Evan Burton

John,

Many thanks for an informative post.

Bill, Since you seem intent on demonstrating your incompetence in relation to JFK research...

Prof Fetzer,

Could I remind you about the requirement of this Forum not to question others abilities with respect to research.

iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297

If you dispute data or conclusions, then by all means dispute such... but please do it in a fashion that remains within our rules.

Thank you.

Dr Costella,

Can you post a summary of what (in your opinion) these e-mails mean?

I have heard a lot about pro and con, but I simply do not have the knowledge to properly evaluate what is being said. There is too much being bandied about that requires a scientific understanding of what is being claimed (or refuted); most often the layman cannot take an 'informed' position.

My current position is that it is better to be cautious, to accept the danger as real and combat it. If it is shown to be false then we can reverse decisions. As always, I remain open to a change of position if evidence can be shown warranting a change.

Thanks!

It has always been my 'take' that if the 'entity Colby' takes exception to a post, then the powers that be and lie do also, and one should take a VERY jaundiced eye at what he is spinning, and why he is spinning it. He has done more damage to this Forum than any other individual, IMO, and more damage to the pursuit of truth, as well. Newbeeys are cautioned to look carefully at his past posts, positions, and those rejoinders made against them. Those old hands here know well the games the Colby son [as father] play[ed] to spread doubt and discord among those who try to seek the truth hidden by the powerful.

This post by a moderator was a personal attack, questions my motives and insinuates I'm a xxxx thus violates 3 forum rules.

Peter,

It has been over two weeks since this complaint was made and you have been here at least a couple of times. Would you please respond to the claims made against you?

I have made a couple of posts invisible. If John or other mods think they should be made visible, then they will do so. For the moment, I do not want this thread to become a place for two members to fight with each other.

Please note that I - and I believe that John & other mods will back me up on this - take a VERY dim view of members making threats towards one another. This includes threats of legal action.

I am waiting to find out if the poster is someone that John Simkin has given a waiver to; please wait until I get a reply. As far as their posts are concerned, I don't see anything that breaks Forum rules but am waiting to hear from other mods.

Apologies but please be patient.

I'd like to know why Peter does not answer people who accuse him.

I think he has had sufficient time to address the accusations.

I think this sums it up nicely:

So, Balsamo, an unadulterated loon and self-proclaimed American hero (insert laughing dog here) had to move to Canada so that Tino could support him because he couldn't support himself? I'm guessing that he was just as dishonest at the border crossing as he has been with everything he's ever written online.

And he impersonated Ryan Mackey with a sockpuppet account, melted down dramatically when someone in his own camp gently pointed out the problems with his unsupported assertions, and called himself a "celebrity" and the "tip of the spear" for being idiotic enough to post his psychobabble on the Interwebs.

The stupid, it really, really burns.

Holy crazy cycle, Batman.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=537...p;postcount=351

If it wasn't already apparent to people, yet another example of the paranoid and dangerous behaviour of that laughable group of misfits called PFffffffT.

The exhaulted leader, Rob Balsamo, admits to impersonating people.

Turbo I appreciate your willingness to stand up to Rob's obviously false claims and incorrect conclusions. It's unfortunate that he chooses to act this way when someone disagrees with him. I had hoped he would listen to one of his own but apparently it doesn't matter who you are, you're not allowed to disagree with Rob. That's troubling behavior from the leader of an organization who claims he's trying to find "truth".

What kind of forum is he running over there if he can't accept constructive criticism from one that site's most active members?

Ok.. lets get this done now...

I was notified that if I do not delete posts made by turbofan on P4T forum, he will post every private email that we have exchanged, on ATS. Tino/turbofan is a traitor, a blackmail artist and can never be trusted with information on colleagues that may be working behind the scenes. Tino is perfect match for Farmer. Especially since they both request to delete their work.. or delete it outright... after already posted/published....lol

I am going to disclose everything right here and now as Tino has much more to hide, including blackmail.

1. Congrats GL's, Im Rob Balsamo.... Tino knows this and has known since day 1.

Why did i do it? Because i been banned from this forum. I thought R_Mackey would be a bit of satire to register with and clearly this thread needed some opposition. Clearly the Mods knew I am Rob Balsamo if they read any accusation posted, cross checked it with IP, as i never changed IP. I never change IP unless I move. I refuse to use an anon proxy as most GL's use to argue with people they think are nuts.

I also never change my writing style. Why bother?

GL says, "I knew it.. see! He was Rob!" (as if i a tried to hide it...lol)

Sure i spoke in the third person. I didnt want to get banned before 50 pages.. duh. But i never took your bait.

Hows Tom taking his ban by the way?

Those who never registered a sock in their entire life, please cast the first stone.

<snip>

Tino, if you are truly on our side. i certainly hope you attempt to start your own organization only to be blackmailed by soemone like yourself. But then again, you dont have a clue and need the backing of P4T.

Ah, sending you an email stating that I made an error in my work and requesting it be pulled or corrected is simply owning up to mistakes. Continuing to promote the material after you know it is wrong, well that is just plain lying. I feel Turbo's pain.

Gee...why is nobody surprised at that?

This little Peyton Place just adds gravy to the meatloaf. Balsamo crying foul when one of his foot soldiers dares to question the Prime Directive. Then, like a petty little third-rate digital despot, locks him out, calls him a "traitor" and a "blackmail artist" when all the guy wants is to disassociate himself from faulty "science".

Great entertainment, Cap't Bob. Keep up the hole digging. Eventually you'll reach China and you can start all over again.

See, this is why I chose to have my name removed from P4T, because Rob Balsamo is a child and has no people skills.

He has lost more core members than I care to count because of his attitude. He has lost more members due to his short, aggressive methods than he has core members.

I have no need to post your private material, you've just shown how much of a scum bag you really are.

For the record, I threatened to post your e-mails because you refused to remove me from your thread and even had the nerve to restore my post from the Trash folder! This after removing my access to your site! You spineless xxxxx.

I guess someone's a little pissed off that he was shown errors. Unlike you, I apologized from my mistake and carried on. Also for the record, TomK found the mistake NOT YOU. You didn't tell me squat about the ASI! For what it's worth, my error was a visual error...yours was a logical error and you continue to push an erroneous theory. That's the difference between you and I.

Wow, I never expected this sort of treatment from an organization leader, and certainly not after putting a roof over your head for 3 months. Never

forget that Mr. Balsamo.

<snip>

Anytime you want to learn about "Virtual" Basic (Visual), or "C+" (C++), or how data storage works, come and see me.

Go away Robbie. Go play on your forums and make up sock accounts instead of growing your pilot base. Maybe you should get off your butt for once and knock on some doors instead of waiting for people to find your site. Tons of pilot agencies out there willing to listen; maybe not to such a fool like you though.

I'll debate you live on camera, right here, anywhere about this FLT_DECK connection nonsense. Just say the word. It's too bad your latest press

release wasn't half as thought out as any of your previous ones.

Class, just pure class Mr. Balsamo. Let me know when you have the proper docs. K?

P.S. I encourage anyone seeking research for 9/11 to find it anywhere but P4T. Please don't associate yourself with organizations that post stupidity on internet forums for the world to see. NOT very professional whatsoever!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread...pg53#pid7649282

Yep, this is the guy who threatens to shoot pilots who disagree with him. Real credible, this one.

Being ignorant of JFK matters, is there another photo which would show a similar view at the same time? Additionally, do we know the shutter speed used to take that image?

I'm thinking artifact but there are a couple of explanations at this time.

Still, at this time it is a UFO because it appears to be a flying object and it is unidentified.

BTW - that Cumberland / 1967 image; do you have more details on that one? Looks very interesting.

Thanks Kathy.

I have saved a copy of all the pages in case it has any problems. Happy to forward them on to anyone who wants them.

1) Did the woman give her name or use a webhandle?

Her name

2) Did her father indicate that the conspiracy continued after the immediate events?

It was not indicated, just that they were sworn to secrecy.

3) Greg said she indicated more than one witness said these things but based on your account she only related what her father (supposedly) told her brother.

Correct.

4) He also indicated he had multiple witnesses but based on your account he only had one.

I can't comment on that.

I can't say for certain, but I thought it was the Web Fairy.... happy to be corrected.

Kath,

Please keep your spirits up. You have more friends here than you know.

Chin up, kiddo.

Jack,

You are aware that 'Dark Side of the Moon' is a 'mockumentary'? I have it on my PVR because it's very funny. The "CIA Head" speaks Russian whilst the "KGB agent" speaks with an American accent! Good stuff.

And the web fairy? This is the person who said that water didn't cause rainbows when she was a child, wasn't it (in support of "chemtrail" claims)?

Maybe the shoe-throwing thing in Iraq is on their minds.

Could be, given that the corrupt Karzai was a shoo-in for reelection.

LOL!

In some ways I wish he would get knocked off, but I doubt he'd be replaced with anyone less corrupt.

An excellent (unapproved) commentary about ops in Afghanistan.

http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/dust...t-soldiers-life

I PM'd Greg and offered to act as a middleman, and Greg kindly passed me his evidence.

The person says that there was a coverup about the Darwin bombing. This person said that their father had related to another sibling that barges had been filled with the dead and dumped at sea. They would seem to indicate that their father - and other soldiers - were sworn to secrecy about what they did, as the government did not want the people knowing the full toll.

That is about the extent of it, though nowhere did I see anything about refugees or foreigners being killed - just that a large number were killed and there had been a cover-up regarding it.

The person is relating what their father said, but the person telling this does not appear to be a historian or anything similar. The text is on a site that is totally unrelated to history, politics, etc. It might be described as a hobby blog.

I'd have absolutely no reason to doubt that the person believes what they say but I do note a couple of things:

- the story has gone from father to sibling 1 to sibling 2. This means it is possible - not probable but possible - that the story has been altered in telling.

- we don't have any clear indication of the numbers involved. They have said the number killed was greater than we were told... but greater than WHAT number? Than we were told in the 1940s? 1950s? 1980s? Are the current numbers acknowledged accurate, or is there still a cover-up? I don't know.

Hope this helps and happy to expand if required.

Pat - thanks, I'll read that.

*sigh*

This is why I don't bother to try and ask questions here. I'll ask elsewhere.

This series is starting in the History Channel (Australia) this week.

Have members seen it, and what is their opinion?

Dear Mr. Van Winkle: Using Google's SEARCH SITE feature, I entered the words target car and searched this forum.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:educat...GL_enUS281US281

This is probably futile but please, PLEASE do NOT try to defend or refute member's opinions on how good the show is. If a person says it ignores all evidence and is worse than a child's attempt to recreate the circumstances and you disagree, then just say that you think the programme covers some aspects well, etc, etc. Please just state your opinion (assuming you care to give one) and leave it at that.

Thank you.

I thought there was freedom of expression on this forum. Can moderators now tell us what to say, and what not to say?

Ray - Yes, I know of this thing called Google. This sub-forum being a JFK forum, I thought - perhaps mistakenly - that I could seek opinions from people who have a keen interest in the subject rather than anonymous websites.

And my comments were to try and prevent any argument over my simple query, which happened before when I tried to ask people to give me the basics of the JFK saga. Perhaps that eluded you? In any case, take a pill and calm down - it was a request only.

This series is starting in the History Channel (Australia) this week.

Have members seen it, and what is their opinion?

This is probably futile but please, PLEASE do NOT try to defend or refute member's opinions on how good the show is. If a person says it ignores all evidence and is worse than a child's attempt to recreate the circumstances and you disagree, then just say that you think the programme covers some aspects well, etc, etc. Please just state your opinion (assuming you care to give one) and leave it at that.

Thank you.

More images of the Apollo 12 site:

Apollo was real. Deal with it.

In an Australian policed sector, 43 people went into a polling station. At the end of the day, the votes were tallied... all 1500 of them.

We CANNOT support such corruption.