Jack White Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 (edited) dgh02: don't bother - I own the books, btw -- I don't do Lancer, Miller is quite comfortable living behind Debra's skirt. He has the same problem you do -- nothing original, therefore a provocateur. I would like to put something to rest so we can move on. It seems that rather address the questions and points that are being raised in these threads concerning photo and film alteration claims - Mr. White and Mr. Healy have opted to not deal with the specific issues and tell the forum that they are being attacked by "provocateurs". I thought it would be interesting to get the eact definition of the word they like to throw around and here it is - Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural agents provocateurs /'ä-"zhän-prO-"vä-k&-'t&r, 'A-j&n(t)s-prO-/ Etymology: French, literally, provoking agent Date: 1877 : one employed to associate with suspected persons and by pretending sympathy with their aims to incite them to some incriminating action JACK SEZ...the above is definition of AGENT PROVOCATEUR. SYNONYMS GIVEN FOR PROVOCATEUR: agitator, agitprop, capper, catalyst, come-on man, decoy, demagogue, exciter, firebrand, fomenter, incendiary, inciter, inflamer, instigator, mischief-maker, plant, provocateur, provoker, rabble-rouser, ringleader, rouser, seditionary, seditionist, shill, stool pigeon, stoolie, troublemaker, urger IF THE SHOE FITS... Jack White Edited July 13, 2004 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 .... agitator, agitprop, capper, catalyst, come-on man, decoy, demagogue, exciter, firebrand, fomenter, incendiary, inciter, inflamer, instigator, mischief-maker, plant, provocateur, provoker, rabble-rouser, ringleader, rouser, seditionary, seditionist, shill, stool pigeon, stoolie, troublemaker, urger IF THE SHOE FITS... Jack White Mr. White - I think we have finally started down a new pathway where you are seemingly trying to stay focused and attempting to give direct answers to the key issues surrounding the possibilities of photo and film alteration, so please don't start regressing backwards. It would be nice to keep the photo a film alteration replies in one thread. So far, the first precise and to the point response from you has been made in the "looney Tunes" thread. The thread name should have been 'photo and film alteration claims', but regardless - I think we should try to keep our points on that particular topic in just the one thread. I look forward to some more on point responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 (edited) Mr.Peters: Quote.... " They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening devices " If you are going to post part, post all the pertaining information. How do any of us know for positive, they were not.???..I do not ,do you.?? I have really no opinion, on such, but if some differs with yours, well excuse me that is allowed..Do you really think that Weisberg, Maegher, Jones, and all the rest always agreed.....I don't think so.....all are entitled..whether you agree or not. As far as spell checks, I think you should refrain from making such remarks, look to your own spelling mistooks....before you throw stones..there have been several.....so what.. In the Moorman overlay you have presented, your out a hair on the window alignment.....IMO...too far to the right, in what you have presented, in the area, of the top of Zapruders thigh, it should be showing some window, it is not....that is my opinion, I have no education in photography, and therefore I do not pretend to have, nor quote anyone elses work to back up my opinions, which I take it yours are also, just opinions....but I know what I see, and to me this is what is shown.. You protest too much.....and are rude and and almost abusive at times in your attitude, we have been here before..... Why would Mr. White, or anyone want to reply to you, when you present such an awful high and mighty attitude and have been presenting this here for some time, and why you are allowed to proceed with such is beyond me, and people wonder why broo haws start.....or tempers get out of control, this is usually one of the main reasons.... you have been showing this in spades. IMO......This is a Forum not an inquisition... And it is Dr.Mantick, Dr.Costello,and Dr.Fetzer, with a capital Dr. as with any who have earned that right.....as they have, and should be given that respect....to not, in public is an insult..IMO.... I hope the name is Larry Peters, if not, you shall pay a heavy price....in the research world...as they always find out...as in the past.. What are your qualifications.??...you have not presented any so far, that I have seen..... So far you have only shown and presented Bill Millers, and others research...I believe myself and others would appreciate seeing yours and reading what your qualifications are that apparently gives you the right to judge,their work..and you are judging, not giving your opinions, you are at times almost attacking....not attractive...at any given time... You, mentioned somewhere along the way, emails you have received , and I took it to mean something like, some, are backing what you are posting... Well let me inform you Mr.Peters, there are other emails flying that are not backing you and do not like your heavy handed approach.......try a less know it all attitude and a more personable approach it may go a long way....to getting any of your questions asked....IMO..... Edited July 14, 2004 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 (edited) Mr.Peters: Quote.... " They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening devices " If you are going to post part, post all the pertaining information. How do any of us know for positive, they were not. Forgive me, but that doesn't deserve a reply. In the Moorman overlay you have presented, your out a hair on the window alignment.....IMO...too far to the right, in what you have presented, in the area, of the top of Zapruders thigh, it should be showing some window, it is not....that is my opinion, I have no education in photography, and therefore I do not pretend to have, nor quote anyone elses work to back up my opinions, which I take it yours are also, just opinions....but I know what I see, and to me this is what is shown.. I agree with you here - the window is not positioned right, but you failed to see that it was not I that positioned it ... it was Jack White. You protest too much.....and are rude and and almost abusive at times in your attitude, we have been here before..... Why would Mr. White, or anyone want to reply to you, when you present such an awful high and mighty attitude and have been presenting this here for some time, This reminds me of the story as to which came first - the chicken or the egg? If you go back and start from the beginning - you will see that had the answers have been forthcoming and to the point, then things would have went a lot smoother. Constant stonewalling can be very frustrating to some of us. What are your qualifications.??...you have not presented any so far, that I have seen..... Bernice, some people like to brag about their qualifications - I do not. Some folks try and claim a higher degree of education as if that should mean something, but it doesn't. Some folks might say it just took them longer to learn something it took others less time to do. A person can be smart enough to transplant a heart from one person to another, but if he or she doesn't know the facts surrounding the JFK assassination, then his or her intelligence is of little value here. Go to the "Loony Toons loose" thread and watch the discussion going on between Mr. White and I, just maybe my qualifications and knowledge of the case will come shining through. So far you have only shown and presented Bill Millers, and others research... I have also presented some of my own research as I have tested Miller's work and given detailed explanations as to my conslusions, so it should be obvious that I have spent considerable time looking at these issues. I might also add that I presented some of Jack White's research as well. Please try and pay more attention to this topic concerning photo and film alteration for it can be quite interesting if stay focused on the issues being discussed. You, mentioned somewhere along the way, emails you have received , and I took it to mean something like, some, are backing what you are posting...Well let me inform you Mr.Peters, there are other emails flying that are not backing you and do not like your heavy handed approach....... I expect that what you say is true, but if those people cannot tell whose overlay is which like you failed to do with the pedestal example that I posted showing the alleged missing windows, then maybe some of that email you speak of as to my being in error has been wrongfully misplaced. Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 14, 2004 Author Share Posted July 14, 2004 [...] You, mentioned somewhere along the way, emails you have received , and I took it to mean something like, some, are backing what you are posting...Well let me inform you Mr.Peters, there are other emails flying that are not backing you and do not like your heavy handed approach....... I expect that what you say is true, but if those people cannot tell whose overlay is which like you failed to do with the pedestal example that I posted showing the alleged missing windows, then maybe some of that email you speak of as to my being in error has been wrongfully misplaced. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dgh01: hang in there, Bernice - Gary is at top form for the moment, I suspect he, Miller and this guy are attemtping to postjack this forum when it comes to Z-film photo info -- we've been down the road before, their credibility amongst the "research" community is firmly positioned in the cellar. All they can do is tear apart jack White.. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Mr.Peters: Quote.... > " They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening > devices " > If you are going to post part, post all the pertaining information. > How do any of us know for positive, they were not. > > Forgive me, but that doesn't deserve a reply. Mr.Peters: Excuse me, but on the other hand when you ask questions, of some and some do not reply, or give the answer you see fit, you demand they do..??? .......but "that doesn't deserve a reply" now from your attitude, and twisted sense of fair play, neither do yours..you make that very clear..make up your mind.... > > In the Moorman overlay you have presented, your out a hair on the> window alignment.....IMO...too far to the right, in what you have > presented, in the area, of the top of Zapruders thigh, it should be > showing some window, it is not....that is my opinion, I have no > education in photography, and therefore I do not pretend to have, nor > quote anyone elses work to back up my opinions, which I take it yours > are also, just opinions....but I know what I see, and to me this is what > is shown.. > > I agree with you here - the window is not positioned right, but you > failed to see that it was not I that positioned it ... it was Jack > White. > Please show me your studies of the Moorman....do not use Mr. White's, nor Bill Miller's nor anyone elses.....yours...and ,let's see your comparisons then to theirs.....if this cannot be done here on this site then may I suggest you obtain a free web site, for such....many would be very interested in your recent work I am sure ......there is an old saying if you can't put up then s... up...... that could apply here.....and please show your studies of the light coming through said windows which should been seen but is not, and why not.???.that's an oldie....BTW....it is you that is judging, no one else..... > You protest too much.....and are rude and and almost abusive at> times in your attitude, we have been here before..... > > Why would Mr. White, or anyone want to reply to you, when you> present such an awful high and mighty attitude and have been presenting > this here for some time, > > This reminds me of the story as to which came first - the chicken or the > egg? If you go back and start from the beginning - you will see that had > the answers have been forthcoming and to the point, then things would > have went a lot smoother. Constant stonewalling can be very frustrating > to some of us. Your attitude is what is frustrating, there are no rules on this Forum, that when a question is asked, that anyone HAS to reply, and once answered that they must again and again, to your's or anyones satisfaction, that is until you finally get the reply you are after....this is not an inquisition, this is a Forum.....Forum etiquette need apply........A discussion between members is one thing, an unacceptance of their replies, and the demanding of others is not..IMO > > What are your qualifications.??...you have not presented any so> far, that I have seen..... > > Bernice, some people like to brag about their qualifications - I do not. > Some folks try and claim a higher degree of education as if that should > mean something, but it doesn't. Some folks might say it just took them > longer to learn something it took others less time to do. A person can > be smart enough to transplant a heart from one person to another, but if > he or she doesn't know the facts surrounding the JFK assassination, then > his or her intelligence is of little value here. Go to the "Loony Toons > loose" thread and watch the discussion going on between Mr. White and I, > just maybe my qualifications and knowledge of the case will come shining > through. I am not asking for your life story, no need to hide, nor have I seen anything shining through as yet..after reading all.....I am asking, your qualifications, that perhaps, may give you the right to judge, the researchers findings...not giving your opinions, to that you are as entitled as the next, but you are and have been judging ,without those qualifications, stated nor your studies being shown..Have you any ???...If you think a plumber has the right to judge say, an electricians work, or be qualified to do such work, just because he read and studied an electricans text book..for a few months...or the other way around say.......then you are way off base here..That is in effect what you are trying to say.???. (Besides that ,your lights would be all out, and your basement flooded, or is that what you are trying to do here, flood the Forum and turn it's light out..???) Turn people off, chase them away, discourage them in posting, simply take over the Forum.hmmm..???) > So far you have only shown and presented Bill Millers, and others> research... > > I have also presented some of my own research as I have tested Miller's > work and given detailed explanations as to my conslusions, so it should > be obvious that I have spent considerable time looking at these issues. > I might also add that I presented some of Jack White's research as well. > Please try and pay more attention to this topic concerning photo and > film alteration for it can be quite interesting if stay focused on the > issues being discussed. Now it is your turn to pay attention, please....I have spent years paying such to the topic concerning photo and film alteration....many, many have ,they sit back, read ,study and pay attention, but they do not blow their own horns at the end of a few months, with a know it all, attitude, and a demanding way...and they may ask a question now and again, but...You make it sound as though this is all a novel idea, a new found discovery, the photographic studies..??...These studies have been going on for many, many years......you sound like you are a young puppy, who has just gotten out of what school.??..and can't wait to tell the world, how wrong it is...you have much to learn, and a long way to go, I believe, perhaps given time, your attitude will mellow, if you are serious, in what you are saying..??....and your studies may result in something of value, but I do think you shall need some education first...such greats as Elizabeth Stoneborough and Harold Weisberg and others...were way ahead of you and many others..... years ago....you need to read more..... But I believe you have made it all very clear, you are not here, on an educational Forum, to present your own studies, but to present others, and to use their work to discredit yet again other peoples studies...??? Now what does that prove?, absolutely nothing...That's all been done before....that's, been there done that areas, that's old....those people involved have moved on, you must now do and compare your own....but do not expect them to rehash what has already been done........and besides..All are entitled to their opinions....What I am getting here now, loud and clear, is that you are not here, to present nor discuss, the differences of said studies, and perhaps, learn or contribute something that may be of value, but are here to use one against another, and ridicule and use any method that you may think of, to put others work down..that does not agree with your truth, or is it someone elses truth....??..What gives you that right, seeing that there is a question of your identity, that you have not cleared up, it is very easy for anyone, to send an email to anyone in the world for them to then post on a web site, under another's name, also there are ways of creating a URL, that is being sent from the US to appear to be sent from another country.....????.nothing new...there is a question of your qualifications, that you also have not cleared up, that you refuse to state...you wish us to accept, that because you have studied other's work, I take it ,for 18 months, I believe you stated, or there abouts, that this qualifies you, to judge, qualified men's studies that has taken many ,many years.....something wrong there...???..I am not relating to your opinion, but your judging and discrediting of these men and others ....and I must wonder why??? and also a question of your ways in reaching your objective, what tactics I have seen so far, leave a lot to be desired...and which you have not made clear either...?? If you were here to study, or to show your analysis, and receive critiques from those knowledgeable, and or for input, this you would have done, long before now....which you have not, this is an education Forum, not a forum for use, to discredit others, by any bullying tactics...it is for studying and the trading of information,..the I'm right your wrong attitude will not work here, and shouldn't.... So how about you present your work, in a fair manner, so that all others may judge your work, as you have been judging others, or shut the heck up, IMO..If you cannot give, you cannot expect to take, in otherwards... > > You, mentioned somewhere along the way, emails you have received> , and I took it to mean something like, some, are backing what you are > posting... > Well let me inform you Mr.Peters, there are other emails flying that are > not backing you and do not like your heavy handed > approach....... > > I expect that what you say is true, but if those people cannot tell > whose overlay is which like you failed to do with the pedestal example > that I posted showing the alleged missing windows, then maybe some of > that email you speak of as to my being in error has been wrongfully > misplaced. > Again you misunderstand...you do not pay attention well, you are so busy making waves..and putting a twist on to such, and insinuations, now please read..no one, as far as I know, has any objection to anyone posting any information, that is what they are here for, whether they agree or not, is their perogative, not yours, and not yours either to say they are right or wrong, nor what their failures nor success are..you can express your opinion, nothing more.....can you understand that fact.???..What is wrongfully placed here is your, attitude,your demands for answers,your insinuations, and your total lack, of Web Etiquette.....in otherwards, get over yourself, and start acting human, or people will believe you are a whatchamacallit......a disinfo or a provocateur....your choice....you either are or you are not, we all will know soon enough.....Now please show me..?????.. You after all, are the one who is acting as a know all and giving that hard to believe opinion of yourself....or do you..??... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 (edited) Mr.Peters:Excuse me, but on the other hand when you ask questions, of some and some do not reply, or give the answer you see fit, you demand they do..??? Bernice Moore, your statement is false. The only thing I have demanded is that if someone is going to promote photo and film alteration, then they should be prepared to answer specific questions about them. When certain people choose to skirt around those specifics and just want to handle the advertising aspect of photo and film alteration with their grandstanding, then I have no patience for them. At the moment there as been some attempt by Jack White to answer questions in a more specific way and if you have anything to add of substance to the inquiry into the accuracy of these alteration claims, then I would welcome it. Please show me your studies of the Moorman....do not use Mr. White's, nor Bill Miller's nor anyone elses.....yours...and ,let's see your comparisons then to theirs..... Bernice Moore, please stay focused for I am the one who did the overlay comparison of Jack White's missing windows that was posted on this site. I tested it before I replied about it. Then I explained the error and how it is quite noticeable. Furthermore, even if I had not created the overlay, I certainly understand its purpose and how there should not be any shifting between the pedestals. Your attitude is what is frustrating, there are no rules on this Forum, that when a question is asked, that anyone HAS to reply, and once answered that they must again and again, to your's or anyones satisfaction, that is until you finally get the reply you are after Bernice Moore, I take it that you have not even bothered to thoroughly read the threads that I have participated in. I have asked for specifics and only recently in the James Altgens number 6 photo post did I finally get such a response. So no one has been forcing anyone to reply, nor did anyone answer and then be aksed the same questions over and over, unless being asked if someone was going to keep evading the specifics of an issue would fall into the realm of things. I am not asking for your life story, no need to hide, nor have I seen anything shining through as yet..after reading all.....I am asking, your qualifications, I have spent many years researching the JFK assassination. I have researched and studied the photographical record and that should have been obvious when I walked Mr. White through the history of Altgens number 6 photograph and how it applied to the timeline of events as described by Jean Hill on Len Osanics Black Op Radio Show. I am sure that if you will spend a fraction of your time insisting that those who have made these photo and film alteration claims be specific in how they reached their conclusions when asked questions and not evade the issues, then you will better see my qaulifications at work. These studies have been going on for many, many years......you sound like you are a young puppy, who has just gotten out of what school Your are wrong again, I have been at this for over a quarter of a century. But I believe you have made it all very clear, you are not here, on an educational Forum, to present your own studies, but to present others, and to use their work to discredit yet again other peoples studies...??? I am here to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If someone has done a study by building a clip that shows JFK's head exploding at Z313, then I, nor anyone else needs to duplicate the clip to intelligently discuss what has just occurred. Just like with Mr. White's Bond Vs. Scaggs claim - one doesn't need to do an indepth study to see his mistake. However, if it makes you feel any better I did go to Groden's book "TKOAP" and looked at a wider view of one of the photos Jack used to see that he had two separate sections of the pergola confused as being one in the same. Edited July 15, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 (edited) Hello Peoples: QUOTE Mr.Peters: Excuse me, but on the other hand when you ask questions, of some and some do not reply, or give the answer you see fit, you demand they do..??? Bernice Moore, your statement is false. The only thing I have demanded is that if someone is going to promote photo and film alteration, then they should be prepared to answer specific questions about them. When certain people choose to skirt around those specifics and just want to handle the advertising aspect of photo and film alteration with their grandstanding, then I have no patience for them. At the moment there as been some attempt by Jack White to answer questions in a more specific way and if you have anything to add of substance to the inquiry into the accuracy of these alteration claims, then I would welcome it. B*:Whose Grandstanding ? Perhaps they have no patience with you....? Perhaps it's all in the way you present yourself when replying.??? So far it's your show.....your the one on stage.... Perhaps, when you show us where your coming from and where your going with all this........Many will have something to say...Perhaps you shall, and perhaps you shall not welcome it.?? QUOTE Please show me your studies of the Moorman....do not use Mr. White's, nor Bill Miller's nor anyone elses.....yours...and ,let's see your comparisons then to theirs..... Bernice Moore, please stay focused for I am the one who did the overlay comparison of Jack White's missing windows that was posted on this site. I tested it before I replied about it. Then I explained the error and how it is quite noticeable. Furthermore, even if I had not created the overlay, I certainly understand its purpose and how there should not be any shifting between the pedestal. B*:That's your opinion:........OOPs......Perhaps it is a little hard to stay focused here, with your beligerant attitude showing constantly......it's like walking into a mine field, do you realize that is the impression you give, to other members, who might have a question, but in no way are they ,nor have they the wherewithal to post such...for fear of being blown away by you, fine way to teach students.......Do you realise you give that impression??, calm down Mr.Peters, relax, unfocus a little, there is no hurry....or are you on a time schedule here.......gotta get back to another site..?? QUOTE Your attitude is what is frustrating, there are no rules on this Forum, that when a question is asked, that anyone HAS to reply, and once answered that they must again and again, to your's or anyones satisfaction, that is until you finally get the reply you are after Bernice Moore, I take it that you have not even bothered to thoroughly read the threads that I have participated in. I have asked for specifics and only recently in the James Altgens number 6 photo post did I finally get such a response. So no one has been forcing anyone to reply, nor did anyone answer and then be aksed the same questions over and over, unless being asked if someone was going to keep evading the specifics of an issue would fall into the realm of things. B*: No one used the word "Forcing, but you Mr.Peters".. Quote:Mr.Peters....... "nor did anyone answer and then be aksed the same questions over and over, unless being asked if someone was going to keep evading the specifics of an issue would fall into the realm of things."....enough said............... No one has to reply....even when you ask over and over again.......get it...?? QUOTE I am not asking for your life story, no need to hide, nor have I seen anything shining through as yet..after reading all.....I am asking, your qualifications, I have spent many years researching the JFK assassination. I have researched and studied the photographical record and that should have been obvious when I walked Mr. White through the history of Altgens number 6 photograph and how it applied to the timeline of events as described by Jean Hill on Len Osanics Black Op Radio Show. I am sure that if you will spend a fraction of your time insisting that those who have made these photo and film alteration claims be specific in how they reached their conclusions when asked questions and not evade the issues, then you will better see my qaulifications at work. B*:Pull in your Horns, Mr.Peters, do not get Condescending , with me nor anyone else..bad form, more bad etiquette....You have no idea of what others do nor have done.....you presume too much, as usual...All about you... QUOTE These studies have been going on for many, many years......you sound like you are a young puppy, who has just gotten out of what school Your are wrong again, I have been at this for over a quarter of a century. B*: Well, My Lord, you finally gave us a crumb....your not a young puppy. ..........thanks for that.... QUOTE But I believe you have made it all very clear, you are not here, on an educational Forum, to present your own studies, but to present others, and to use their work to discredit yet again other peoples studies...??? I am here to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If someone has done a study by building a clip that shows JFK's head exploding at Z313, then I, nor anyone else needs to duplicate the clip to intelligently discuss what has just occurred. Just like with Mr. White's Bond Vs. Scaggs claim - one doesn't need to do an indepth study to see his mistake. However, if it makes you feel any better I did go to Groden's book "TKOAP" and looked at a wider view of one of the photos Jack used to see that he had two separate sections of the pergola confused as being one in the same. B*:Atta Boy !! your learning.....is there hope??? Now correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you mention your deep studies of all....for i8 months...or was that wishful thinking on my part.?? P.S.:Glad to see MR.Peters, that you know how to spell my name.....and correctly to.. P.S. David: It is convenient at times for some to use Jack White when needed ....isn't it......as you say...ROTFLMAO...........B Edited July 16, 2004 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 (edited) B*:Whose Grandstanding ? I think the answer to that question is obvious by your making yet another post that has nothing to do with a specific JFK related question. I have carefully read all your newest remarks and if what you're attempting to do is not grandstanding, then I do not what else to call it. Main Entry: [2]grandstand Function: adjective Date: 1893 : done for show or to impress onlookers Perhaps they have no patience with you....?Perhaps it's all in the way you present yourself when replying.??? So far it's your show.....your the one on stage.... Perhaps, when you show us where your coming from and where your going with all this........Many will have something to say...Perhaps you shall, and perhaps you shall not welcome it.?? B*:That's your opinion:........OOPs......Perhaps it is a little hard to stay focused here, with your beligerant attitude showing constantly......it's like walking into a mine field, do you realize that is the impression you give, to other members, who might have a question, but in no way are they ,nor have they the wherewithal to post such...for fear of being blown away by you, fine way to teach students.......Do you realise you give that impression??, calm down Mr.Peters, relax, unfocus a little, there is no hurry....or are you on a time schedule here.......gotta get back to another site..?? B*: No one used the word "Forcing, but you Mr.Peters"..Quote:Mr.Peters....... "nor did anyone answer and then be aksed the same questions over and over, unless being asked if someone was going to keep evading the specifics of an issue would fall into the realm of things."....enough said............... No one has to reply....even when you ask over and over again.......get it...?? B*:Pull in your Horns, Mr.Peters, do not get Condescending , with me nor anyone else..bad form, more bad etiquette....You have no idea of what others do nor have done.....you presume too much, as usual...All about you... B*: Well, My Lord, you finally gave us a crumb....your not a young puppy. ..........thanks for that.... B*:Atta Boy !! your learning.....is there hope???Now correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you mention your deep studies of all....for i8 months...or was that wishful thinking on my part.?? P.S.:Glad to see MR.Peters, that you know how to spell my name.....and correctly to.. Edited July 16, 2004 by Larry Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 (edited) Your not very good at this Mr.Peters you have a long way to go....Ask your team for more input, in this regard...or go back to Disinfo School and take a refresher course, maybe the 4 months or so, wasn't quite long enough........Your presentation, and system has not and is not working.... "QUOTE: Mr.Peters.. B*:Whose Grandstanding ? "Quote:I think the answer to that question is obvious by your making yet another post that has nothing to do with a specific JFK related question. I have carefully read all your newest remarks and if what you're attempting to do is not grandstanding, then I do not what else to call it." "Main Entry: [2]grandstand Function: adjective Date: 1893 : done for show or to impress onlookers" ************************************************** Reply:..IMO...This is exactly what you have been doing since the minute you stepped on the Education Forums JFK Stage...and you continue, as expected......reread all your posts Mr.Peters.... The questions relating to your JFK studies, as this thread has proceeded ,have all but been ignored.. by doing so, you eventually evolve the said thread into a personal, exchange, another old trick...they and you use..... See some questions below pertaining to your JFK studies attached....... You are the one who has stated, that you have studied the Hoax, research for 18 months, and have given the very distinct impression as to knowing all.. I have asked for your studies to be presented many times...They have not.......one little tit bit here and another there, does not make a Research Study... You also are trying to give the impression to the membership that Mr.White, is wrong, period, in all his 40 YEARS of studies pertaining to the photographic area of the Assassination..and to discredit him, and Mr.Healey and all others associated with such...why???......, and then proceed to another site to prove to the world, that there were no alterations...that they are and were all wrong, all the old greats and the new.....who have had the guts Mr.Peters to take on a very dangerous foe called the Government...and to prove to the world, and the citizens of the U.S, their President was assassinated in a Coup..in association with their Government...I will be following as well as many others...and relating to all, what occurrs on that site....down the road.... This 40 years alone of Mr. Whites compared to yours of 18 months is astounding and overwhelming.....he has forgotten more than you shall ever know about the assassination never mind the combined knowledge and experience of all those associated with the study of The Hoax...Your on the wrong side Mr.Peters ..you and your cohorts.....as always....the time will come, do not doubt it, for a second, when it shall be exposed for what it was, and all those in anyway who have attached themselves, to such and there can be only one reason, for promised stature and money.. That's what you are here for, and has become very clear....and paid for.... Do you also believe in the Warren Report.?? Seeing that you repeatedly refuse to show us your work, as a study, therefore,could mean, you have none, and or are using, some ones elses...or others in combination, another old trick..perhaps being fed to you, as the question or reply warrants... Your have shown me and others where you are coming from, in otherwards..... the wrong side... Goodday one of many,provacateur disinfos...B Some quotes below from the thread.... 1.So far you have only shown and presented Bill Millers, and others research...I believe myself and others would appreciate seeing yours and reading what your qualifications are that apparently gives you the right to judge,their work..and you are judging, not giving your opinions, you are at times almost attacking....not attractive...at any given time 2." They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening devices " If you are going to post part, post all the pertaining information. How do any of us know for positive, they were not.???..I do not ,do you.?? I have really no opinion, on such, but if some differs with yours, well excuse me that is allowed..Do you really think that Weisberg, Maegher, Jones, and all the rest always agreed.....I don't think so.....all are entitled..whether you agree or not. 3.Please show me your studies of the Moorman....do not use Mr. White's, nor Bill Miller's nor anyone elses.....yours...and ,let's see your comparisons then to theirs.....if this cannot be done here on this site then may I suggest you obtain a free web site, for such....many would be very interested in your recent work I am sure ......there is an old saying if you can't put up then s... up...... that could apply here.....and please show your studies of the light coming through said windows which should been seen but is not, and why not.???.that's an oldie....BTW....it is you that is judging, no one else..... If you were here to study, or to show your analysis, and receive critiques from those knowledgeable, and or for input, this you would have done, long before now....which you have not, this is an education Forum, not a forum for use, to discredit others, by any bullying tactics...it is for studying and the trading of information,..the I'm right your wrong attitude will not work here, and shouldn't.... So how about you present your work, in a fair manner, so that all others may judge your work, as you have been judging others, or shut the heck up, IMO..If you cannot give, you cannot expect to take, in otherwards... > B. Edited July 16, 2004 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 That's what you are here for, and has become very clear....and paid for....Do you also believe in the Warren Report.?? I have said many times that I believe there was a conspiracy, so a reasonable person would then say that I do not agree with the Warren Commissions findings. Seeing that you repeatedly refuse to show us your work, as a study, therefore,could mean, you have none, and or are using, some ones elses...or others in combination, another old trick..perhaps being fed to you, as the question or reply warrants... What work have I not shown? I have walked Mr. White through the timeline that would have been available for the Altgens number 6 photograph to have been altered. By the way - Mr. White didn't mention that timeline in the book 'Hoax' because he failed to consider it. I believe Mr. White has admitted that from 12:39 p.m. CST to 1:03 p. m. CST would not have allowed enough time to have processed Altgens roll of film, make prints and do any alterations before going out on the news wire. Next there was the Skaggs/Bond comparison and Mr. White has also admitted that he errered in that observation, as well, so what are you complaining about concerning my showing my work or detailing how I reached my conclusion? Your comment saying, "This 40 years alone of Mr. Whites compared to yours of 18 months is astounding and overwhelming ..." is just more of you making a fool of yourself for I stated I had been studying the JFK assassination for over a quarter of a century. Now if you have any specific film alteration claim that you would like to have addressed, then please tell me which one it is and we'll all investigate it together if you like. I am prepared to fully explain what I discovered when I weighed the claims being made on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 (edited) Hi Peoples: To Larry Whomever ? QUOTE That's what you are here for, and has become very clear....and paid for.... Do you also believe in the Warren Report.?? I have said many times that I believe there was a conspiracy, so a reasonable person would then say that I do not agree with the Warren Commissions findings. **B.Reply: The HSCA also believed there could have been a conspiracy,but they still believed the WC..!! old trick.. ******************************************************** QUOTE Seeing that you repeatedly refuse to show us your work, as a study, therefore,could mean, you have none, and or are using, some ones elses...or others in combination, another old trick..perhaps being fed to you, as the question or reply warrants... What work have I not shown? I have walked Mr. White through the timeline that would have been available for the Altgens number 6 photograph to have been altered. By the way - Mr. White didn't mention that timeline in the book 'Hoax' because he failed to consider it. I believe Mr. White has admitted that from 12:39 p.m. CST to 1:03 p. m. CST would not have allowed enough time to have processed Altgens roll of film, make prints and do any alterations before going out on the news wire. Next there was the Skaggs/Bond comparison and Mr. White has also admitted that he errered in that observation, as well, so what are you complaining about concerning my showing my work or detailing how I reached my conclusion? Your comment saying, "This 40 years alone of Mr. Whites compared to yours of 18 months is astounding and overwhelming ..." is just more of you making a fool of yourself for I stated I had been studying the JFK assassination for over a quarter of a century. **B Reply: I and others have repeatedly requested your qualifications for judging others research studies relating to the Photographs and the Zapruder Film....You continually attack the Hoax contributors...and have refused time and time again....To repeat this request would prove fruitless as it has many times before..I believe you stated, that you have studied the photos for 18 months...the Assassination for 25 years....I have referred to this study of 18 months in the above posts, at no time did you correct this information...so as far as I know you are now, trying to twist the facts again....perhaps you had better check your posts to make sure of what you have and have not related in the past.??. Perhaps in your 25 years as a student you also, have not realized that what the witnesses describe occurring that day, does not agree with what is seen on the Zapruder Film.. Now lets do a little comparison of some contributors, and their Qualifications for Hoax: John P.Costella, Ph.D.Honors Degrees: Electrical Engineering: Sciences:..theoretical physics: specializing in high energy physics, Einstein's theory of relativity, classical electrodynamics:( which is the mathematical analysis of the physics of moving objects and the light they emit: 3 years postdoctoral research and lecturing.. James H Fetzer: Ph.D:Philosophy: Professor:A,B magna cum laude: Princton: Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science.Indianna. Publisher of 20 books, and more than 100 artciles on philosopy of science and theoretical foundations of computer science. David Healy: 30 years Television and film production and post production,special effects cinematographic techniques: Engineered ,designed and built editing facilities...ENG news camera packages for manufacturers,Video post production for Silicon Valley Corps.and Fortune 500 Companies...Industry Awards:and filmed and produced documentarys. David S Lifton: Cornell Univ. graduate School of Engineering Physics..UCLA graduate: worked on NAA on Project Apollo: author of "Best Evidence", filmed autopsy technicians from Bethesda and their experiences"..worked with the ARRB and was a witness. David W.Mantik: M.D.Univ. Michigan: Ph.D in physics ,Wisconsin: Board Certified Radiation Oncologist :pioneer studying autopsy X-rays, with densitometry,leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today of J.F.K.autopsy x-rays and alteration of the film . Jack White: His qualifications are posted here at the Forum in the Biographys section...includes 40 years experience with the assassination photos. and others..... Now: Larry Peters: ?? None...stated, after continued requests, by many. *************************************************** Now if you have any specific film alteration claim that you would like to have addressed, then please tell me which one it is and we'll all investigate it together if you like. I am prepared to fully explain what I discovered when I weighed the claims being made on both sides. **B: Oh Larry Whomever: Now here comes the Please ,nice to see.....But now that Mr.White has refused to address your posts,and discuss any photo alterations any further with you, (and I have not read the latest, on all this ) you now decide to try to use me , by asking that I choose a specific film alteration, to continue your so called investigations into such so that you can continue your tirades against such....by the kind offer above....LOL.....seen that one before also..... Go play with your disinfo buddies...continue on with your game..as I know you and your team shall.....I refuse to acknowledge your posts any further, your agenda has been shown clearly, your information is coming off a production line.... too fast...too much....seen it before....you and they blew it.. BTW: it was a poor Jack Attack seen much better......perhaps you are too eager, now didn't that disinfo school teach you anything...easy goes the game...you are tiresome, and need some Forum rules to follow....then you shall not be found out perhaps as quickly......though you certainly are not new at this game of yours,your phrasing gives you away... BTW: Mr.Peters, I've been called worse, and perhaps you forgot......it takes one to know one, so glad to see you admit to being a fool... B...for Bye... Edited July 18, 2004 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 Bernice -- Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. In refusing to address Mr. Peter's concerns regarding film alteration, of course all he can move on is JWhites work - discredit him [meaning Jack White], by default - possible alteration of the Zapruder film goes by the wayside ... yeadada, yadada, yadada... And the beat goes on... Nice to see you posting, lady! Hope all is well with you and your's. David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Within a week, we'll be hearing the HOAX contributors "failed" proving the case for alteration. David Healy Great News about the hoaxers coming on to explain their work. The reason why Mr. White's claim have been brought to light is because his work made up most of the book = "TGZFH". Of course there was your section that said that it was possible to alter the Zapruder film only to admit that you have no proof that it was actually done. Then there is Mr. Costella talking about a 27 hour window that could have been used to alter Moorman's photo, while he obviously didn't know that Moorman's photo was placed on video within 30 minutes of the assassination while still in her possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Peters Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 **B.Reply: The HSCA also believed there could have been a conspiracy,but they still believed the WC..!! old trick.. Bernice - you asked if I believed the Warren Commissions findings and I said I did not. This phrasing has nothing to do with your past question, but I will address it, too. I do not believe everything the Commission said, but some things into evidence they got right. B Reply: I and others have repeatedly requested your qualifications for judging others research studies relating to the Photographs and the Zapruder Film....You continually attack the Hoax contributors...and have refused time and time again....To repeat this request would prove fruitless as it has many times before..I believe you stated, that you have studied the photos for 18 months...the Assassination for 25 years....I have referred to this study of 18 months in the above posts, at no time did you correct this information...so as far as I know you are now, trying to twist the facts again....perhaps you had better check your posts to make sure of what you have and have not related in the past.??. The only people who have requested anything of me are the same three individuals that cannot understand what the shifting pedestal means when an overlay comparison has been made. Two of those individuals have yet to address a single point concerning the evidence I have presented. Maybe I should ask what are your qualifications that would lead me to believe that even if I told you everything about myself, that it would somehow make you more capable of understanding the evidence before you? As far as my only studying something for 18 months - you go find it and show me where I said it for I haven't got time to correct all your misstated information. Now here comes the Please ,nice to see.....But now that Mr.White has refused to address your posts,and discuss any photo alterations any further with you, (and I have not read the latest, on all this ) you now decide to try to use me , by asking that I choose a specific film alteration, to continue your so called investigations into such so that you can continue your tirades against such....by the kind offer above....LOL.....seen that one before also..... So if I understand you right - you have nothing to offer and cannot address any of the photo and film alteration claims that you defend so much. Allow me to share something that was eamiled to me ... "So far, it seems to me, that you have argued your case rationally and have increased your standing as an obvious expert on the case. Go play with your disinfo buddies...continue on with your game..as I know you and your team shall You talk like a paranoid nut! It seems that you have questions about everything but the evidence in the JFK murder case. BTW: it was a poor Jack Attack seen much better...... This sentence makes no sense. Mr.Peters, I've been called worse, That I do not doubt at all. 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