfect example of your "skills".
Early-age drinking is also rampant in England and Australia. The defunct Murphy was propped up as a visionary by that Australian ROKC website, whose founder Greg Parker is a 9th-grade dropout who grew up to be a bully drunkard. I'm sure you recall Parker coming over to DPF like a marauding Viking whenever he saw something about John Armstrong's work got posted. I think it was yourself and Dawn Meredith who saw fit to remove Parker's posting privileges from Deep Politics.
How many times do I have to correct you on this. I was 14 when I left school and didn't complete the 8th grade. Also note, I was a late starter to drinking. Didn't buy my first pub beer until I was 15. I did do my best to make up for lost time, though - and guess what? Despite all of that, I'm still a hellova lot smarter than you, dear boy.
But it is your comment about my time at the Foo is telling, Richard. You complain about lack of "peer review" and errors in various works and about how the Foo has rules about not posted anything false. Correcting the many errors in Armstrong's work was what I was doing. You know... for example the false claim that Oswald having tonsils in the USMC proved he was not the real Oswald because the real Oswald had his removed as a kid? If Armstrong has no agenda, he would seek to eliminate mundane solutions to the alleged conundrums he poses. It is the scientific method recommended by 10 out of 10 scientists. And it took me all of one minute to find out that tonsils can and do grow back. It was a false mystery, just like all of the other "mysteries" I debunked. To call the theory unscientific is being kind. But was I thanked for that necessary task? No, I was shown the door, despite the fact that at least some of the bullshit on the Harvey and Lee website was (reluctantly) amended as a result, so it wasn't a total waste of my time.
To make this point short, what is at stake in this Murphy debate is even more than the popularity of belief-systems in the coming decade. This is about sanity vs. insanity, sobriety vs. alcohol-induced delusionalism.
Delusional is claiming someone is a drunk because he is Irish and was once in a pub drinking a coke.
But you used the term"Delusionalism" which is a nihilistic philosophy not applicable to JFK research - though may be applicable to your non-logic claims about Sean.
It doesn't strike me that you are doing much of a job as moderator. And you act like a lackey for Jim DiEugenio. Clear favoritism is extended his way, like a high-school clique, no matter how much baloney he tries to sell, posing as the big-shot demagogue. You and he have helped turn DPF into an extension of ROKC.
A clique? You mean like the Armstrong clique at the Foo who couldn't handle the fact-checking of Armstrong claims that I was doing?
Jim D has tragically misdiagnosed the Murphyite propositions and is destined for a huge embarrassment. Because he's not an abstract thinker- he's not an X's and O's offensive-coordinator style of researcher. He should get the hell out of TSBD research, because he sucks at it. His strength is in foreign policy and media analysis.
I would say the person who sucks at this is the person who concluded that 55 year old janitor, Eddie Piper was the sniper. Who was the person who concluded that, Richard? Wasn't it you?
But you follow after him like a lost puppy. What gives? Did he promise you a Black Op Radio t-shirt?
Do your job, Lauren. Maybe start with a little bit of fact-checking.
Rule of Engagement #1: You will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate...
#13: All members, including DPF moderators and founders, should receive identitical treatment (sic) from the DPF moderators...
And yet all of that is disproven by your own lies and defamation above, and by my own treatment after fact-checking Armstrong claims. the Foo is just another haven for paranoiacs and internet warriors without a clue, parrying at their own shadows.