The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Miles Scull]

Ridiculing witnesses, rightly or wrongly...SHOULD NOT BE OFF LIMITS.

Dunc an Skull are wrong...but their ridicule of Arnold reflects badly on

them, not him. Moderators should not be censors and arbiters of

political correctness.

I do not hesitate to call the following LIARS:

Marina

Ruth Paine

Sitzman

Zapruder

Brennan

etc.etc.manymore.

So banish me.

Jack

PS. for years it has been shorthand to refer to the alleged persons

on the pedestal as ZAPPY and SITZY. I will continue to do so if I want

to. Call it ridicule if you want. They deserve ridicule. This is no different

than referring to Arnold as ARNIE. Butt out, please. There is no rule

about ridiculing the dead, please! Your opinion only!

No, my good lord; banish Peto,

banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack

Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff,

valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant,

being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him

thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's

company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.

Ha!

Do we agree?

About mods mucking in where angels fear to tread?

You're kidding!

Duncan, you see this?

Heigh Ho !

[Jack White]

Ridiculing witnesses, rightly or wrongly...SHOULD NOT BE OFF LIMITS.

Dunc an Skull are wrong...but their ridicule of Arnold reflects badly on

them, not him. Moderators should not be censors and arbiters of

political correctness.

I do not hesitate to call the following LIARS:

Marina

Ruth Paine

Sitzman

Zapruder

Brennan

etc.etc.manymore.

So banish me.

Jack

PS. for years it has been shorthand to refer to the alleged persons

on the pedestal as ZAPPY and SITZY. I will continue to do so if I want

to. Call it ridicule if you want. They deserve ridicule. This is no different

than referring to Arnold as ARNIE. Butt out, please. There is no rule

about ridiculing the dead, please! Your opinion only!

No, my good lord; banish Peto,

banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack

Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff,

valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant,

being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him

thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's

company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.

Ha!

Do we agree?

About mods mucking in where angels fear to tread?

You're kidding!

Duncan, you see this?

Heigh Ho !

The depiction of me is a FAKE. I am very slender. And I

believe Falstaff was a boozer; I am a teetotaler. But I am

old...very old. And I am jolly...except when dealing with

untruths.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

Moderator madness.

What next, will you censor showing the kennedy's autopsy photo's, because it may offend his family. ?

[Miles Scull]

Duncan and Miles,

I have no problem editing my post to "witness". I didn't even really realize that. TTYTH, I am not convinced if he is or is not there. I can see him on blowups, but that's it. I am not sure either way.

I do not believe he deserves special treatment. Never said that. But he is not alive to argue with you and I think that the argument would be more credible if he were treated matter of factly.

I think that's fair.

Kathy, sorry..but I don't think it's fair....Most of the witnesses and alleged witnesses are dead, so where does that leave us with what we can and can not say about them on here. As Jack rightly states, many witnesses and " witnesses" have been ridiculed in the past, called liars, whatever, and I don't see why all of a sudden you think Gordon Arnold should be respected. For example..is it ok to ridicule James Files ? He has been ridiculed here many times along with those on Jack's list and many others. Files says he was there, whats the difference between his story and Arnold's story?...both have supporters and opposers who class them as nuts. Dead or alive, Arnold must be treated with suspicion until proof of him behind the fence is conclusive and beyond doubt. If ridicule is a means to get to the truth, then i'm in the " So be it " camp.

If Gordon's family were to object to anything said on here, you might have a case for moderation, but until then, I don't see the problem.

Duncan

Quite so.

Add to that:

I think that the argument would be more credible if he were treated matter of factly. -- Ms Beckett

I don't think Mods should attempt to tailor or fashion threads according to what they think would enhance or lessen an argument's credibility.

They are not the judge of such.

Mods should only enforce the Forum Rules & not censor reasonable posts from their own sense of offended PERSONAL TASTE, especially when no one else expresses any offence at the post in question.

Just the second of my 2 cents.

BTW, no offence intended, Kathy.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Jack White]

I'm glad Ms. Beckett was not here when I explained the meaning of

the CIA's OPERATION HONEY POT...that it referred to the use of

prostitutes in explicit terminology. Like ms. guttierez, she would have

been rightiously offended at the meaning and likely have deleted the

message because it offended the sensibility. Please direct offended

sensibilities to the CIA, which used the term, not to me explaining it.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Duncan and Miles,

I have no problem editing my post to "witness". I didn't even really realize that. TTYTH, I am not convinced if he is or is not there. I can see him on blowups, but that's it. I am not sure either way.

I do not believe he deserves special treatment. Never said that. But he is not alive to argue with you and I think that the argument would be more credible if he were treated matter of factly.

I think that's fair.

Constant whining and belly aching to moderators, posting clips of parrots with hats, or the altering interview images of assassination witnesses so to look like dance hall girls doing high leg kicks is not research. Those same individuals would be screaming bloody murder of one used their name in conjunction with the Adams Family's "Cousin It" because of one's hair style or of "Jumbo the elephant" because of another's weight. The moderators are correct in asking that such disrespectful behavior be nipped in the bud. Such idiocy need not be posted in the name of humor because there is a good chance that the witness (if still alive) or their family members (if the witness has passed on) would not appreciate such ridiculous behavior being attributed to a research/teaching forum. However, I guess one shouldn't find any of this surprising because it is usually those who cry the loudest when certain remarks and/or inferences are directed towards them, but call it good good humor when directed at someone else. Now more forum space is being wasted having to address something that common sense and decency should have dictated it not being done in the first place. Maybe if only the fraction of the time used in creating such animations were used in learning how to check scaling matters ... the threads would then be more condensed and possibly those same individuals would be seen as contributing something to the threads, instead of disrupting them. The only positive side to all this is that if anyone ever wanted to make a case for opening JFK's grave - this is it ... because the dead president has surely rolled over in his casket because of this nonsense.

Bill Miller

Edited September 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Michael Hogan]

Such idiocy need not be posted in the name of humor because there is a good chance that the witness (if still alive) or their family members (if the witness has passed on) would not appreciate such ridiculous behavior being attributed to a research/teaching forum.

The only positive side to all this is that if anyone ever wanted to make a case for opening JFK's grave - this is it ... because the dead president has surely rolled over in his casket because of this nonsense.

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

The only positive side to all this is that if anyone ever wanted to make a case for opening JFK's grave - this is it ... because the dead president has surely rolled over in his casket because of this nonsense.

Ditto, Bill. I think JFK must be swirling around in his grave if he has followed some of the silly theories propogated on this Forum.

[Bill Miller]

You Bill are just as guilty as anyone else for posting distasteful materials at times. I haven't seen you complain about a member mentioning your Jay Lenno chin, so why jump in with criticisms in this thread?

Duncan and anyone else who cannot or will not try to comprehend what Kathy and Antti are talking about .... this isn't about offering opinions as to the absurdity of some of the theories or poorly interpreted evidence, but rather the demeaning of the assassination witnesses likeness.

As Robin brilliantly compared. What's the most offensive? A humerous gif of Arnold getting his rear end scorched, or pics of blood and brain matter oozing through mangled hair on Kennedy's head. Need I say more?

The difference that what Robin may have even missed is that the assassination images of President Kennedy, as horrible as they are, are all part of this investigation into his murder and are deemed necessary. Tasteless idiotic animations of innocent witnesses are not necessary. And no, you need not say more for you have said enough already!

My 'jumping in' as you put it is exercising my right to offer my opinion and it is not my intention to debate such a ridiculous position as the one you are trying to defend. (End of story!)

Bill Miller

Edited September 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Tim Gratz]

Duncan:

The image of JFK rolling around in his casket could be offensive to many many people .

Perhaps that was not appropriate as an illustration, and perhaps this is not the thread to argue the point I was attempting to make.

But if we are concerned with "offensiveness" I believe the families of the hundreds of men wrongfully accused of participating in the assassination must be offended if they have occasion to read what is posted on some of these threads. I understand and acknowledge that you have not participated in some of those absurd theories and my comments were not directed at you.

From my somewhat cursory review of this thread, however, it is my opinion that Bill has made a good point about some silliness that cheapens historical research. I do not think Bill is hypocritical at all and I thought a lot of what he said made good sense. Nor was I "butting in" simply for the sake of doing so.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Duncan, the line between humour and bad taste can sometimes be quite thin.

Given the absolute seriousness of what is being discussed here, a horrenduous murder that changed the course of history, that line is probably even be thinner. On the other hand, I think that the seriousness may call for some comic relief to lift the spirits from time to time. I often find some of Ron Ecker's posts to be quite funny.

Perhaps we need to be careful about humor that is directed at a person and implies violence to that person--or, as you suggested, to make a debater's point re the body of the dead president may not be in the best of taste.

In any event, thank you and I apologize for "butting in" to the ongoing debate in this thread.

[Bill Miller]

Duncan:

The image of JFK rolling around in his casket could be offensive to many many people .

Perhaps that was not appropriate as an illustration, and perhaps this is not the thread to argue the point I was attempting to make.

But if we are concerned with "offensiveness" I believe the families of the hundreds of men wrongfully accused of participating in the assassinated must be offended if they have occasion to read what is posted on some of these threads. I understand and acknowledge that you have not participated in some of those absurd theories and my comments were not directed at you.

From my somewhat cursory review of this thread, however, it is my opinion that Bill has made a good point about some silliness that cheapens historical research. I do not think Bill is hypocritical at all and I thought a lot of what he said made good sense. Nor was I "butting in" simply for the sake of doing so.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but I can't agree that it cheapens the resarch as long as it is obvious that the intention is to be humerous and not offensive.

If I complain to the mods that I find Bill's comment about JFK rolling over in his casket, which subliminaly plants an image in one's head offensive, do you thing they will remove his comment like they removed my humerous Arnold gif?......I doubt it.

I can gaurentee that if I posted a humerous gif animation of Arnold being scorched beside one of JFK rolling around in his casket I could predict which one people would find most offensive.

I rest my case.

Duncan

I do not think the forum has to worry about you getting hold of any images of JFK laying in his casket so to make yet another foolish animation. But I would predict that if you could create such an image - that both animations would be removed from the forum, along with possibly your membership. Maybe instead of wasting time thinking of ludicrous ways to use the software programs at your disposal to demean witnesses, maybe get one that spell checks your post ... you misspelled three words in this post and used a wrong word in your previous one before that. Kathy's remarks were proper and wise and I would suggest that people think a little harder concerning the message that Kathy tried to send so not to make themselves look any worse than they already have. John Kennedy once said, "A mistake in not a mistake, unless one refuses to correct it."

Now as you requested in an earlier post ... should we not try to get back on the topic of this thread? If one believes that it is warranted to do so, then start a new thread called "Why is it a waste of forum space creating demeaning animations of assassination witnesses?"

Bill

Edited September 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I do not hesitate to call the following LIARS:

Marina

Ruth Paine

Sitzman

Zapruder

Brennan

etc.etc.manymore.

So banish me.

Jack

Jack,

I believe the forum rules about calling people liars are limited to the members of this forum only. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

PS. for years it has been shorthand to refer to the alleged persons

on the pedestal as ZAPPY and SITZY. I will continue to do so if I want

to. Call it ridicule if you want. They deserve ridicule.

Also, as long as you continue to claim that Zapruder and Sitzman were not on the pedestal, expect to continually be reminded as to what Moorman's photo which was filmed for TV 35 minutes after the shooting and while still in Mary's possession does show two people on the pedestal and that the clothing they have on does match that worn by Zapruder and Sitzman as seen in sharper images taken that day.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Duncan,

Sorry about referencing you saying that you believed we should stay on topic when you said earlier, "Can't we all just get our collective heads together and get on with the topic." I guess you must of said one thing while meaning something else. Again, my deepest apologies.

I don't need spelling lessons to correct typo's, thanks for the offer anyway.

I thought typo's were letters that were hit by accident. Below are errors where letters were left out altogether - and letters used that were nowhere close to the correct letter when using a keyboard.

subliminaly - subliminally

humerous - humorous

gaurentee - guarantee

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but I can't agree that it cheapens the resarch as long as it is obvious that the intention is to be humerous and not offensive.

Oooopps! Another typo and not a misspelling?

resarch - research

Once again..Arnold is NOT a witness just as James Files is NOT a witness.

I will ask you a question that other critics of Arnold have not been willing to address .... Turner found out that Arnold had told his story to others immediately after the shooting. Arnold described several things occurring on the knoll that were not known to photographically exist until many years later. So my question to you is - How did Arnold know of such details if he was not there and witnessed it himself???

Lets get back on track, this is getting boring.

Funny how trying to defend a mistake usually leads to wanting to move on because of quickly getting bored. Maybe answering my previous question about how was it Arnold was able to describe certain events that were not known to be supported by witnesses or photographs/films until many years later if he was not a witness to the assassination before moving on.

Bill Miller

Edited September 11, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Jack,

I believe the forum rules about calling people liars are limited to the members of this forum only. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Bill

You have asserted that there exists something called the "Weitzman Report." But no such thing has ever has existed.

You have asserted that the Warren Commission contains photographs of the picket fence from Bowers' point of view. But no such photos ever existed.

You have promised Duncan that you would provide to this forum scaling of the so called Arnold image in the Moorman photo. But you have not done so.

If I may ask, where is your constructive contribution to this forum?

You seem obsessed with finding Duncan guilty of misspelling. Is this your contribution? I call this xxxxx behaviour, which you are quick accuse others of.

I will ask you a question that other critics of Arnold have not been willing to address .... Turner found out that Arnold had told his story to others immediately after the shooting. Arnold described several things occurring on the knoll that were not known to photographically exist until many years later. So my question to you is - How did Arnold know of such details if he was not there and witnessed it himself???

Cite your sources, because your assertions are worthless without quoted primary direct evidence. Are your sources in the "Weitzman Report?"

So you don't have sources, again.

Go figure.