Evan Burton

Mind you, there were a few Americans with the RAF at that time.

I agree with Steve U. I think Jack has used a majority of them, and Duane has used some (especially 2 and 5, and possibly 22).

I can't help but think of:

"Pot, Pot - this is Kettle. You are black. Over."

Thanks for that posting - it's going straight to the pool room.

A thread is available here:

http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/new...pic2859579.shtm

John,

Could you do a precis of the video? I try not to download YouTube (et al) vids if possible, due to bandwidth restrictions.

Michael,

When you say "coming home", to which country do you refer? I have no interest in sports and don't follow them.

(I deliberately not watched one iota of the 2000 Olympic Games, even though it was being held in Australia. As I drove from Cairns to Perth during the period, I purposely chose not to even listen to the radio broadcasts in the car)

Mark,

I'm still very much on the fence about this, but I must clarify one point you mention:

2. The circumstances surrounding the removal of the Liberty from the battle control board at naval headquarters are ridiculous, imo. I believe Evan also expressed surprise at such an explanation. A routine reconnaissance flight identifies the ship at 6am. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION WAS MADE and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. FIVE HOURS LATER THE LIBERTY MARK WAS CONSIDERED OLD INFORMATION AND REMOVED FROM THE BATTLE CONTROL BOARD.

Len, do you and A Jay Cristol expect researchers to be stupid enough to believe the subsequent attack was carried out without the IDF leadership being aware of who they were attacking? Do you expect me to believe that a defence force as efficient and highly trained as the IDF, in a time of war with vigilance and caution at its peak, would allow such a comical breakdown in military co-ordination to occur? Cristol then expects us to believe that when the shift change occurred after 11am, the officer who assumed command was not briefed about what had occured previously--that a marker for the Liberty had been placed on the control board and then removed because it was 'old information'. Pull the other one, Len.

Such a fanciful scenario would be more appropriate if it concerned the military of a small dictatorship in Central America or Africa--even then I would have trouble believing it--but I will never accept that the IDF could be so lazy and slipshod, especially in a time of war.

Your premise falls on this point alone (but wait, there's more).

I certainly do find it unusual - based on Naval experience 1985 to date - but I can't say it wouldn't happen. I'll try to find some "blue-on-blue" incidents that have similar circumstances. To make a more judgmental call, I'd have to know more about the particular ops centre and their Area of Operations. For what area tracks were maintained, how tracks were removed, and their subsequent disposition is important in this case.

There are a lot of aspects that are questionable in this incident, but I most certainly do not rule out an accidental attack. Both sides of the argument have much merit, IMO.

Sorry for being so non-committal, but I don't think I have read enough to convince me one way or the other.

CUTTING EDGE

Broadcast Date: Monday 11 June 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 1.30 pm

Classifications: Other, ® G (CC) WS

Timeslot Duration: 60 mins

Kill The Messenger - Reveals how a foreign spy ring with links to Al-Qaeda has been discovered working within the FBI. Sibel, began work at the FBI translating wire taps in an investigation into a foreign spy ring. She became suspicious of her colleagues after discovering some mistranslations. She went straight to her bosses and, rather than being hailed as a hero, was promptly sacked. After going public on 60 Minutes she has been officially gagged. This film also features an undercover CIA agent whose identity was leaked by the White House, was also involved in nuclear counter proliferation surveillance. Whistle-blowing could mean prison for Sibel but she is prepared to risk this in the interests of American national security. (From France, in English and French with English subtitles) (Documentary)

Thanks Doug. I had completely forgotten that it was the anniversary of the incident.

I'm still not convinced that coverups of massacres or intention to move into the Golan Heights are viable reasons. I can certainly understand mistaken identity - up to a point.

If it was a deliberate act, I'm sure the pro-Israeli lobby in the US will ensure that we don't know the real reasons for the incident for a long time.

John,

Are you planning to put this into a book for publishing?

To be honest, extended posts lose me. I prefer paper to read and absorb longer text. I can sit back at night, read and consider.

I'd like to see this in paper form. If you are not going to publish, perhaps you'd like to combine your chapters and make them a PDF available for download. That way I can print out the text, and read it at my leisure, giving it the attention it deserves.

I thought this might be useful as a continuing thread for Australians to inform one another about interesting stuff on TV.

I'll start:

AS IT HAPPENED

Broadcast Date: Friday 8 June 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 8.30 pm

Classifications: Documentary, PG (CC) WS

Timeslot Duration: 60 mins

Umbrella Assassin - In 1978, Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian dissident working for the BBC, was travelling to work when a man carrying an umbrella collided with him on Waterloo Bridge. Markov felt as if he had been stung by something - but thought no more about it. What seemed at first like a curious accident turned into an extraordinary detective story, when three days later Markov died. The incident, known as the Umbrella Murder became one of the most notorious stories of the Cold War. Thirty years on, the Markov murder remains unsolved and the perpetrators of the crime have never been brought to justice. The film shows how British and American scientists solved the extraordinary forensic puzzle surrounding Markov's death. (From the UK, in English, Bulgarian and French, English subtitles) (Documentary)

Yep, I concur. I am not entirely convinced by John S's arguments, but so far all Michael Chapman seems to do is 'dangle' propositions.

Michael, I would love to hear your take on this subject. Could you expand on your posts? So far, I don't really understand where you stand in relation to John S's posts, and if they are contrary, what you are trying to say.

Thanks!

Am I ever going to see an apology for the incorrect accusations? I wonder...

I guess not. Jack seems to demonstrate a certain reticence when it comes to admitting he has made an error.

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

I guess that only applies to studies, and not general accusations.

Welcome Eric!

Ah! I'll have to get myself a copy.

Thanks.

It's because they're all bought and paid for, that's why! All of them. Every one of them. Everyone is bought and paid for. Everyone except for me. I'm the only one who's not bought and paid for.

Excellent post, Daniel. Your cheque is in the mail.

(That's a joke, Joyce)

Tim,

I don't know you, I don't participate in the JFK board, and I don't subscribe to any religious beliefs. I have a strong belief in scientific fact, which I can reproduce and withstands scrutiny.

You do, however, garner a substantial respect on this board, so may I say this: Miracles do happen. Especially to those people who demonstrate the moral fortitude - such as you - to not give up, not to complain, but to fight to the end.

Please remember: you have not failed until you give up. This is an age where we can achieve things that were thought impossible the day before.

I truly wish all the best for you, and am sure that the combined thoughts of people here will in some way enhance your karma (whatever that may be).

I look forward to chatting with you in years to come.

Jack,

I've given this matter some thought because members have complained to me.

You have called people propagandists, parasites, accused them of actions which they did not take (me) and not admitted your error, called people "uninformed jerks with sawdust for brains", and accused moderators of being censors.

I cannot in all good conscious berate other members for use of inappropriate terms when you have used them constantly.

You are officially warned, and your warning level has been increased by 1 level.

You have 7 levels of warning, and no one moderator can increase your level by more than 1 per day.

I strongly suggest that you temper your replies. You may disagree with people, and you may say that they have ulterior motives for their actions, but you will do it in a reasonable fashion.

Duane,

You call people trolls, lowlifes, said people have posted lies, accused people of character assassination, called them propagandists, delusional, "narcissistic", paranoid, etc, etc.

You have accused them of being despicable and narrow-minded.

You rarely offer credible rebuttals to the claims you make; it's normally more of the terms used above.

IIRC (and I might be wrong, so am happy to be corrected), you have implied bias in moderators who have rarely - if ever - posted in the Apollo Hoax threads.

I know things become heated and people use inappropriate terms, but you do this with consistency. I cannot berate other members for using such terms when you throw them around as part of your ordinary posts.

You are officially warned, and your warning level has been increased.

Congratulations, Don! I'm green with envy.

The amazon write-up doesn't really say all that much - could you give us a brief synopsis?

Correct. A more apt analogy might be if I turned up in the JFK forum claiming to have an image showing LHO leaning out the window, aiming a rifle at Kennedy. I show a cropped image of the window which apparently DOES show what I claimed.

I would imagine the first question everyone would ask would be 'what is the source of that image?', so they could look at the full image and determine for themselves if it does show what is claimed - especially if there were some 5000 images it might have originated from.

Face it Jack - you weren't after an answer to a simple question. You were trying to insinuate there was something wrong with them being taken, and knew that if you gave all the details it would invalidate your insinuation.

Am I ever going to see an apology for the incorrect accusations? I wonder...

All these Bad Astronomy guys do is ridicule. They will not directly address ANY of the issues. They are obligated to prove that EVERY study is mistaken, not just one or two. That is why they ridicule instead of addressing the fakery presented.

Sid,

May I suggest that as you read Jack's studies, you concurrently read my rebttals to his claims.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911

See if you think I address the issues or not.

EDITED TO ADD

Speaking of addressing (avoiding?) the issues, will Jack or Duane ever answer this request?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=103946

I still don't see how you can complain about Dave and not apply the same standard to Jack.

Dave gave the image number (so people could see the original image), said how he altered the image and why he altered the image.

Jack simply presented an image, and gave no details as to its origin or what alterations he made to the image.

Surely Dave has been more open & forthcoming than Jack. That being the case, how can you accuse Dave of something and not accuse Jack of the same condition?

This is NOT "ganging up" on someone. This is NOT a "lynch mob". This is asking how you can apply two different standards to incidents that have similar conditions.

Duane,

I managed to finally get to the info page on uploads, and it confirms what Len et al have said.

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/...amp;topic=10527

I didn't see anything about special accounts, nor did the search function give me any hits on special accounts.

Could you give me details on those accounts? (Again, a quote would be preferred, but with a link to the quote source)

Thanks.

As usual you only post what suits your purposes ... If you had read the instructions further , you would have seen that special accounts can be set up to upload much longer videos.

What are the conditions / arrangements for the special accounts? I can't view YouTube ATM.

A quote from the conditions would be preferred.