David Josephs

and why put a PO Box onto a flyer that serves as an invitation for literature and lectures... that would be useless

Could one of the ostensible motives of the FPCC masquerade perhaps be to entrap lefties in NO to send requests to join, so information could be gathered, spying and incrimination performed, etc?

Interesting thought David...

Did anyone ever check to see if any mail was ever delivered to the POBox in NO? and if so, what OTHER OSWALD mail if any was there?

DJ

Yet the hand stamp on most of the flyers is a PO Box...

Why put a POB as a location to receive info and lit on FPC flyers other than to HIDE the real location,

which in turn leads to Oswald being on a mission...

Which mission is yet to be determined....

You get the feeling he was pushed and pulled, for and against by "handlers" he wasn't sure what he was doing and for who...

DJ

Getting back to the Stamp kit and Camp Street....

I did this collage and found it interesting... I would need a flyer with the CAMP street address stamped on it...

but it's obvious this kit did the work on Hideel and on HANDS OFF... I will need to look thru everything to find other places where Oswald may have used this Stamp Kit....

And is there any significane to JUN 8, 1963?

Cheers

DJ

and why put a PO Box onto a flyer that serves as an invitation for literature and lectures... that would be useless

Getting back to the thread's title for a second... Sawyer was in the TSBD from about 12:34 till 12:37...

His testimony states he and 2 others went up to the 4th floor "for a look around"... gave it a once over and came back down, running into Baker.

The broadcast with the description was not until 12:44...

If he heard from Baker this description... and was out front by his car and radio by 12:37 or so....

Why wait to broadcast it...

Harkness and Haygood as well as Brewer have taken "witnesses" to the front of the tSBD... this includes Euins and Brennan, and by 12:40 in every case....

I see no reason that while out front with witnesses and other police, Sawyer would not have heard this description from SOMEONE....

If Sawyer does indeed mirrot Baker, then we know for SURE it was not Oswald, as it was not Oswald who Baker describes on the stairs....

I too agree the lunch story was inserted... for some reason... to get Oswald into the lunchroom.... I guess since so many people saw him there at that time.

The 5'11" 165lbs was a standard used to describe Ozzie... yet he was NEVER that tall or that heavy.... but LEE was....

Averell Harriman had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Nothing. Nothing at all. In 4-5 years of intense JFK research I have found almost nothing in the literature or in comments among the top JFK researchers to indicate that Averell Harriman had anything to do with the JFK assassination.

Spoken from a position of utter ignorance, Robert strikes again...

Indeed you haven't read very much so it's no wonder you haven't gotten to it yet.

And even more OBVIOUS, imo...

is if his statement is correct... wouldn't this lead one to believe - given his proximity - that Harriman and the other "sponsors" had done an amazingly good job at covering ANY tracks leading to them?

Doesn't the notion that LBJ could even be CONSIDERED a "materstermind" automatically remove him from possiblity? What "mastermind" creates a plot that includes himself as a possibility?

I've read Robert write about CFR-based sponsors repeatedly.... LBJ was not a CFR insider - he took orders.

If anything Harriman and the sponsors easily kept their finger on LBJ... the idea that LBJ was the second "patsy" is actually quite profound imo....

Not only was he fearing being killed, but being outed as well... LBJ was a player on the chessboard... he had not real idea who owned the pieces

DJ

On 12/5/2012 at 9:35 AM, James H. Fetzer said:

Not to raise an obvious question, but what does most of the discussion on this thread have to do with the Altgens6 reenactment? Have any of you been able to "explain away" the obfuscated face? the missing shoulder? the Black Tie Man's being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the profile of the black man covering his torso? Because these are four independent proofs that Altgens6 was altered, which I take it most of you want to deny. Given four blatant proofs of alteration, where is your response? Are you trying to bury the issue under irrelevancies? It would probably be appropriate for the moderator to move those posts to a separate thread.

I usually dont repost my stuff, but Jim here ran from the discussion on DPF when I directly confronted his conclusions and his misleading probability statements about IF THEY WERE THE SAME SHIRT what are the odds of things Matching.... y'all are being played.

https://deeppolitics...61698#post61698

Here is your EXPLANATION JIM... the one you ran from on this forum when I pointed out your MATH was wrong, the way you described probability was wrong,

The MATCHES you claim to have made are poorly supported AND I identify 6 areas in which the images are NOT the same in Altgens and your post arrest photo.

Any one, 100% correct MISMATCH reduces the chances of the shirts being the same to ZERO... I found 6 that you don't even bother to address

The most obvious being the sleeve lengths... look at Lovelady afterward and Doorman... the left sleeve is down past his wrist while Oswald's shirt barely reaches his wrist.......

and the bald heads just don't match... they are both lovelady's.

We also discuss how Fritz's notes say that Oswald was out with Shelley - yet you IGNORE comments both from that same page AND the previous page:

On a previous page of the same notes Fritz tells us:

Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr.

On the SAME PAGE AS THE LOVELADY reference is:

home by bus changed britches

(britches being clothes btw)

If JF is going to give Fritz's note 100% reliability to PROVE DOORMAN IS OSWALD... then how does he dismiss Oswald TWICE mentioning changing his clothes, Bookout confirming in HIS report and them finding these clothes in his room and listing them on the inventory?

“Obvious proof” is obviously in the eye of the beholder (or creator) in this case Jim. UNTIL you can adequately address MY SIX POINTS OF MISMATCH and mitigate them to a ZERO PROBABILITY and support why you are even better than 50/50 on your Items... you can have a thousand matching items and STILL they would not be the same shirt….

You’re reaching for straws with an argument that is terribly inaccurate to the point of misleading….

One would think that Jim Fetzer would be extra careful not to employ the same underhanded tactics as those he is trying to expose.

DJ

What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films?

Thanks\DJ

So sez the silly little boy who fails parallax 101....

So you've finally figured out how much Z's camera has to SHIFT to produce the result we see supposedly caused by parallax?

Post your work and PROVE something rather than just telling everyone how RIGHT you are...

Or is that, like everything else... too far over your head to even attempt?

If the photographic record was altered' date=' then it must have been altered in its entirety. Otherwise inconsistencies would prove interference. How then was the entire photographic record of the assassination screened and altered where neccessary? It's absolutely ridiculous to suppose that would even be possible.

[/quote']

It's the LNer CREED... "If we can't understand it and don't get an answer to WHY HOW WHO WHERE WHEN... then we LNers must be right..."

That YOU can't fathom something occurring does not make it impossible - NEWS ALERT right?

So tell us Paul... what is your experience with understanding the details of CIA wet operations? Military operations designed to kill?

False flag, red herring counter intelligence and propaganda...

Tell us you are qualified and experienced to explain WHY it is impossible.... other than just opinion

Then tell us which images/films YOU THINK would need alteration... I am NOT a proponent of alteration of the photographic images from DP...

Altgens 7 does not look like his other photos... why?

Altgens 6... Doorman... has already been proven to be a farce (yet remember that Carolyn Arnold in her FBI unsigned statement says she thought she saw Oswald in the lobby around 12:25... maybe he DID walk out those doors, IDK)

Willis, Betzner, Powell, Dillard... I see no signs of alteration

Moorman, Cancellare, McIntyre, ditto

Which photos do YOU think we are talking about here?

On the other hand, the films are a very different story.

Look a little more carefully at the films/photos that actually needed any sort of changing...

There are only THREE films of the actual assassination Z, Nix, Muchmore...

Z has lost the turn onto Elm and Towner somehow does not show the wide turn as witnessed

Repeatedly the math shows how the Zfilm is not physically possible... the movement from place to place in the frames provided create speed variation that are NOT PHYSCIALLY POSSIBLE...

Nix's assassiantion sequence begins WHEN in concert with Zap? about z300?

Where is the original NIX film?

The Nix film was obtained as a result of a notice that the FBI gave to film processing plants in the Dallas area, that the FBI would be interested in obtaining or knowing about any film they processed relating to the assassination. When Nix heard about this from his processor, he delivered the film to the FBI office in Dallas on December 1, 1963. It was returned to him three days later.

United Press International purchased the copyright for $5,000 and took possession of the original film from Nix on December 6, 1963. UPI distributed frame enlargements to its news subscribers the following day. The original was examined by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. When UPI returned the copyright and all its copies to the Nix family in 1992, the original film was missing.

"MOST EVERYONE BELIEVE IT CAME FROM BEHIND THE FENCE BETWEEN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY AND THE RR TRACK"

That you cannot tell from this enhancement that JFK's head goes backward as a puff of BRAIN from a frontal shot flies up... is simply a result of the LNer rose colored glasses y'all wear. I guess.

Muchmore STARTS at z272...

What is it YOU BELIEVE is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with these films?

Thanks\DJ

Yes indeed old man... reality sucks....

Another excellent and articulate argument in support of your lack of knowledge related to the JFK Assassination.

HUNDREDS of hits! wow, ain't you the big man on campus....

even though all you've ever offered on your own is your three little inches...? and THAT was proven wrong too...

You're a critic... and a poor one at that....

You offer nothing of your own.... as you don't understand the event...

but you're the first to chime in when OTHERS DO THE WORK...

and when asked to show your work... off you scuttle, back under your rock.... spitting and frothing all the way home...

So since you MUST have the last word old man... have at it... show the 2 people reading this thread your BIG BRAIN...

stroke your ginormous ego... and then you ought to nap... your old heart can only take so much...

See ya around old man... I for one have had enough of your foolishness...

First TV piece on my book. If anyone wants to back an offer for $1,000,000, let me know. Your money is safe, I guarantee that.

http://www.foxcharlo...-180451741.html

Kudos Barry....

That so many do not understand how entrenched the CIA was and how similiar the "assassination plans" were to the global conquests they had already been involved in

Best of luck

DJ

Thanks Craig....

We all get it - you just can't do it.... no harm in admitting you're WAY out of your league on this and any other JFK forum...

You simply do not have the chops to be able to apply your little experiments to the reality of the evidence...

You've been reduced, yet again, to the parents from the Peanuts cartoons... "Waa-wa wa waaaa, waa-wa-wa...."

The 2 guests here you are trying to convince can have you...

and of course you have Rago... both on equal footing when it comes to understanding the event....

Thank for playing old man.... and PROVING you're simply all talk.

It's time for your nap and meds so the grownups can have a real discussion....

From T3 UP to the throat at a DOWNWARD angle of 17 degrees... pretty special bullet and IMPOSSIBLE to get around....

Just a little visual aid for those following along with the bouncing ball.....

about 5+ inches down from the top of the collar...

http://mcadams.posc....ss/Sa-benne.htm

I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in

regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit

or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all

has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably

a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation

the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent,

since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in

the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the

right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt

in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike

any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a

finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

and just a quick visual on what this bullet wound have to avoid to do what they said it did...

The SBT is anatomically impossible

Expertly done Greg....

Now, Like every other LNer who waves their hands around telling us what is wrong and what is right... but never backing their soapbox opera with evidence that can be authenticated...

CL is, and has always been just one of the rest of the uninformed masses...

Not interested in the actual assassiantion, history, context or evidence...

Just another puffed up ego needing a release... so he vomits all over this forum, repeatedly.

Just like the little schoolground bully he likes to believe he is... look him in his beady little eyes and ask for PROOF....

and you get EVERYTHING BUT....

Once again Greg... EXPERTLY DONE and thank you for exposing, yet again, this person for what and who he pretends to be....

And off he goes again....

How obvious do you need to be CL? We can SEE you moved the camera as you panned....

You have a tripod CL... put your video camera on the Tripod with the object anywhere in frame... now ROTATE the camera around the center of camera's display...

The LOS does not change.... You've once again rigged your experiment to produce false results...

I've used my cellphone camera rotated around the fixed spot and it works just fine....

http://s1233.beta.ph...eo0029.mp4.html

You will notice, as I described, how the Green marker lines up with the hole in the speaker behind it...

this is with the camera hanging from my hand and just rotating around the phone display's center... as you would follow and rotate an image in a viewfinder of a Bell and Howell Camera

LOS is a STRAIGHT LINE OF LIGHT... simple MATH tells us that three objects in a straight line remain in a straight line unless one of the three points MOVES OFF AXIS...

When the Camera PANS... there is no change in any one of the three points that create the line

Determining the Nodal Point of a Lens http://archive.bigbe...hoto/nodal.html

While it is not entirely essential to accurately position your camera for each image, it does make things a LOT easier if the lens is rotated as close as possible around its nodal point. By doing so, you remove parallax errors which may require a lot of retouching to make things look right in the finished panorama.

Determining the nodal point of a lens is quite easy to do visually. You will need two vertical features to use as reference points e.g. a doorway, flag/light pole, corner of a all etc... One must be very close to the camera, the other, far away. You will also need an adjustable tripod pano head or a focussing rail to adjust the position of the camera relative to the axis of rotation. Accuracy will be in the order of 1mm for a circular fisheye lens. Accuracy will be greater with the near object as close to the camera as possible.

The diagram below shows what happens in the three possible situations. Note that the relative positions of the objects on each side of the gap is determined from the nodal point of the lens, not the axis of rotation.

There is only ONE way to pan the Zapruder camera in such a manner NOT to move the position of the lens relative to the signposts and not cause parallax.

That would be rotating the camera around an axis that falls on the entrance pupil (often called the nodal point) of the lens. For the sake of the discussion the position of the axis would be the center of the length of the camera lens. The actual position may be forward or backward slightly.

So you determined the nodal point of Zapruder's camera have you?

You know for a FACT that Zapruder could not possible have rotated his camera around the actual nodal point and that what we see the Signposts do is unnatural?

Obviously with my LAMPOST GIF he rotated around the nodal point just fine... the post, Zapruder and the background stay in a perfect line.

Why is the result of my Lampost Gif and little movie I posted with the green marker - both showing no change in parallax and based on PANNING A CAMERA rather than SHIFTING IT FROM SIDE TO SIDE

not more indicative of what Zapruder does , than your SHIFTING the lens from side to side, which is not what occurred?

YOU need to account for the movement of the sign posts by relating it to the movements of Zapruder... if it requires a few feet of movement to acheive that shift, we know that did not occur.

But since you only play with knives and cups and rulers and not the actual evidence... you probably can't do these measurements and your argument falls apart once again.

How far was Zapruder from the sign post

How far from the signpost to the retaining wall corner

How much SHIFTING of the camera is necessary to produce what we see in Costella's gif

Where is the nodal point on that camera

Prove that it was impossible for Z to rotate the camera around its nodal point and not produce parallax - as I proved it IS POSSIBLE with the Lampost gif.

DO something Lamson... or are you only good for posting misleading examples, claiming victory and insulting others?

So if we summarize Costella's statements they are quite clear.

" if you hold a camera perfectly horizontal, then a vertical pole will be

vertical in the image no matter where you put the camera"

"If the camera was moved between filming these two frames, the sign could shift left and right, or up and down, compared to the background. In other words, the orange lines could shift sideways compared to the blue lines. But the angles cannot change, like they do here. It violates the laws of physics. It is a forgery."

But what happens if the pole is not vertical and perfectly plumb? Does his theory still hold?

The answer is a resounding no! Let's consider that leaning pole. In real life a leaning pole an appears exactly vertical when viewed for two points, one where the pole is leaning directly towards you and one when it leans directly away from you. Viewed from any other position the pole will be at varying angles from vertical depending on your viewing position. This is quite easy to test in real life by simply walking around a leaning pole and viewing the changes in angle.

So this entire discussion revovles around the use of the word "MOVED" when the literally correct word would be "PANNED"

CL claims that when "viewed from any other position" the pole will APPEAR to have taken on a different angle compared to the background.

The question then is "Does PANNING A CAMERA constitute enough of a change in the LOS from the FILM>OBJECT>BACKGROUND to account for what we see happening to the signpost? It is clear to all of us CL that if Zapruder "moved" the film portion of the camera in ANY direction off the LOS, the angle changes....

But as this graphic shows... DURING PANNING - which is what Zapruder did.... he wasn't dancing a jig up there... the OBJECT and BACKGROUND's LOS

does NOT change with respect to the film it is being captured on. There may be some optical shift due to the lens curve itself... but it simply cannot account for the poles moving as much as we see them do in Costella's analysis.

CL writes:

Careful examination shows that the Exacto knife changes angles as the lens is shifted right and left. Costella says this is impossible and against the laws of physics. Sadly, for him, empirical testing shows he is wrong.

Why do you supoose CL chose a 10mm SHIFT from right to left to define "MOVE" as opposed to the actual physical movement seen - PANNING?

Because like any school kid who has ever placed a pencil a foot in front of their nose and alternately opened and closed their eyes knows... the pencil SHIFTS back and forth!

But do the SAME EXPERIMENT with the pencil except this time TURN YOUR HEAD to the right 10 degrees.... and using peripheral vision tell us that the LOS of the Object and the Background has changed... if has NOT. PANNING does not change LOS... SHIFTING does.

CL needs to explain how much SHIFTING Zapruder must have done to cause the result we see from Costella... and since that involves MATH... I wouldn't hold my breath

Thanks Greg... appreciate the help and clarity of the situation.

DJ

Cant do photogrammetery...

CANT/WONT provide the data to support his black box copnclusions yet will continue to provide SHAM, OFF BASIS EXPERIMENTS that prove NOTHING other than CL knows how to misdirect.

SHOW YOR WORK already CL... or it that also too hard for you?

Your 45+ degree leaning exacto knife has no relation to a pole 5 degrees off vertical...

Nor does it have anything to do with SHIFTING the lens left and right off LOS

What I posted is a gif of the Lampost as Z pans past it... just like he is doing with the sign posts....

Yet instead of the results we see with the LAMPOST... the SIGNPOSTS move all over the place relative to the background...

That you are not honest enough to provide the measurements and calculations you DIDN"T DO yet can still claim a conclusion is quite sad....

You SCREAM for others to post support for thier conclusions...

While you CHANGE THE PARAMETERS of the experiment, SAY you didn't... and conclude others are wrong....

You can't even explain why the LAMPOST stays on the same LOS to the FILM & Background due to the PANNING versus SHIFTING the lens

because it contradicts your experiment's conclusions....

We've been thru this... here is a camera being panned with a LOS of the image as it moves across the film...

The LOS from the FILM to the OBJECT to the BACKGROUND does not change, it simply moves across the film... as it does in my LAMPOST Gif.

The BLUE LOS points to one corner of the film at the beginning of the PANNING and the other corner at the end of the PANNING... LOS remains the same

Prove otherwise

So as Z pans his camera past this ALMOST VERTICAL POLE we SHOULD see the LOS and Angles change with respect to the background... since the CAMERA IS MOVING - at least according to CL.

As I tried to show MANY times now, as one PANS the LOS onto the film itself simple moves the object ACROSS the film... I could care less about nodal points... what matters to what we see onthe FILM is what light hits the FILM and from what ANGLES.

If I were to move the camera 10 inches to the right or left, the LOS changes.... If one PANS the camera arounds one's eye, the film itself also pans...

The STRAIGHT LINE that is light will move from one area of the film to another while NEW LIGHT from the direction of the panning will now enter the frame....

If the Camera drops its LOS DOWN 5 inches... or LEFT 5 inches, all this of course changes... and anything that is straight IN RELATION TO THE DIRECTION THE CAMERA IS "shifted" will have changed.

In the Signpost example, the posts move AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT, in this Lamppost example you can EASILY SEE how panning does not change the LOS from the film to the post to the red bushes in the background.... we know for a fact that the lamppost moves from the far right of the frame all the way across (as I keep saying) and then off frame... without changing its angles relative to the background...

Please explain why this PANNING example should not produce the same results with the nearly vertical sign posts...

DJ

I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.

Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.

I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.

Six simple questions for Costella..

1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?

2. How did it move?

3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?

4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?

5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?

6. Where are these photos?

Yeah... I'll send those off as soon as you post your photogrammetry work and results of the measurements in the BYPs and Altgens 6.

You mean you can't send things directly to John? Can't find him on the internet?

You as poor at Searching the internet as you are at MATH?

You talk alot... but do have the chops to DO or only scold for not doing...

and let's see... a Physics professor or a wanna-be photographer who cares not a bit for the assassination,

and spends his days as a <Deleted by Moderator>...

You're excused now old man... time to get your Flintstones lunchbox and go home....

David - please do not accuse members of being a xxxxx. Thank you,

So I can use "make pretend" words like CL does and it's okay....

Here's the definition... what would YOU call it?

In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

You must have some FBI friends Michael...

If interested, I can post the rest...

DJ

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum

2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

______________________________________________________________________________________

COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.

Now that we're aware.... and have given actions labels.... shaft from wheat should be very obvious

DJ

I can...but I'll refrain from posting their private email.

Since you are chatting with e Costella, here are six simple questions for him.

I'll be right here if he prefers to answer in person.

Six simple questions for Costella..

1. Did the lens move when Zapruder panned his camera?

2. How did it move?

3. Is there parallax seen in the images you used for your sign post comparison?

4. How can you pan a camera and not induce parallax?

5. Have you ever produced any actual photos that demonstrate your claim that a leaning vertical post will not change angles if the lens moves horizontally?

6. Where are these photos?

Yeah... I'll send those off as soon as you post your photogrammetry work and results of the measurements in the BYPs and Altgens 6.

You mean you can't send things directly to John? Can't find him on the internet?

You as poor at Searching the internet as you are at MATH?

You talk alot... but do have the chops to DO or only scold for not doing...

and let's see... a Physics professor or a wanna-be photographer who cares not a bit for the assassination,

and spends his days as a <Deleted by Moderator>...

You're excused now old man... time to get your Flintstones lunchbox and go home....

David - please do not accuse members of being a xxxxx. Thank you,

Name a single person other than you and the old man who agrees with him and finds his experiments "honest"

{crickets chirping}

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19297&view=findpost&p=261642

One need only check this post for Mike's idea of photographic analysis - the man with the 16 inch gun standing just behind BDM in Willis...

And as I've asked/said before Mike... put forth any LN FACT you'd like... and we can see how "authentic" these "facts" are.

Here's one:

(f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds

that the agents most immediately responsible for the President’s

safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD

Let's see your take on this FACT as presented by the LNers....

Here's mine. 60 frames or over 3 seconds prior JFK was supposedly shot from the TSBD

The SS agent MOST RESPONSIBLE for his safety is staring at him while the other is ???

Given how absurd this FACT is... and how EASY it is to refute... Are you really that confident that the LNers have ANY FACTS with which to hang their hats?

Surely not on the photographic talents of the old man here... he barely remembers which president we are talking about, let alone cares about any TRUTH.

CL has to defend the films and photos, he has no choice being a LNer and married to the WCR/HSCA....

The rest of the THINKING WORLD knows better.... Maybe you and CL should know that 1963 called and they want their conclusions back...

by 1964 the house of cards was already falling apart. All the CYA in the world can't change that.

I trust the two of you will be very happy together

Rago and Lamson.... now THERE'S an exacta....

That you and Lamson see eye to eye is NO SURPRISE "Rago"...

I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together...

Blind leading the blind.

I am not trying to establish ANYTHING other than the dishonesty with which Lamson creates his experiments and proclaims every one else here photographic imbeciles...

He's a con artist and you obviously cannot tell the difference between FACT and FICTION as evidenced by your posts.

Now, do you have anything to offer related to the SHAM of an experiment and the differences between PANNING and CHANGING LOS the old man offered to counter Costella

or you just promoting the "man hiding behind the tree in nix" theory?

(btw - the kneeling man in front of the wall was done ON PURPOSE to show you that people can be created out of shadows and leaves...

Just like all the people you keep saying you are finding....)

Do you understand my post illustrating the differences and why the old man's experiment is a sham... or not?

I thought I read somewhere that because school kids read this forum that we are supposed to keep the language clean.

When you have to resort to foul language you do not have much of an argument.

If you want to believe in film alteration bark up the Nix film tree.(and i do mean bark)

Challenge Lamson on the Nix film. you will have a better chance of winning and I might even help you.

Thanks for your offer Mike... yet I will pass...

There is no one hiding behind that tree... sorry, your conclusions and lack of supporting evidence, and refusal to even consider things like coroborration of an event are legendary...

your input is simply not welcome.... like the old man.... you have your agends and by God, you're gonna stick to it....

YOU want to start that thread, go right ahead. Furthermore, the old man could care less what actually happened... all he cares about is trolling and over charging his clients while he spends his time here playing the idiot.

So I keep him busy...

... as my contribution to the rest of the membership's peace of mind

The cards and letters of thanks never end....

Later

DJ