Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Would you care to compare IQs? How about by PM? How about comparing Moorman's photo to the Zapruder film instead so to see if the skull cap actually became dislodged .... just one more reason to believe Jackie put the bone plate back in place to hold the top of the head on and why with all that blood soaked hair and the doctors at Parkland working so feverishly to get the President's condition stabilized that they didn't have time to sort through his hair so to see a fracture line. I may not always be right, but I prefer to make as complete study of the photographic evidence before declaring something has been altered. Edited January 23, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Sandy, This morning, while at Starbucks waiting to go to my office to work across the street, I happened to glance on this forum and caught your reply before you deleted it. It was along the lines of: "I've just about had it with you, Michael, calling us crazies..." blah blah and then you challenged me to an IQ test. If I upset you about calling you and others "crazies" here, I'm sorry, but I have be brutally honest on this forum. The people who post here are believers, no doubt, but the theories and suppositions are, at least in my mind, crazy, outrageous, and ridiculous. You seem to equate intelligence with reasoning which is so far from the truth as to be...well, crazy. You can have an IQ of 2,000 but it doesn't mean that you or a person with that high of an IQ has the ability to critically analyze things and come to a reasonable and plausible conclusion. A perfect example of this is John Nash of A Beautiful Mind. The guy was a certified genius, yet his paranoia and seeing and hearing things (remember in the movie he was seeing conspiracy everywhere, in newspaper and magazine clippings, strangers walking down the street, and so on?) led him to be labeled insane (aka crazy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Walton said: You seem to equate intelligence with reasoning which is so far from the truth as to be...well, crazy. intelligence quotient n. Abbr. IQ A number representing a person's reasoning ability (measured using problem-solving tests) as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100. Source: Oxford Dictionaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Davey: I love snookering you. Because you fall for it every time. Do you really think the interviewer did not ask Connally that question? Namely, why did you say what you did back then? Well, in your world maybe. But in the real world, yes he did. The answer he got was very similar to what Stringer said to Jeremy Gunn when Jeremy asked him why he signed a false document about the number of autopsy photos in the inventory being correct--which he knew they were not. Or what Wesley Liebeler told Ray Marcus in 1967 when Ray asked him to speak out about what a farce the WR really was. This is what Connally said: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe." (McBride, p. 418) For the record, Liebeler said to Ray, "Sometimes we got caught up in things that are bigger than we are." There are some things that politicians and corporate lawyers know they cannot say, or else... Edited January 24, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: intelligence quotient n. Abbr. IQ A number representing a person's reasoning ability (measured using problem-solving tests) as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100. Source: Oxford Dictionaries A high IQ is only helpful if one is informed on the topic he or she is talking about. Not a high IQ, but a keen eye and thorough study of Moorman's Polaroid so to be informed would have shown beyond any doubt that the top of JFK's head was missing when viewed from Moorman's side of the street, which in turn supported what was seen in the Zapruder film concerning that particular wound. Not a high IQ, but being informed that Jackie said she had held the top of her husbands head on during the ride to the hospital. And not a high IQ, but rather being informed as to what Dr, Jenkins said about examining the bone plate after the President was dead would explain how the wound looked on the Zapruder film. So if a high IQ was key to problem solving, then where was it when studying Moorman's photo and not noticing the top of Kennedy's head missing - or seeing the problem with painting over film grain. And because someone like myself did notice those things - does that mean I must have a higher IQ than those who didn't? I don't think it does and that the whole mentioning of a person's IQ was a meaningless distraction. Edited January 24, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Michael Walton said: "I've just about had it with you, Michael, calling us crazies..." blah blah and then you challenged me to an IQ test. If I upset you about calling you and others "crazies" here, I'm sorry, but I have be brutally honest on this forum. The people who post here are believers, no doubt, but the theories and suppositions are, at least in my mind, crazy, outrageous, and ridiculous. You seem to equate intelligence with reasoning which is so far from the truth as to be...well, crazy. You can have an IQ of 2,000 but it doesn't mean that you or a person with that high of an IQ has the ability to critically analyze things and come to a reasonable and plausible conclusion. A perfect example of this is John Nash of A Beautiful Mind. The guy was a certified genius, yet his paranoia and seeing and hearing things (remember in the movie he was seeing conspiracy everywhere, in newspaper and magazine clippings, strangers walking down the street, and so on?) led him to be labeled insane (aka crazy). I saw Sandy's post, as well. I only copied a line from it because the rest was not worth repeating in my view. I understood what you meant, Michael. I took what you said to mean that some people are Conspiracy crazy .... that they find it where there is none go find. John Nash was a great example. Despite an extremely high IQ - he couldn't stop his imagining things that wasn't really there. I mention Mary Moorman's Polaroid as it was self developing and within 2.5 hrs after the assassination ... before ever being out of her possession and even before Zapruder's film had been processed - Moorman's #5 picture was shown on television, thus not leaving there being a chance to have been tampered with. Edited January 24, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Observation "John Nash was a certified genius, yet his paranoia and seeing and hearing things (remember in the movie he was seeing conspiracy everywhere, in newspaper and magazine clippings, strangers walking down the street, and so on?) led him to be labeled insane (aka crazy)." Conclusion Therefore, anybody with a high IQ should be suspected of developing crazy conspiracy theories. Yeah.... right. Question What gives you guys the right to make judgements against fellow researchers, labeling them "crazies" at your whim? What special talent or license do you hold? Get off your high horses... please. Edited January 24, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Touche, Bill. Touche, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Sandy, no one is high here. Not herbally nor up on horses. We're all just trying to get to the truth about the case but we all have very different ways of trying to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Walton said: Sandy, no one is high here. Not herbally nor up on horses. We're all just trying to get to the truth about the case but we all have very different ways of trying to get there. Michael, I think Sandy doesn't want to get it in a way that goes beyond a beautiful mind. He wrote, " Conclusion - Therefore, anybody with a high IQ should be suspected of developing crazy conspiracy theories. Yeah.... right. " I am not a genius and I could clearly see that what he said was not what you were implying at all. He just doesn't care to admit he was wrong! His reasons for thinking the bone plate was painted onto the Zapruder film have been clearly debunked and he seemingly couldn't even admit that at least one of the pieces of evidence has changed his mind pertaining to the bone-flap. That leaves me with the impression that he may believe that Mary Moorman had a Polaroid altering operation inside her coat pocket and somehow used it to remove the top of the President's head from her photo while not having even seen the Zapruder film ... or any other films and photos of the head wound. If I remember correctly, Mary's Polaroid was shown on television around 3:20PM/CST on the afternoon of the shooting. Edited January 24, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 On 1/22/2017 at 10:14 PM, Chris Davidson said: Really, would you care to elaborate on this? For those that would like to see a comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 16 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Sandy, no one is high here. Not herbally nor up on horses. We're all just trying to get to the truth about the case but we all have very different ways of trying to get there. I don't see how Insulting and labeling people is a way of getting to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 15 hours ago, Bill Miller said: Michael, I think Sandy doesn't want to get it in a way that goes beyond a beautiful mind. He wrote, " Conclusion - Therefore, anybody with a high IQ should be suspected of developing crazy conspiracy theories. Yeah.... right. " I am not a genius and I could clearly see that what he said was not what you were implying at all. He just doesn't care to admit he was wrong! Wrong about what? Look, I admit that your your hypothesis has some merit. And I have been giving it some thought. But so far I am not convinced. There is an alternative theory that I ascribe to, and what you have shown doesn't explain it. His reasons for thinking the bone plate was painted onto the Zapruder film have been clearly debunked... No they haven't. and he seemingly couldn't even admit that at least one of the pieces of evidence has changed his mind pertaining to the bone-flap. That leaves me with the impression that he may believe that Mary Moorman had a Polaroid altering operation inside her coat pocket and somehow used it to remove the top of the President's head from her photo while not having even seen the Zapruder film ... or any other films and photos of the head wound. If I remember correctly, Mary's Polaroid was shown on television around 3:20PM/CST on the afternoon of the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: His reasons for thinking the bone plate was painted onto the Zapruder film have been clearly debunked... No they haven't. Really? Your position was there was no evidence other than the Zapruder film that the bone plate dislodged from there head - I believe you stated that no medical personnel at Parkland noticed such a wound. Dr. Jenkins was filmed discussing it and how big the bone plate was based on the size of his hand. Then there is Moorman's photo. Did you not see the top of the had missing? Is it your position that Moorman had a photo alteration lab in her coat pocket - while standing in the Plaza - and before a cameraman filmed a close-up of her Polaroid following the assassination?? I hope we are not going to hear any more 'Beautiful Mind' type reasoning. So without going there - tell me how it is you can still say that frame Z313 is a paint job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: I don't see how Insulting and labeling people is a way of getting to the truth. The insult is someone claiming alteration without even knowing the processes needed to have been done such a thing to know if it was possible or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now