Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

C'mon DVP, blow that character's face up and put it next to your best compatible known JR pic for a good side-by-side comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2017 at 9:10 PM, Michael Clark said:

C'mon DVP, blow that character's face up and put it next to your best compatible known JR pic for a good side-by-side comparison.

I can't believe I did this for this stupid "It Wasn't Ruby" discussion (which couldn't be any more ridiculous even if Jim Fetzer had been its original author), but Michael asked me to do it. I only wish the basement pic was clearer, but I haven't the slightest idea how to sharpen the image. I can blow it up, but that only makes it worse and more pixelated; so this is the best I could do, not that it deserves even this much, since all sensible people already know that it's the real Jack Ruby in all of these pictures....

Jack-Ruby.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I can't believe I did this for this stupid "It Wasn't Ruby" discussion (which couldn't be any more ridiculous even if Jim Fetzer had been its author), but Michael asked me to do it. I only wish the basement pic was clearer, but I haven't the slightest idea how to sharpen the image. I can blow it up, but that only makes it worse and pixelated; so this is the best I could do, not that it deserves even this much, since everybody knows that it's the real Jack Ruby in all of these pictures....

Ruby.png

Thanks for playin DVP. It is what it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome, Michael.

I think my good friend and fellow "LNer" Bud summed up the actions of most conspiracy theorists quite well recently at another forum when he said:

"You guys are playing silly games with the deaths of these men [JFK & J.D. Tippit]."

And with regard to this idiotic thread regarding Jack Ruby, Bud's quote shown above could be expanded to three different deaths:

"You guys are playing silly games with the deaths of these men [JFK, J.D. Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald]."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You're welcome, Michael.

I think my good friend and fellow "LNer" Bud summed up the actions of most conspiracy theorists quite well recently at another forum when he said:

"You guys are playing silly games with the deaths of these men [JFK & J.D. Tippit]."

And with regard to this idiotic thread regarding Jack Ruby, Bud's quote shown above could be expanded to three different deaths:

"You guys are playing silly games with the deaths of these men [JFK, J.D. Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald]."

David, Do you have any sense of compassion for the great number of people who feel that they have lost so much? I'm not even talking about the life of one man, or three. It cannot be lost on you, after all of your work, that these people are not playing games. These people are looking to restore the loss of the legitimacy of their country. Surely you understand that. I'll ask again, do you have compassion for them, even if you feel that they are wrong? It's not a game. I believe that you know that.

Is it, to you, a game? I sense that, to you, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP, as a follow-up. If you were trying to convince people that they are just wrong about this, if you were just trying to show them the light, your MO would not be one defined by a penchant to mock and ridicule them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

I have no compassion at all for the type of JFK conspiracy theorist that Bud was referring to in the quote I cited above. I agree with Bud 100% with respect to THAT type of JFK CTer. Those people ARE playing silly games. Bud was referring mainly to one particular conspiracy nut who has posted on the Internet for many years; but Bud's comment certainly applies to many other JFK conspiracy believers as well (especially on the Internet)---i.e., the type who never met a conspiracy they didn't lap up with glee. To THAT kind of "CTer", yes, it is only a silly game, IMO. They don't care that there's no evidence at all to support the conspiracies they are alleging. But they keep harping on them anyway. And that certainly includes any and all JFK conspiracy theorists who (incredibly) still support Jim Garrison and his bogus prosecution of Clay Shaw in New Orleans.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

DVP, as a follow-up. If you were trying to convince people that they are just wrong about this, if you were just trying to show them the light, your MO would not be one defined by a penchant to mock and ridicule them.

Define "this" in "about this" for me, Michael.

If you mean THIS absurd thread, do you really think THOSE CTers who buy into the idea that "It Wasn't Ruby" actually deserve anything BUT mocking and ridicule? Surely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Michael,

I have no compassion at all for the type of JFK conspiracy theorists that Bud was referring to in the quote I cited above. I agree with Bud 100% with respect to THAT type of JFK CTer. Those people ARE playing silly games. (Bud was referring mainly to one particular conspiracy nut who has posted on the Internet for many years; but Bud's comment certainly applies to many other JFK conspiracy believers as well (especially on the Internet)---i.e., the type who never met a conspiracy they didn't lap up with glee. To THAT kind of "CTer", yes, it is only a silly game, IMO. They don't care that there's no evidence at all to the conspiracies they are alleging. But they keep harping on them anyway. And that certainly includes any and all JFK conspiracy theorists who (incredibly) still support the bogus prosecution of Clay Shaw in New Orleans.

.... but you could not bring yourself to say a word about the "other type". 

That elucidates a description of someone who is towing a line, or someone who is sociopathic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Define "this" in "about this" for me, Michael.

If you mean THIS absurd thread, do you really think THOSE CTers who buy into the idea that "It Wasn't Ruby" actually deserve anything BUT mocking and ridicule? Surely not.

By this, I am talking about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I've already said that I don't think that that person looks like JR.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I've already said that I don't think that that person looks like JR.

Then you're merely playing a silly game too, Michael. Because you HAVE to know that Jack Ruby DID shoot Lee Oswald, right? You surely can't deny that fact, can you? After all, you ARE a "reasonable CTer", are you not?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

.... but you could not bring yourself to say a word about the "other type".

That's because Bud's quote doesn't really apply to the "other type". (At least I don't see his quote as applying to that "other type".) Ergo, I was referring only to the "outer-fringe kook" type of CTers, who are, indeed, merely playing silly games with the deaths of JFK and J.D. Tippit (and LHO too).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

Then you're merely playing a silly game too, Michael. Because you HAVE to know that Jack Ruby DID shoot Lee Oswald, right? You surely can't deny that fact, can you? After all, you ARE a "reasonable CTer", are you not?

David, I hate photo analysis. I could sit here and point out odd things in that pic that say "hey, what's up with that ear, or hairline, or the balding pattern". You could too. I don't get into pi$$in matches over pictures. My statement was reasonable. 

Telling me I am playing games, when I am telling you what I see, think, and feel, is, at best, discourteous. Perhaps my prior characterizations could be construed as discourteous. In my defense, I don't mock or ridicule you or anyone, as a rule. I HAVE done that, but only in times of failure. It is not my MO. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Lol, his eyes are blacked-out. I though[t] he was wearing sunglasses.

It's called a "shadow".

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David very well said. You explained  it very well about the different  TYPES of CTers.

The "lapping it up" comment is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×