http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=1976

I wasn’t very offended by this my reaction was more of pity than anger. Jack’s comments were presumably motivated by his frustration over his “studies” being continuously and humiliatingly debunked by us and others (Josiah “Tink” Thompson, Matthew Lewis and David Greer etc). The fact that the reaction to his offensive comments was positive demonstrated that the members who migrated to the DPF did this forum a great favor ending or curtailing their participation here – one mentally and morally challenged member though Jack’s comment was “funny”.

New members of the DPF (i.e. ones who weren’t members here) fit right in, one advocated cyberstalking:



http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=2235

I didn’t fail to notice this idiot failed to “disclose his location, his telephone number or…his credit card numbers, bank accounts or other traceable info”

Note - "the anniversary" Jack referred to was of the founding of the DPF not 9/11

Sounds like Jack has trouble accepting valid criticism. Perhaps if he didn't make such constant basic errors in all of his "studies" he wouldn't be criticised.

Yes he conflates critiques of his “studies” with personal attacks and frustratingly normally refuses to admit error even when show incontrovertibly to be wrong. One example is study in which he claimed a photo of WTC 6 was taken before the collapse of the North Tower (10:28) but the western faces of several other buildings were in direct sunlight which could only be true if it were taken AFTER solar noon which was at a few minutes before noon on 9/11. He clearly understands the principle because he corrected pointed out that another photo of one of those buildings (7 WTC) must have been taken in the morning because its eastern face was in direct sunlight. Despite has this error pointed out to him a few times he reposted the “study” here and I believe it’s still up on his website. Not surprising then that he prefers the safety of forums like DPF and JFK Research were he is shielded from critique.

Odd that he and his allies seem to be avoiding this thread.

for those nutter-trolls that have a very difficult time wrapping their minds around simple conspiracy: Jack has given you all reason for life. After all, why else would those chase Jack all over the net trashing his comments and results of his studies, then dogging him everywhere he turns? (in severely couched terms of course...)

The nutter-troll family of naysayers has a serious PR, uncorrectable problem, time and evidence. The best shot the nutter-trolls have is to rally false bravado and diversion then hope for the best....

Methinks Jack understands he's an easy mark for anti-conspiracy fools, everywhere. Yet, he persists.... Sounds like a believer and a patriot to me. Unlike those both IN (which I find ludicrious) and out of uniform one finds hiding on the sidelines here....

Forgive this CTer for coming to a conclusion, it's simple minded enough that even the truest nutter-trolls can comprehend, ya see (and here's a simple question for them to answer): where do any of these latter-day nutter-trolls appear in public voicing their concerns concerning Jack Whites findings? Surely media outlets somewhere would listen to them. Yet the best they can do is the Education Forum and troll the internet? No videotape presentations, no university/college public appearances debating these issues.... no television program discussion, what's with these folks, camera shy?

Ya see folks, nutter-trolls KNOW they can't defeat the steamroller called common sense-evidence AND time, so character assassination is all that's left (well, a liberal amount of newsgroup disinfo too).

Comparing DP and the Ed Forum, reminds me of the COPA/Lancer debate of yore? So, simply sniff out those individuals most criticized by the prevailing nutter-troll internet windbags, they usually send nutter-trolls agog. Checkout those internet boards depending on donations rather than advertising -- that's ALWAYS a good place to start...

p.s. ya guys need to grow up, I doubt there is anyone, more criticized on JFK assassination related internet boards than Jack White, well, Gary Mack ranks right up there -- and also imagine, both those guys were JFK assassination research partners at one time.... (it's a conspiracy I tell ya).

Best to save contempt for the alt.conspiracy.jfk board, elite nutter-trolls get thrashed there on a regular basis, including that notorious internet nutter-troll composite David Von Pein.... The place is also known for uncovering longtime thought CT's (through newsgroup debate) that aren't really CTer's... yet, they to soldier on to this day living ultimate lone nut lie[/b].

And for the English speakers amongst us???

settle down there Andy, you have enough to deal with considering ya can't even fix that shank in your golf shot -- so how can you understand the conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States? Sheeeesh laddie!

Nice piece, David...but it is hardly worth the effort any more. The EF is going...going...almost gone. Dead.

Killed by Colby Brasil, Burton and Lamson...and lately Walker. Some of the postings are three or four days
apart, and few are left who want to read them. I check once a day, looking for something worthwhile. Few good
researchers contribute any more. Nobody wants to read the rants of the former or behold the irrelevance
of the latter on subjects under discussion. Their mission complete, some of these likely will move on to
other more active websites after getting new assignments.

Too bad. In the beginning the forum had such promise. Please inform us when the funeral will be held.

Jack

Sounds paranoid as usual. Ever find any proof of these "assignments"? Or does it just include anyone who would dare question you?

Now now Davie, got your panties all in a bunch again I see, trying to defend the indefenceable...talk about a PR problem. Heck you best and brightest ( wow, I think that might leave ol Jack out) are hiding under a rock afraid to show thier faces and deal with ...now how did you put it..."common sense-evidence".

Simple, unimpeachable,"common sense" evidence that is easily repeated....and instanty destroys the creds of your best and brightest (or whatever LOL!).

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Read em and weep davie and then bluster a bit more, it's the ONLY game you have left....

Good post. Sad but true.....

Did it ever occur to you they was good reason for that? Namely that his “studies” are so full of basic flaws they invite rebuttal, like him you conflating attack his “studies” with personal attacks on him.



All over the net? AFAIK this is the only forum Jack ever participated in were he was likely to face criticism.

Yet, he persists.... Sounds like a believer and a patriot to me. Unlike those both IN (which I find ludicrious) and out of uniform one finds hiding on the sidelines here....



Why would you expect debunkings of Jack’s "studies" to get so much more prominence than the studies themselves, what’s the last time any of them were presented on video or at college campuses?




You have to forgive David, though he grew up in Boston his parents were from Gibber and they spoke the local dialect at home so English isn’t his first language






Once again we see that despite Jack and his supporters’ claims to the contrary it is they who level personal attacks against his critics rather than the other way around. Disgracefully a moderator who is supposed to police against such attacks endorses them.

Repeated for those 'arsonists' who also try to yell 'fire' to make for more (and more immediate) chaos/dissension....in this case character assassination at most all posters on this thread who don't buy their 'premise'. As for the attack 'sans nom', there are other moderators who also do/did not react, as it is not beyond the rules - and more to the point the accuser is one of the [IMO] biggest attackers on this Forum - often very cleverly, but not well disguised; plus usually start the attacks or irritation to conger-up a response attack (i.e. provoke one), rather than just respond/react to facts and events - despite the guise of doing so, IMO. This very thread and its ilk by the same poster follow a pattern some can discern. A very disturbing pattern indeed: causing dissension and throwing fuel on the fire. One could easily start to believe that is not just a coincidence nor personality fluke.

Whats good about it? Oh yea... nothing. More clap trap and back slapping. I posted three links to some very simple experimental emprical evidence that shows without a doubt the intellectual dishonesty of the so call "cream of the CT world". Can you refute it or will you respond with your stock in trade ad hom?

"common sense-evidence"...can you refute it or will you declare the authors of the original work wrong?

Acj, years ago, had some good debates. Now, it is one of the most vile newsgroups I've ever seen.


"Uncovering longtime CT's that aren't really CTers?"

The only thing exposed over there is who has the more vulgar mouth, and all that does it make the poster look bad.

I have no idea why someone would want to lower themselves like that.




Kathy

What complete BS the only cases of "character assassination" were committed by Jack and David.

I request that Mr, Lemkin as moderator provide examples of others engaging in that practice here or withdraw his accusation. That would be the honorable thing to do but some how I doubt he will due either.

I like the title of this thread. Makes good sense to me.
If people keep replying, we can get the message to stay atop the board for a long time.
Thanks.

Jack

[sarcasm]Yes..it does speak so highly of you and your loony friends over at the Deep Paranoia Forum. [/sarcasm]

BTW, mr. "photo expert" ever find a way to drag Costella out from under his rock down in OZ, where he crawled after these were published?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamsoncom/costella2.htm

Silly me...heck you can't dig YOURSELF out from under this...

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

The fact that you’re proud of your disgraceful statement shows that your “moral compass” is even more defective than your ability to understand photographic images. Speaking of which you’ve yet to explain how a photo in which the western faces of building are in direct sunlight could have been taken before 10:28 AM when solar noon was at 12:58 PM. I’ve pointed this error out to you several times but you continue to post it and you claim to admit error and make corrections when proven to be wrong. It just goes to shows you can’t be taken at your word.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=14642&hl=

I agree we should keep this thread "atop the board for a long time" nothing that anyone else could say about you puts you and your buddies at the DPF (who approved) in such a bad light.

Sounds even worse than the DPF, however unlike the latter it sounds like it allows opposing viewpoints.

at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why troll cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple! Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-troll, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl....

btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-troll idea?

Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Could I have a translation please??

at acj it's a known fact CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why troll cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple!

Translation: Mr. Healy asserts that it seems to be the case ("it's a known fact") that certain persons who believe in conspiracies (CTs, conspiracy theorists) routinely win arguments with people whom Mr. Healy doesn't like ("lone nut-trolls") at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup website (acj). And further, that this is the reason people Mr. Healy doesn't like ("troll cowards") stay away from that newsgroup, adding that they don't know the evidence (of conspiracy) and can't debate that evidence. He emphasizes that this is obvious to anyone ("pure and simple!").


Evidently, Ms. Becket seems is under the sophomoric impression that vulgar mouths, tough attitudes have no place in today's society? Yet trashing lone nutter-troll, disinformation deweebs is beyond the pale? Hang tough at Lancer, girl....

Translation: Mr. Healy questions why Ms. Becket(t) thinks it is inappropriate to have vulgarity and bad manners in public discussions wherein people whom Mr. Healy doesn't like ("lone nutter-troll, disinformation deweebs") are "given hell" or "trashed." (And/or why she would think vulgarity and bad manners are inappropriate in society in general?) Mr. Healy seems to take this as a naive attitude on Ms. Becket(t)'s part, and suggests that she is more comfortable in the presumably more genteel atmosphere of the JFKLancer Forum.


btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-troll idea?

Translation: Mr. Healy asks parenthetically why someone would think the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup site is a place for debate. Apparently this is a misunderstanding of what that site is for; and apparently Ms. Becket(t) is a foolish, naive, nutter-troll herself for thinking it was.


Being passed over at DPF really has your bean out of joint, doesn't it? Have your professional talents gone to waste? What do you think Redd Foxx would have to say 'bout that?

Translation: It seems Mr. Healy either has information that Ms. Becket(t) applied for and was turned down for membership at the Deep Political Farum, or that he is making an assumption that this occurred. He feels that this is a cause of consternation and envy for Ms. Becket(t) ("your bean out of joint"), and suggests that she is now afraid not being able to be a member there means either that she will not be able to rub elbows with the finest top researchers on earth, or alternatively that she will not be able to practice her intelligence agency tradecraft (presumably in spreading "lone-nutter" disinformation?). Mr. Healy then enigmatically asks what a man who's been dead for some time would say about this situation; presumably this is some obscure allusion to the comedian Redd Foxx as having a foul mouth?


This post has been edited by David G. Healy: Today, 08:47 AM

Translation: It seems that Mr. Healy had some reason to edit his post.


Glossary item: lone nut-trolls/lone nutter-trolls/etc = people who don't agree with all conspiracy beliefs held by David Healy, or alternatively just people he doesn't like

btw, who said ACJ was for debate? Such a foolish, naive, nutter-troll idea?

You just did..see what you wrote:

CT's trounce lone nut-trolls on a regular basis, which is why troll cowards stay away, they don't know the evidence, they can't debate same, pure and simple

I just don't see that calling someone a name does a whole lot of good. The way to "trounce" someone is to prove what they say in incorrect.


Kathy

Thank you that was most thorough and most helpful especially for those, like me (and I fear you), who are not citizens of the planet Dippy (aka 'lone nutter trolls').
It is now my intention to try and slip the rhythmical phrase 'lone nutter troll disinfo deweeb' more into everyday conversation.

Good translation except I think this part was addressed to me. He keeps bringing up Redd Foxx because I caught him plagiarizing the comic here. He'd would have you believe they played poker together (or something like that)

Boy, am I glad I've been on holiday whilst this has been going on. Here is my 2c worth (and that is what it is worth):

- Jack has made many mistakes in various Apollo / 9-11 studies. These have been pointed out to him by many people - including people who have no association with this board.

- Jack has a track record of not addressing the Apollo / 9-11 rebuttals but instead either ignoring them (and repeating his original claims) or claiming the people making the rebuttals are somehow participating in some type of an organised campaign against him / his claims.

- Jack has a track record of claiming those who vigorously rebut his Apollo / 9-11 claims are acting on the behest of governments or secret agencies.

- I'd like to point out I make no claims - and indeed have stated I am but a layman and have shown little, if any interest - in the area of JFK, in which Jack is considered to be an expert by many people.

- The DPF have banned my IP, even though I have not even tried to become a member there. In my opinion, this speaks volumes about the controlling group's idea regarding openness.

- I believe in letting everyone present their own opinions and evidence for their opinions, and allowing others to attack the said opinions (i.e. the opinion, not the person). The resulting debate allows others to determine the veracity of the statements made by the various posters.

- If I make opinions / statements with which other members disagree with, I expect to be taken to task over them and asked to defend them to the best of my ability. To be asked to do so is not an attack on me, but rather an expected trial by which all ideas should be subjected.

- Play the ball, not the person. When the person refuses to defend their posted opinions, however, they should expect that the lack of defence reflects poorly on the poster and their willingness / ability to defend their stated argument. Comment on that unwillingness - in moderation and restraint - should not be considered to be a personal attack.

Hmmmm, and yet Mr. Healy was addressing Ms. Becket(t) in a reply to her posting. If it's true that this was addressed to you (without naming you) while ostensibly being addressed to Ms. Becket(t), this makes the Foxx allusion even more obscure and enigmatic and raises concerns about mental health issues; if it's not true, I'd wonder why you'd think it was.


Yes, I recall that, and it says a lot about me that I do recall it. Mr. Healy was a dealer at a casino or some such, and Foxx was a regular customer? Or am I conflating Cliff Varnell and Healy? Whatever. The only (semi-)rational explanation I can think of for bringing Redd Foxx into the conversation is that Foxx was supposedly an acquaintance of his (Healy's) who also used vulgarity in his lounge act in Vegas, etc; and so Mr. Healy may have been thinking he was "serving notice" to Ms. Becket(t) that yes, there IS a place for vulgarity in society (especially when "giving it to the Man"???). I doubt Mr. Healy was sending any secret message meant just for you, but who knows? Maybe Stephen Turner can round us up a flock of psychologists to examine all of this as case studies in ego projection and borderline schizophrenia.


And I agree, Andy: "lone nutter troll disinfo deweeb" has a nice ring to it, and it's a damn shame more people don't talk this way today. Naturally I suspect Prince Philip is behind it, what with the kids today running around playing their skiffle music, sporting mod haircuts, and supporting the NHS and the damned UN.

Daniel, I'd like to help out in this fascinating enterprise, but I'm afraid that I'm on rota today for a bit of the old Grannie killing. And later I'm helping HRH deliever some crytal meth to the local orpanarium.

Whats the dead granny count at your hospital this month? Meeting the quota from the NHS?

plagarizing? Redd Foxx? You silly man you, you certainly don't know him or his material as well as you think you do.... and of course that part was for you! What on earth makes you think Ms. Becket is going to waste much of my time (she isn't Wild Bill Millah, ya know - or is she?), you too for that matter?

BTW, NO my Redd Foxx autographs are NOT for sale. See if I impart any more of Redd's poker table witticism to you in the future.

You 'still' shaken from Roland Zavada putting you in your place (concerning an issue on this forum) a few years back? So, how are your thumbs, son? Granted, I felt 'slightly' embarrassed for you, I got over it in 10 seconds though, but thanks for asking.....

and NO Mr. Dunn I'm not a Vegas dealer, spent many, many years there.... and a mighty partake of it's fruits, if you will!... No blushing Ms. Becket(t)!

Yes Craig, its all going according to plan. Soon I will be the only one left AHHA HAA HAA.

Now that you have become a grandpa yourself, someone will take care of you too, won't they?

Thanks so much for posting my quote as it illustrates the depth of the denial of the NHS supprters. None of you can refute my statement and that speaks volumes.

Its not 'denial' Craig. You have made unsustained and unsustainable allegations about the NHS and others are laughing at you.

Sure its DENIAL Andy, simply because you can't rebut these simple facts:

Lets review:


NHS drs are agents of the British Government,

Of course it is completely true, since dr's except some GP's are employees of the British government, and thus AGENTS of the British Governemt.

groups of these agents get together and decide when a Patient/Subject will die,

Again a completely true statement as outlined by the Liverpool Care pathway. A medical team (a group of govenment agents) gets together and reviews a patients records and DECIDES if the patient will live or die, by either continuing or withdrawing treatment

in the name of the British Government"

Again completely true. As agents of the British government their action are taken in the name of the governemt.

So Andy, why not put your DENIAL away for a moment and tell us all exactly what is "unsustained and unsustainable" in the above?

As I hope you are intelligent to grasp it is wild conjecture and speculation you are offering us without a smidgeon of evidence to back it up. You are doing it to sustain an extreme right free market position and it is so transparent as to be highly amusing. This is why people here are taking the p**s out of you .

Oh, no problem, Mr. Healy.

I was totally unaware that Zavada put Len in his place. I would love to read the thread. The only thing I remember Len doing is emailing Fielding:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=55746

Seriously, David, what I am afraid of and would be embarrassed about if I were you is that one day someone younger may read your published work, and use the internet to see if you have written anything further. Once Google sends them to acj (and it will), and they see that you are not doing much more than being a potty mouth over there, they may find your work a little less "enlightening."


Kathy

Ah you poor soul Andy. If you could refute them you would but sadly you can't.

I posted a very simple statements of fact. Facts beyond dispute.

I asked you to back you claim they were "unsustained and unsustainable"

They have now warped into "wild conjecture and speculation".

So I'll ask again poor old Andy, exactly what is "unsustained and unsustainable" and "wild conjecture and speculation" in the following statement?

NHS drs are agents of the British Government,
groups of these agents get together and decide when a Patient/Subject will die,
in the name of the British Government".

So come on Mr. Educator, simply answer the question.

I like the American system better.

Rather than have a bunch of British bureaucrats deciding who lives and dies,

you just check their health insurance and credit, and if they have it
they live,
if not,

Cheeriooo,....

Please explain to us what p**s means. I don't know.

Jack

Yeah David making claims like these reminds me of what Mark Twain wrote for his autobiography:

"I am grown old and my memory is not as active as it used to be. When I was younger I could remember anything, whether it happened or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I shall be so I cannot remember any but the things that never happened. It is sad to go to pieces like this but we all have to do it.”

Other than in Healy's vivid imagination Rollie never “put me in my place” rather he and Fielding put Healy “in his place” when they stated unequivocally what he proposed was not possible.

No, actually its the American bureaucrats who decide far more often than insurance companies to deny care. Why sure lets expand that to everyone, sounds like a progressive plan to me.

You seem to struggle to distinguish between 'fact' and opinion.
This is something we 'agents of the British government' employed in education teach 11 year old history students. Do let me know if you'd like to join us.

Fine Andy, why not just do as you have been asked and point out what parts of this statement are not fact. You seem so sure that even your eleven year old based mind can do so, yet time and time again you try and shift away from this simple task. What are you afraid of? That DENIAL habit must be really hard to break.

"NHS drs are agents of the British Government,
groups of these agents get together and decide when a Patient/Subject will die,
in the name of the British Government".

Surely this can't be that hard for a man of your obviuous education and stature not can it?

You're a buffoon but a persistent one

NHS drs are agents of the British Government No they are not - they follow standards of professionalism laid down by their own independent professional associations groups of these agents get together and decide when a Patient/Subject will die
in the name of the British Government. No the aim of health care is to preserve and extend life. We also have laws against murder in this country

FACTS can be supported by evidence and you do not have any to support your perverse and wild accusations about the UK medical profession.

NHS drs are agents of the British Government,
groups of these agents get together and decide when a Patient/Subject will die,
in the name of the British Government.

This is fatuous even by your standards Craig. But for your information and with a due sense of weariness;
The majority of doctors in the UK are employed by bodies called Primary Care Trusts which are free standing organisations with their own boards of directors, budgets and staff.
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1078.aspx?Cate...bCategoryID=153
Doctor's professional behaviour is managed and monitored by the General Medical Council which is subject to both British and European Law. If you can be bothered you can learn more about them and their role here -
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/index.asp
Not even by dint of a leap in your deranged imagination could they ever be accurately described as 'government agents'. We have covered your insane ramblings about UK palliative care elsewhere on the forum and I see no need to prolong your agony here. You are wrong.... move on to something of which you have more knowledge for there can surely be little of which you have less knowledge.
If you wish to continue to make a fool of yourself here be my guest but you will be talking to yourself.

Poor Andy, you can't read yet you teach! Look back a few posts and you will see I already excluded Pc doctors from this discussion, and as a final point they are NOT NHS Dr's. Besides that Andy, is a PCT a governmetal department or not? Why of course itis, it is authorized to act for the British Government.

And who sets the accepted treatments Mr. Walker? Is it the GNC, or any of the other professional orginazations? Of course not. It's the BRITISH GOVERNMENT! NHS Dr's are BOUND by this treatment schedule, as long as they work for the NHS. They are AGENTS of the government pure and simple.

Lets see how well ol Andy, Mr. Educator, does when we search the word Agent...

:one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another

Wow, perfectly describes an NHS dr.!

The fool here is Andy Walker, guilty as sin of intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
Your vaunted HNS has taken to finding "COST EFFECTIVE healthcare" in it's ending of life of the subjects of the UK.

So move along, your weakness has been duly exposed.

Thanks to all for keeping this topic at the top of the board. Excellent suggestion in the heading.

Jack

Thanks for writing the original, it shows just how sick you really are.