Has anyone attempted to explain....

[Brian Benson]

. . . . . I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

I don't think it is a matter of judgement being right or wrong or hard evidence. Both sides have hard evidence and fake evidence. It more a matter of what you trust. In the end - you have to decide for yourself. I used to view the Conspicy Theorists as just plain nuts - because my Government told me that LHO shot JFK. But the more I read, the more I discovered that the Gov't evidence in the Warren commission report was cherry-picked and manipulated to prove that Oswald acted alone. The Non-Gov't (CT) evidence challenges alot of what the Warren Commission reported. You must decide for yourself which evidence you trust.

Start with the SingleBulletTheory - which is the backbone of the WC report.

You will need to look at the Gov't/(WC) and Non-gov't/(CT) evidence and decide for yourself if one bullet could have done what the WC report says it did.

WC: The bullet entered JFK's back at the neck. CT: Photos of JFK's coat, shirt and back show the bullet entered JFK's back 6 inches below the neck, on a downward trajectory.

WC: The bullet continued through JFK's neck and exits the front. CT: The bullet could not have changed directions to exit the throat. Parkland doctors described the front neck wound as an Entrance, and not an Exit, wound.

WC: This same bullet caused all the non-head wounds in JFK and Connelly, including breaking bones and exit in Pristine condition. CT: The bullet that hit Connelly was a different bullet.

WC: The JFK final head shot was from behind. CT: The JFK final head shot was from the front.

Without the SBT - you have more than one shooter and thus a conspiracy. If you still believe the SBT after doing your own research, then there is nothing anyone here can say that will change your mind.

[Dean Hagerman]

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked

I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one

I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened

Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real.

As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly.

You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG?

Did I get that correct?

No you did not get it correct

I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened

I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked.

I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy

I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy

Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor)

Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away

In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to

Edited November 6, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Len Colby]

.....D’uuoh

Forgot about the attempt on Truman.The rest of my point still stands though. The time between shots was very short and Clint Hill reacted quickly. Based on your bios neither you nor Peter nor Bernice has any experience/expertise in personal protection or being shot at. Are you certain that in the same situation you would have done any better? Do you like Peter believe this is proof of conspiracy? Shall we conclude that Rosie Grier and Rafer Johnson were “in on” the assassination of JFK’s bother 5 years later?

I‘m not sure what your point was about Rice, was he in Dallas?

Len,

You posted your opinion that in 1963, the Secret Service had not had to defend against assailants attempting to shoot the president since 1932, an implication that members of the Secret Service in 1963 had no first hand knowledge or experience reacting to "shots fired" in the proximity of the president.

I posted proof that this was not true. I pointed out that a shooter got within 31 feet of the president, at his residence, just 13 years before 1963. The rest of my observations seem unambiguous. I used Rice as an example, since it has only been documented in recent times that he was assigned to guard the president in the 1950 to 1951 period, that he and other agents who were guarding the president in late 1950 were still on the job, both in Secret Service offices around the nation, as well as on the protective detail in Dallas.

In you post, you acted confused about my points, which seem quite clear, and you reacted to being proved wrong about when the last time was that the Secret Service had seen "action" in defense of a president against gunmen, by posting words to the effect of, "well, what do any of you know?"

Apparently, more than you, do, in this instance!

Yes Tom I made a dumb error but none of you has produced any evidence the Secret Service agents acted slower than they reasonably should have been expected to do, let alone that this delay was so anomalous that is serves as evidence of even proof they were "in on it"

[J. Raymond Carroll]

none of you has produced any evidence the Secret Service agents acted slower than they reasonably should have been expected to do

Then you should read the testimony of William Greer, and compare it to his behaviour during the shooting. Greer lied to the Warren Commission about the number of times he turned around to look at JFK. When the shooting began Greer slowed the limo down, and and kept it slowed to a walking speed until he saw that JFK was dead. This slowdown of the limo is what enabled the assassination to succeed.

It appears that Greer also tampered with clothing evidence later that evening.

Also, according to SURVIVOR'S GUILT by Vince Palamara, there is reason to suspect that Greer harbored animus against JFK.

[William Kelly]

none of you has produced any evidence the Secret Service agents acted slower than they reasonably should have been expected to do

Then you should read the testimony of William Greer, and compare it to his behaviour during the shooting. Greer lied to the Warren Commission about the number of times he turned around to look at JFK. When the shooting began Greer slowed the limo down, and and kept it slowed to a walking speed until he saw that JFK was dead. This slowdown of the limo is what enabled the assassination to succeed.

It appears that Greer also tampered with clothing evidence later that evening.

Also, according to SURVIVOR'S GUILT by Vince Palamara, there is reason to suspect that Greer harbored animus against JFK.

Is it true that Greer was born in Ireland, never graduated from school, was a Protestant who disliked Catholics, and had previously worked as a driver for Henry Cabot Lodge?

Wasn't Lodge Nixon's VP candidate, appointed ambassador to Vietnam during the Diem assassination & coup?

Wasn't Lodge a potential presidential candidate in 1964?

And what was it that SA Hill said about Greer?

And if John Dugan believes that Oswald shot JFK alone, then why did he not take the easy shot from the front and wait instead for a harder, obstructed view to take his shots?

And if Oswald was the Sixth Floor sniper, and was on the second floor two minutes later, who was that man the court clerk saw in the sniper's window four minutes after the last shot?

BK

Edited November 7, 2009 by William Kelly

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And what was it that SA Hill said about Greer?

BK

Bill: Can you provide any further info on this, including, if possible, the source?

[William Kelly]

And what was it that SA Hill said about Greer?

BK

Bill: Can you provide any further info on this, including, if possible, the source?

No I can't. At least not for a few weeks.

I was fishing for someone to provide the story and the source.

Can you answer any of the other questions?

Was he Irish?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Edited November 7, 2009 by William Kelly

[Craig Lamson]

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked

I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one

I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened

Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real.

As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly.

You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG?

Did I get that correct?

No you did not get it correct

I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened

I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked.

I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy

I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy

Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor)

Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away

In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to

No I have it perfectly correct.

You believe that Jacks work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

You believe that Apollo happened as billed.

Thus Jack White, who's photo research you admire and accept as solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography, got it COMPLETELY wrong when he applied those same atrributes to the Apollo photography.

You can't have it both ways Dean.

If Jack White has the skills you ascribe to him he can't blow it as completely as you claim when it comes to Apollo. He used the same skill set.

If he blew it so completely when it comes to the Apollo photopgraphy how did he get JFK right?

[Dean Hagerman]

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked

I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one

I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened

Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real.

As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly.

You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG?

Did I get that correct?

No you did not get it correct

I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened

I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked.

I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy

I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy

Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor)

Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away

In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to

No I have it perfectly correct.

You believe that Jacks work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

You believe that Apollo happened as billed.

Thus Jack White, who's photo research you admire and accept as solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography, got it COMPLETELY wrong when he applied those same atrributes to the Apollo photography.

You can't have it both ways Dean.

If Jack White has the skills you ascribe to him he can't blow it as completely as you claim when it comes to Apollo. He used the same skill set.

If he blew it so completely when it comes to the Apollo photopgraphy how did he get JFK right?

Craig you are trying to get me to say that Jack was wrong on the Apollo moon landing

Jack has been wrong before in the JFK case, I have seen it first hand, so yes Jack has been wrong in the past

But I have NEVER looked at any of Jack's or anyone elses work on the Apollo case so how can I tell you if its wrong or right?

Your saying that because jack has a different outlook on the Apollo moon landing then I do that he is wrong about everything

Jack is right in my opinion most of the time

I will not slander someone I respect and like to please you

Edited November 7, 2009 by Dean Hagerman

[Craig Lamson]

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked

I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one

I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened

Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real.

As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly.

You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG?

Did I get that correct?

No you did not get it correct

I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened

I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked.

I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy

I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy

Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor)

Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away

In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to

No I have it perfectly correct.

You believe that Jacks work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

You believe that Apollo happened as billed.

Thus Jack White, who's photo research you admire and accept as solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography, got it COMPLETELY wrong when he applied those same atrributes to the Apollo photography.

You can't have it both ways Dean.

If Jack White has the skills you ascribe to him he can't blow it as completely as you claim when it comes to Apollo. He used the same skill set.

If he blew it so completely when it comes to the Apollo photopgraphy how did he get JFK right?

Craig you are trying to get me to say that Jack was wrong on the Apollo moon landing

Jack has been wrong before in the JFK case, I have seen it first hand, so yes Jack has been wrong in the past

But I have NEVER looked at any of Jack's or anyone elses work on the Apollo case so how can I tell you if its wrong or right?

Your saying that because jack has a different outlook on the Apollo moon landing then I do that he is wrong about everything

Jack is right in my opinion most of the time

I will not slander someone I respect and like to please you

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...its a duck.

Sorry but you have already told us JACK is wrong on Apollo. if you can't even be honest with yourself , how can we expect to to be honest about anything else? Oh yea I forget...you don't really know, you just "believe".

If White can so totally screw up his analysis of ALL of the Apollo photos...as you agree "I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened"...based on the same skills and claims of what is possible and impossible when to comes to photography...how can you "believe" a word of what he says when it comes to the JFK photography?

And how can he be so wrong on Apollo when you state "Jack is right in my opinion most of the time". If you are correct then he must be right "most of the time" when it comes to Apollo, yet you claim he is totally wrong. My are you a mess!

Have you done the tests yourself to test his work? Exactly what technical and photographic skills do you have to support your claims? Do you have any related skills at all?

BTW, You seem to have plenty of time to post, can you refute my work detailed in the links I gave you yet?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Jim Root]

Why was Oswald not firing on the motorcade before it turned on Elm? He would have had a wide open shot at the President coming down Houston. But wait till the last second and shoot.

And why Dealey Plaza? Of all the places an assassin could get to JFK, Dealey Plaza hardly seems like a assassin friendly shooting range.....

(these are just thoughts I have when I watch these shows on tv)

John just a couple of thoughts:

First as the target car approached on Houston the view from the front was obstructed by the window flaps being up above the front window and the actual car which carried Kennedy, as opposed to the one used in recreations, had a bar accross the center that would have held the "bubble" top if it had been in place. A shot fired as the car approached up Houston would have been very difficult and the line of site very poor.

Second: While most people want to suggest that the car had to turn on Elm to approach the "trangulation of fire" so many believe is necessary, I might suggest that a shot fired at the President while he was on Houston would have tempted the driver to accelerate out of the line of fire by going straight on Houston instead of slowing to make a 130 degree turn onto Elm while shots were being fired. If that would have occured the Presidents car, as I understand it, would have driven into a road that was blocked due to construction. It seems this would have provided a much better killing zone for any professional assassins and could have still made use of what so many seem to be the patsy in the window and all the planted evidence that so many believe the conspirators went to so much trouble to plant on the 6th floor.

Jim Root

Edited November 7, 2009 by Jim Root

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Is it true that Greer was born in Ireland, never graduated from school, was a Protestant who disliked Catholics, and had previously worked as a driver for Henry Cabot Lodge?

BK

By far the best source of information on Greer is Chapter 8 of Vince Palamara's book SURVIVOR's GUILT. I think you will find answers to your questions there:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=8640&st=0

[Dean Hagerman]

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked

I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one

I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened

Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real.

As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly.

You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG?

Did I get that correct?

No you did not get it correct

I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened

I have never had a reason to look Jacks or anybodys work on the faked Apollo moon landings because I have never had a doubt in my mind about it being faked.

I dont believe in a conspiracy about 9/11, I have never looked at any of Jim Marrs of Jim Fetzter's work on the 9/11 conspiracy because I dont believe there was a conspiracy

I dont believe in a Pearl Harbor conspiracy, so I have never looked up or read any info on a Pearl harbor conspiracy

Now do you understand, I do not care to get involved in things I think were real (Apollo) or not a conspiracy by the American Govt. (9/11, Pearl Harbor)

Im still reading your links, sorry but the wife has me doing house work like im her slave today and its hard to get away

In closing I have never looked at Jack's work on the faked Apollo landings because I have never had a reason to

No I have it perfectly correct.

You believe that Jacks work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

You believe that Apollo happened as billed.

Thus Jack White, who's photo research you admire and accept as solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography, got it COMPLETELY wrong when he applied those same atrributes to the Apollo photography.

You can't have it both ways Dean.

If Jack White has the skills you ascribe to him he can't blow it as completely as you claim when it comes to Apollo. He used the same skill set.

If he blew it so completely when it comes to the Apollo photopgraphy how did he get JFK right?

Craig you are trying to get me to say that Jack was wrong on the Apollo moon landing

Jack has been wrong before in the JFK case, I have seen it first hand, so yes Jack has been wrong in the past

But I have NEVER looked at any of Jack's or anyone elses work on the Apollo case so how can I tell you if its wrong or right?

Your saying that because jack has a different outlook on the Apollo moon landing then I do that he is wrong about everything

Jack is right in my opinion most of the time

I will not slander someone I respect and like to please you

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...its a duck.

Sorry but you have already told us JACK is wrong on Apollo. if you can't even be honest with yourself , how can we expect to to be honest about anything else? Oh yea I forget...you don't really know, you just "believe".

If White can so totally screw up his analysis of ALL of the Apollo photos...as you agree "I dont believe the moon landings were faked, I have always believed that the Apollo moon landings happened"...based on the same skills and claims of what is possible and impossible when to comes to photography...how can you "believe" a word of what he says when it comes to the JFK photography?

And how can he be so wrong on Apollo when you state "Jack is right in my opinion most of the time". If you are correct then he must be right "most of the time" when it comes to Apollo, yet you claim he is totally wrong. My are you a mess!

Have you done the tests yourself to test his work? Exactly what technical and photographic skills do you have to support your claims? Do you have any related skills at all?

BTW, You seem to have plenty of time to post, can you refute my work detailed in the links I gave you yet?

Well if you had read the other thread you would see that I checked Jack's work on the Betzner photo

So no I dont just "believe" I check everything that Jack has done that revolves around my specific areas of research

I told you Jack is not always right but you want me to say that Jack has been wrong on everything he has ever done

Why do you want me to talk bad about Jack? That seems to be your #1 goal

So lets move on to your work on proving Costella was wrong

The bottom line is that I dont really use or rely on Costella work for any of my research, I have never talked to Costella and he has never talked to me

Costella is a newer researcher on the case in terms of the researchers who I agree with and look up to

So what I read in your links makes sense to me and Costella could be wrong

But again I dont use his research for anything I do, I have watched his combined edit of the Z-film but have never used it (I use Groden's unspliced copy)

I have also read his sections of TGZFH, I have nothing to say good or bad about his work

If you would calm down just a little bit and stop trying to bait me into insulting researchers I like then I will have no problems at all replying to your questions

Dean

[Craig Lamson]

Well if you had read the other thread you would see that I checked Jack's work on the Betzner photo

Just HOW did you"check" Jacks work? Based on WHAT expertise?

So no I dont just "believe" I check everything that Jack has done that revolves around my specific areas of research

Wait a second you said "Jack is right in my opinion most of the time". So, unless you have checked ALL of his work (based on what expertise we still don't know) you must simply BELIEVE Jack is rightt "most of the time". Sheesh Dean, the truth will set you free. Try it sometime.

I told you Jack is not always right but you want me to say that Jack has been wrong on everything he has ever done

Which is it Dean. You told us Jack has it TOTALLY wrong in respect to Apollo. He blew it 100 percent. Yet using the same tools, skills and rational, he gets it right "most of the time" with JFK(well that a little untruth on your part because you have also told us you have only "checked" Jacks work "that revolves around my specific areas of research") Truth be told you really don't have the first clue about what Jack has right or wrong.

Why do you want me to talk bad about Jack? That seems to be your #1 goal

Talk bad about Jack? I just want to to tell the TRUTH about Jacks work. That seems mighty hard for you. In fact it's starting to look like you lack the skills and training to even understand the work in question. To that point, I'll ask the question again that you have dodged. What is your expertise in the film/video/photo areas? Inquiring minds really want to know.

So lets move on to your work on proving Costella was wrong

The bottom line is that I dont really use or rely on Costella work for any of my research, I have never talked to Costella and he has never talked to me

"Don't really use or rely"? Now how does that work Don? Either you use his work or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Costella is a newer researcher on the case in terms of the researchers who I agree with and look up to

So what I read in your links makes sense to me and Costella could be wrong

Again this is black and white Dean. Either he is correct or he is not. There is NO middle ground. And again I'm left wondering if you are just going on BELIEF or if you actually did the work to CHECK FOR YOURSELF. This is photo 101 stuff Dean and if you can't say for certain one way or the other its starting to look quite clear you are yet another deer in the headlights wannabe who can't buy a clue.

But again I dont use his research for anything I do, I have watched his combined edit of the Z-film but have never used it (I use Groden's unspliced copy)

Is that "dont really" or "don't"...you keep contradicting yourself. Not a very confidence inspiring trait Dean.

I have also read his sections of TGZFH, I have nothing to say good or bad about his work

It's not a question of 'good' or 'bad" but right or wrong. He must be one of those Dean, which one is it?

If you would calm down just a little bit and stop trying to bait me into insulting researchers I like then I will have no problems at all replying to your questions

I'm very calm Dean, in fact I'm having one heck of a good time watching you spin like a top. Sorry Dean but if you think its an insult to show the errors and falsehoods in someones work, well,you have a really beg problem, or else you live in a fantasy.

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

Well if you had read the other thread you would see that I checked Jack's work on the Betzner photo

Just HOW did you"check" Jacks work? Based on WHAT expertise?

So no I dont just "believe" I check everything that Jack has done that revolves around my specific areas of research

Wait a second you said "Jack is right in my opinion most of the time". So, unless you have checked ALL of his work (based on what expertise we still don't know) you must simply BELIEVE Jack is rightt "most of the time". Sheesh Dean, the truth will set you free. Try it sometime.

I told you Jack is not always right but you want me to say that Jack has been wrong on everything he has ever done

Which is it Dean. You told us Jack has it TOTALLY wrong in respect to Apollo. He blew it 100 percent. Yet using the same tools, skills and rational, he gets it right "most of the time" with JFK(well that a little untruth on your part because you have also told us you have only "checked" Jacks work "that revolves around my specific areas of research") Truth be told you really don't have the first clue about what Jack has right or wrong.

Why do you want me to talk bad about Jack? That seems to be your #1 goal

Talk bad about Jack? I just want to to tell the TRUTH about Jacks work. That seems mighty hard for you. In fact it's starting to look like you lack the skills and training to even understand the work in question. To that point, I'll ask the question again that you have dodged. What is your expertise in the film/video/photo areas? Inquiring minds really want to know.

So lets move on to your work on proving Costella was wrong

The bottom line is that I dont really use or rely on Costella work for any of my research, I have never talked to Costella and he has never talked to me

"Don't really use or rely"? Now how does that work Don? Either you use his work or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Costella is a newer researcher on the case in terms of the researchers who I agree with and look up to

So what I read in your links makes sense to me and Costella could be wrong

Again this is black and white Dean. Either he is correct or he is not. There is NO middle ground. And again I'm left wondering if you are just going on BELIEF or if you actually did the work to CHECK FOR YOURSELF. This is photo 101 stuff Dean and if you can't say for certain one way or the other its starting to look quite clear you are yet another deer in the headlights wannabe who can't buy a clue.

But again I dont use his research for anything I do, I have watched his combined edit of the Z-film but have never used it (I use Groden's unspliced copy)

Is that "dont really" or "don't"...you keep contradicting yourself. Not a very confidence inspiring trait Dean.

I have also read his sections of TGZFH, I have nothing to say good or bad about his work

It's not a question of 'good' or 'bad" but right or wrong. He must be one of those Dean, which one is it?

If you would calm down just a little bit and stop trying to bait me into insulting researchers I like then I will have no problems at all replying to your questions

I'm very calm Dean, in fact I'm having one heck of a good time watching you spin like a top. Sorry Dean but if you think its an insult to show the errors and falsehoods in someones work, well,you have a really beg problem, or else you live in a fantasy.

Dean

Im not going to play this game with you

You have no idea what I have done with this case yet you say I have no clue and dont know anything about the assassination in your eyes

I will set you straight on one point I DO NOT use Costellas work, sorry I said "I dont really" the first time thats my fault

You keep putting words in my mouth in regards to Jacks Apollo work, I will not slander Jack's name for anyone, including you

I have researched the photographic evidence for 20 years, in my way, not your way, im am not a pro photographer, I do not work in the photo industry

According to you if you dont have your type of background you can not judge any of the photo evidence

Do you know how crazy that is?

Im hate tooting my own horn (looks like you cant get enough of doing that to yourself) but I will bet $100.00 I know twice as much about the assassination then you do

Lets take a test, I ask you 20 questions about the assassination then you ask me 20 questions abbout the assassination, if you are honest then you wont look up the questions online real quick

What do say Craig?

Want to prove how stupid I am and how I know nothing about the assassination?