Bill Miller Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 then, after checking for verification to be careful, Jack, I shall submit my additional analysis, which should startle a few folk, out of their socks. [/color][/size] Miles, Your analysis are never startling. However, if you ever offered an analysis that wasn't full of misstatements and factual errors, then that would definitely be classified as startling IMO. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 I just re-read Jim Marrs' telling of Hoffman's story in his book pages 61-5 and conclude this thread is a sad attempt at character and information assassination. Again, what's your agenda? I really do doubt getting to the truth....but free speach dictates you can defile and defame all you like....dissemble on. Peter, This very nearly doesn't deserve the dignity of reply. Please note rule (iv) of the JFK Forum: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. .... In person, your comments could constitute "fightin' words." Considering that you have never met me and probably wouldn't dare to say the things you say online to me in person, I would request that you restrain your harsh words and give me the respect that you would to anyone else you don't know ... which, granted, may not be much. Outside of the Forum, one never knows the consequences of ill-intentioned actions and comments, or when they will suddenly meet up with the object of their derision. Here, they're a little more clear-cut. Clean up your act. As to Marrs' version of events, it adds nothing to this discussion other than the perception that some of the things that Ed had described have "since been corroborated" - despite the fact they had always been on the record - and a confusion of dates (e.g., the story he told in 1977 was "essentially the same story he told in 1985"). Jim likewise makes judicious use of words like "substantially" and "essentially" to make his points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) [dupe] Edited July 30, 2007 by Duke Lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Bernice...somehow I missed the THIRD BOTTOM photo. It does have a clear imageof a man at the fence, and what appears to be another man by the rr switch box. But I agree that an attempt was made to misrepresent this image. Jack As I said, yes, Jack, there are two men. "Triangle of Fire "by Bob Goodman, released in 1993.........and the photo.......He Took with Ed, one day, when the entirebillboard had been taken down, and the opportunity presented itself, to take a photo, from approximately the area where Ed had stood....Ed took Bob to that approx spot, left him there, and then Ed went around, to the area and re-enacted the movements of the men he had seen.."" Bob Goodman : Without any visual assistance, I could easily see with the naked eye every move he went through, and I realised that he had indeed , had a perfect view of the area behind th stockade fence."" Is not Goodman photographing Ed re-enacting? So, is that NOT Hatman, as played by Ed? My photo annotations are correct. Furthermore, a careful & objective analysis of Goodman's photo will reveal some startling new insights. I shall wait for Bernie to post the new scans of Goodman's photo; I have no idea if any work on it has been done......will post the two tomorrow, for a better look. then, after checking for verification to be careful, Jack, I shall submit my additional analysis, which should startle a few folk, out of their socks. You have lost all credibility. Nobody is interested in games-playing or socks-startling. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) This very nearly doesn't deserve the dignity of reply. Please note rule (iv) of the JFK Forum: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. .... In person, your comments could constitute "fightin' words." In a way you make a valid point, Duke. When a select few started out critiquing Ed Hoffman's story and it was soon discovered that some of them had not even read Ed's book .... that told everyone what kind of researchers they were - the level of ability they were incapable of so to do even the simplest requirements so to offer a valid critique of the case - and it certainly reflected their motivation IMO. It seems to me that anyone only acknowledging these points is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the record. Bill Edited July 30, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 then, after checking for verification to be careful, Jack, I shall submit my additional analysis, which should startle a few folk, out of their socks. [/color][/size] Miles, Your analysis are never startling. However, if you ever offered an analysis that wasn't full of misstatements and factual errors, then that would definitely be classified as startling IMO. Bill Hello Duke, Right you are. I think that a recidivist forum rule breaker (Miller) should read the forum rules, know the forum rules, abide by the forum rules, and desist from violating & defying the forum rules. (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 In a way you make a valid point, Duke. When a select few started out critiquing Ed Hoffman's story and it was soon discovered that some of them had not even read Ed's book .... that told everyone what kind of researchers they were - the level of ability they were incapable of so to do even the simplest requirements so to offer a valid critique of the case - and it certainly reflected their motivation IMO. only acknowledging these points is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the record. Nice deflection, only acknowledging what others' posts made obvious to everyone. "Hey, I didn't say you're dumb, you proved it, and all I did was acknowledge that." I like that. Very good. I'm almost actually impressed with your skill ... if not at anything else, certainly your ability to insult people obliquely and put the blame back on them. So the bottom line would appear to be that if someone has incomplete facts at one point in time, they will never have complete facts ever. Works for me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) Folks,Oh, Heck no, not again!!!! This is not worth price of Mylanta. Please discuss positions, not the abilities of the researcher--please. . I know this is difficult for some of you, but we are not going to have essentially the same situation that was here before. This is serious business... Ed Hoffmann's credibility is in question by some. He deserves the best you have right now, and not posting relevant statements or arguing other than positionally is not helping him. That really should have been "Bill: Oh, heck no, not again!" since this is his usual tack, not anyone else's. Not to worry, Kathy, as far as he's concerned, Ed's credibility is not being questioned by anyone with half a brain. Fortunately, this is the general direction that our Mr Miller likes to take things. He apparently thinks he's scoring debate points. He should remember that we're not the only people who will ever read this thread and others he's posted to. His refined ability to provide honed ad hominem reflects well on him, he thinks. Well trained on alt.conspiracy.jfk it looks like. Vent your frustration where it ought to be, as difficult as that may be since he seems to be "defending" Ed's story. Apparently, the moderators are quite entertained by him - as am I, actually - so I see no reason to expect any kind of change. Always best to attack the messenger. Edited July 30, 2007 by Duke Lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 In a way you make a valid point, Duke. When a select few started out critiquing Ed Hoffman's story and it was soon discovered that some of them had not even read Ed's book .... that told everyone what kind of researchers they were - the level of ability they were incapable of so to do even the simplest requirements so to offer a valid critique of the case - and it certainly reflected their motivation IMO. only acknowledging these points is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the record. Nice deflection, only acknowledging what others' posts made obvious to everyone. "Hey, I didn't say you're dumb, you proved it, and all I did was acknowledge that." I like that. Very good. I'm almost actually impressed with your skill ... if not at anything else, certainly your ability to insult people obliquely and put the blame back on them. So the bottom line would appear to be that if someone has incomplete facts at one point in time, they will never have complete facts ever. Works for me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 In a way you make a valid point, Duke. When a select few started out critiquing Ed Hoffman's story and it was soon discovered that some of them had not even read Ed's book .... that told everyone what kind of researchers they were - the level of ability they were incapable of so to do even the simplest requirements so to offer a valid critique of the case - and it certainly reflected their motivation IMO. only acknowledging these points is doing nothing more than drawing attention to the record. Nice deflection, only acknowledging what others' posts made obvious to everyone. "Hey, I didn't say you're dumb, you proved it, and all I did was acknowledge that." I like that. Very good. I'm almost actually impressed with your skill ... if not at anything else, certainly your ability to insult people obliquely and put the blame back on them. So the bottom line would appear to be that if someone has incomplete facts at one point in time, they will never have complete facts ever. Works for me.... If I count right, all of you, who wanted to, have now gotten your "digs" in. That completes the "I get you, and you get me back" part of our programming. We now return to the "ED HOFFMAN THREAD"--- positions only, please. Kathy Beckett No prob, Kathy, We now return to the "ED HOFFMAN THREAD"--- positions only, please. That's exactly what I want to do, get back on topic! Hopefully, this type of interruption will not occur again, so we can proceed. Actually, at the moment I am waiting for Bernie to post her improved scans of the Goodman photo. Bernie? Thanks, Kathy, for doing a good job of turning this thread (Duke's thread) back to forum rules' functioning status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Call it what you will, but I see little difference in someone saying they don't like anyone they have never met - they don't care for the taste of something they have never eaten - they think somewhere is a terrible place to be when they have never been there - or they voice an opinion about something they never studied. This was the case concerning Ed's book and the things that was being said about him in error. Such practices and the standards they suggest can be left up to each person who reads these threads - I have my own opinion. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) Miles, Your analysis are never startling. However, if you ever offered an analysis that wasn't full of misstatements and factual errors, then that would definitely be classified as startling IMO. Bill Hello Duke, Right you are. I think that a recidivist forum rule breaker (Miller) should read the forum rules, know the forum rules, abide by the forum rules, and desist from violating & defying the forum rules. There was no attack on anyone here, but rather a statement of fact pertaining to past post that are archived in this thread, as well as other threads. Let me give but just one example of this .... Someone constantly posting that Holland left for the RR yard immediately after the President passed through the Underpass when the photographic record shows otherwise, was an analysis based on a continuation of misstating the facts for reference to Holland in the assassination images had been presented over and over again. So yes, if an analysis was forthcoming that didn't repeat the same old misinformation - I for one would consider that startling. If the forum rules need to be amended so to cover such an opinion not being given, then so be it. I have been most careful in the wording of my responses and have refrained from saying what I honestly thought in its totality. I hope that when Miles finds time to actually do it - I will look forward to reading his additional analysis that he told Jack he would deliver. Bill Miller Edited July 30, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993...... Also the enlargment of the photos..... Best B....... Edited July 30, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Scull Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993...... Also the enlargment of the photos..... Best B....... That's great, B. Now, to do a litttle work & then back to you. Thx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 Jack as promised........the full page showing the two photos taken by Bob Goodman, and Ed Hoffman printed on page 130..of "Triangle of Fire"..published in 1993......Also the enlargment of the photos..... Best B....... Thanks, Kathy, tho' this doesn't appear to be Ed's actual line of sight if his map in Eye Witness is accurate. Is there likewise a plat showing where this photo was taken from (i.e., the place where Ed was standing)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now