Civil discourse

[Jack White]

And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!. 

Come on people, we're capable of better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do?

I've asked questions which receive no reply.

A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it.

I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them.

Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I have pointed out, I will discuss any issues that are

free from personal attacks. I too would be interested in

the research credentials of Mr. Burton. Like Mr. Lamson,

he showed up on this forum strictly to discredit me,along

with other members of BADASTRONOMY website.

Questions asked with personal attacks deserve no reply.

For that matter, NOBODY is obligated to engage in discussion

with anyone, let alone unpleasant persons.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!. 

Come on people, we're capable of better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do?

I've asked questions which receive no reply.

A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it.

I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them.

Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I have pointed out, I will discuss any issues that are

free from personal attacks. I too would be interested in

the research credentials of Mr. Burton. Like Mr. Lamson,

he showed up on this forum strictly to discredit me,along

with other members of BADASTRONOMY website.

Questions asked with personal attacks deserve no reply.

For that matter, NOBODY is obligated to engage in discussion

with anyone, let alone unpleasant persons.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok Jack, no insults just an honest question.

In this study :

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html

you indicate that the double crosshairs are the result of an overlay on a photograph that has lifted during a copy process.

Please explain exactly how the lighting was set up to create the effect you say is shadows from a lifted overlay.

Edited September 10, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Guest John Gillespie]

I call into question your credibility because Mr. Myers performed a thoroughly superb investigation and it is clear to me you are like so many others here, Dixie included of course, who wouldn't know where to begin, especially if it led in the 'wrong' direction. And why would you, especially when you can get on here and chat it up with the ignorami?

You're into the usual wishful thinking of the Progressives. It's called agendae and it reflects poorly on the credibility of the honest researchers, authors and members of the cognoscenti who know a fact when they see one and can recognize those who are just spreading warts, like yourself. You make it easy for the McAdams of the world to brand others as loony conspiracists.

I see you as just another Progressive being allowed to dispense profanity and personal attacks on the Re-Education Forum. Ah, but you can't top Jack - who observed that people wrote things they wouldn't say to someone's face and then, practically in the same breath, he wrote the same type of things and used the very same profanity. But you're good, though; just vile enough and clearly out of control - a true Progressive.

Now, go away. I'm off to correspond with your betters and to receive updates on how Mr. Roberts is toying with the fools on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I leave you to yourselves, again.

[David G. Healy]

John Gillespie wrote:

I call into question your credibility because Mr. Myers performed a thoroughly superb investigation and it is clear to me you are like so many others here, Dixie included of course, who wouldn't know where to begin, especially if it led in the 'wrong' direction.

dgh01: As soon as you, John Gillespie display your 3d Graphics credentials we'll have something to talk about - regarding Dale Myers Emmy winning animation work.

And why would you, especially when you can get on here and chat it up with the ignorami?

dgh01: it's called the internet Mr. Gillespie, the subject matter, I'm quite familar with. If you're into learning about this case, GREAT! If your one of those that divert those that are looking for conclusions, conclusions that don't necessarily lead to WCR conclusions -- we'll go right past you.

You're into the usual wishful thinking of the Progressives. It's called agendae and it reflects poorly on the credibility of the honest researchers, authors and members of the cognoscenti who know a fact when they see one and can recognize those who are just spreading warts, like yourself.

dgh01: I do declah, ya-honah -- I've been castigated, castigated by a dried-up lawyah

You make it easy for the McAdams of the world to brand others as loony conspiracists.

dgh01: he's been at it for years now, to no avail - are you his heir apparent, Mr. Gillespie?

I see you as just another Progressive being allowed to dispense profanity and personal attacks on the Re-Education Forum.

dgh01: well here's one you can share with your reich-wing partners, I haven't a clue as to who killed President Kennedy, do you?

Ah, but you can't top Jack - who observed that people wrote things they wouldn't say to someone's face and then, practically in the same breath, he wrote the same type of things and used the very same profanity.

dgh01: I suspect JWhite has his reasons for saying what he feels he must, just like crusty old word merchants like you. As they say: If you haven't walked a mile in a mans shoes, how the hell do you know what your talking about?

But you're good, though; just vile enough and clearly out of control - a true Progressive.

dgh01: was that one of those ofhand compliments? Vile enough? You are new to internet boards, aren't you?

Now, go away. I'm off to correspond with your betters and to receive updates on how Mr. Roberts is toying with the fools on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

dgh01: take my word for it -- he's [Roberts] a shoo-in. Do we Liberals have to inform you rabid right-wingers about everything?

I leave you to yourselves, again.

dgh01: I never LEFT myself, again!

Edited September 14, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!. 

Come on people, we're capable of better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do?

I've asked questions which receive no reply.

A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it.

I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them.

Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I have pointed out, I will discuss any issues that are

free from personal attacks. I too would be interested in

the research credentials of Mr. Burton. Like Mr. Lamson,

he showed up on this forum strictly to discredit me,along

with other members of BADASTRONOMY website.

Questions asked with personal attacks deserve no reply.

For that matter, NOBODY is obligated to engage in discussion

with anyone, let alone unpleasant persons.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok Jack, no insults just an honest question.

In this study :

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html

you indicate that the double crosshairs are the result of an overlay on a photograph that has lifted during a copy process.

Please explain exactly how the lighting was set up to create the effect you say is shadows from a lifted overlay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you are known as MR. LIGHT, I am sure you can explain it better than I.

Most professionals use 2 (or more) lights positioned at a 45-degree angles on

each side of the copyboard. Like you, I am puzzled why the side lights did not

cast multiple shadows of the overlay crosshairs. But hey, my job is to point

out such anomalies, not to explain them. You tell us your theory on how the

shadows were created...and why.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!. 

Come on people, we're capable of better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do?

I've asked questions which receive no reply.

A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it.

I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them.

Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I have pointed out, I will discuss any issues that are

free from personal attacks. I too would be interested in

the research credentials of Mr. Burton. Like Mr. Lamson,

he showed up on this forum strictly to discredit me,along

with other members of BADASTRONOMY website.

Questions asked with personal attacks deserve no reply.

For that matter, NOBODY is obligated to engage in discussion

with anyone, let alone unpleasant persons.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok Jack, no insults just an honest question.

In this study :

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html

you indicate that the double crosshairs are the result of an overlay on a photograph that has lifted during a copy process.

Please explain exactly how the lighting was set up to create the effect you say is shadows from a lifted overlay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you are known as MR. LIGHT, I am sure you can explain it better than I.

Most professionals use 2 (or more) lights positioned at a 45-degree angles on

each side of the copyboard. Like you, I am puzzled why the side lights did not

cast multiple shadows of the overlay crosshairs. But hey, my job is to point

out such anomalies, not to explain them. You tell us your theory on how the

shadows were created...and why.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not puzzled at all, but it is interesting to note that you base you theory on something you cannot explain or even offer an opinion as to how your theory might even work.

And I'm sorry but your job goes far beyond 'pointing out anomalies" when you suggest reasons why these so called anomolies exist.

But thank you for answering the question and pointing out you have no idea how your theory might work.

BTW, there is no way to create a lighting setup to create what you call the shadows from a lifted overlay.

You might note however that your "shadow" crosshairs are in perfect alignment with the rest of the crosshairs on the image.

My theory, which Jay Widley was kind enough to do the math on, and who found it to be a very likely candidate can be found in Evans 13 page thread in case you want to check.

[Terry Mauro]

I call into question your credibility because Mr. Myers performed a thoroughly superb investigation and it is clear to me you are like so many others here, Dixie included of course, who wouldn't know where to begin, especially if it led in the 'wrong' direction.  And why would you, especially when you can get on here and chat it up with the ignorami?

  You're into the usual wishful thinking of the Progressives.  It's called agendae and it reflects poorly on the credibility of the honest researchers, authors and members of the cognoscenti who know a fact when they see one and can recognize those who are just spreading warts, like yourself.  You make it easy for the McAdams of the world to brand others as loony conspiracists.

  I see you as just another Progressive being allowed to dispense profanity and personal attacks on the Re-Education Forum.  Ah, but you can't top Jack - who observed that people wrote things they wouldn't say to someone's face and then, practically in the same breath, he wrote the same type of things and used the very same profanity.  But you're good, though; just vile enough and clearly out of control - a true Progressive.

  Now, go away.  I'm off to correspond with your betters and to receive updates on how Mr. Roberts is toying with the fools on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I leave you to yourselves, again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*******************************************************************

I call into question your credibility because Mr. Myers performed a thoroughly superb investigation and it is clear to me you are like so many others here, Dixie included of course, who wouldn't know where to begin, especially if it led in the 'wrong' direction. And why would you, especially when you can get on here and chat it up with the ignorami?

You're into the usual wishful thinking of the Progressives.

*******************************************************************

I find this statement quite interesting, considering the fact that the Dixie Dea I happen to know personally, is a Republican and was so, even when JFK was still alive.

And, having clarified that fact, I find the form of rhetoric reflected in your biography, indicative of your affiliations, and where your true loyalties are placed.

The attitude of a pugnacious prig is also reflective of your personality, especially in the choice of words with which you describe others

*******************************************************************

Hello To My Fellow Truth Seekers:

I'm a long time resident of my beloved Boston, MA, having departed several times but unwilling to stay away for too long. I am a former Special Agent in Military Intelligence and have received two diplomas from the US Military Intelligence School. Post military, I worked as a broadcast journalist at two radio stations in New York after graduation from the now defunct - and lamented - Leland Powers School of Radio, TV & Theatre which I attended on the GI Bill, of course.

Most of my life since then has been spent as an Investigator here in the Boston area where I worked for three private agencies for an average of five years each. I have had many fascinating cases over the years. From time to time I still am called upon to assist in the occasional thorny investigation. Somehow, I've achieved Emeritus status at one of my former agencies. Presently, I work as a Veterans Representative for the Commonwealth of MA - a good job with good wages, as our former MA Chief Executive M. Stanley Dukakis was fond of saying.

My interest in this site lies in respect for those members whose names are known to me and appreciation of the mature approach on the part of the membership as a whole. In addditon, I have a long standing interest in the JFK assassination as well as in all things Watergate. Besides, where else do you find zealots who have read the ENTIRE Weberman site, as I have!?

Finally, I believe I have some opinions of substance as well as facts to share. My opinions and facts easily will be discernible in my correspondence.

This post has been edited by John Gillespie: Sep 2 2005, 08:43 PM

--------------------

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4288