Why Don't We Admit Our Mistakes?

[Dawn Meredith]

An old post:

QUOTE(dankbaar @ Jul 13 2004, 03:48 PM)

Jack,

You are turning the world upside down. When people disagree with

some of your claims, you call them provocateurs, accuse them of unfair and

personal attacks, bad behaviour etcetera, a thin excuse to avoid answering

real and valid questions, like what conspiratoral purpose is served by

putting Mary Moorman on the street or switching Mrs. Franzen for a "mystery

woman".

Who do you think you are to judge who are good and bad members?

While I can acknowledge you have done some excellent

photographical analysis, particularly on the backyard photographs, some of

your alteration claims are indeed nutty.

When reasonable input is brought to him, James Fetzer can admit he

needs to revise some of your work. But you simply seem unable to admit that

you can be wrong.

While I do not always agree with Bill Miller, I have never found

his behaviour less than impecable. So who is attacking who here? I share a

similar experience with him on the forum of Mr. della Rosa's, whom you

marvel so much. And I understand we're not the only ones. The common

denominator seems to be not our behaviour but the mere fact we challlenge

your claims.

You agreed to answer questions, but the tough ones you ignore.

Who do you think you are to play victim of unfair treatment, while

at the same time you may accuse Judyth Baker of lying and making up "phoney

claims" (your words). Who do you think you are to suggest it is right that

her supporters are denied access from defending her against your very

personal attacks. With a man of your grandness I must assume that the fact

that she totally ruins your "Harvey and Lee/Marguerite A and B" theories,

have nothing to do with your denouncements of her?

Think of that folks, there were not only 2 different Oswalds,

according to Jack, there were two different mothers (Marguerites), as early

as 7 years before the Kennedy assassination. And those who dare to challenge

that are provocateurs and liars. Well, Jack, I am not going to sit by idle

when you accuse what I consider extremely brave people, like Judyth Baker

and Chauncey Holt, of liars and hoaxes. If you want to brand that as

disruptive behaviour, so be it. I'm not falling for it, even if I would be

the only one.

You probably don't want to see a tie between Ochsner and Oswald,

but other people might be interested:

http://www.conelrad.com/media/atomicmusic/....php?platter=19

Read the backflap of this 1964 longplayer sponsored by Ochsner's

INCA, they are called "the truth tapes", implicating Lee as the lone

assassin. What does the head of the american cancer society have to do with

blaming Oswald as the lone psychopath nut ???? The answer is 1) a CANCER

bioweapon and 2) covering his ass!

Wim

Dankbaar denies that there were TWO MARGUERITES when the photo

evidence shows otherwise.

Jack

They certainly do not look at all like the same woman. I am more and more impressed by the work Armstrong has done. I really need to get this book.

Jack, re Tosh and his writing, I would suggest that he is simply being more careful in his posts. It's easy to type fast and make typos, I do it all the darn time, but I know Tosh is putting a LOT of time into these posts, so there are fewer typos. As for a change in writing style, I don't see any.

Dawn

[Evan Burton]

The 9/11 posts have been moved over to this thread in the Political Conspiracies section.

If you want to primarily discuss 9/11, please do it there.

[Pat Speer]

Jack, those are almost certainly the same woman. Look at the nose, the ears, the spot of gray in the left part of her hair. I've changed much more than that in my personal appearance over the years. My girlfriend can't even pick me out of my elementary school photos. (Out of 25 kids, I was her 5th choice.) There are pictures of me as an adult where I am unrecognizable to others as well.

[William Plumlee]

The 9/11 posts have been moved over to this thread in the Political Conspiracies section.

If you want to primarily discuss 9/11, please do it there.

I am sure the following will be taken off the forum. But I wanted some to see it before it was removed. I will continue to work with any serious researchers into the JFK assassination and my associations with same: You can forward this if you like.

Moved from other thread:

"... By mistake I called Jack a POS when I should have said his research on the Pentagon was a POS and it was not 'Pile of S..., it was a Piece of S..., this I will stand behind.

note: from an eye witness who was stopped near the Arlington Cemetery with backed up traffic. "I saw this Big airplane swoop down and I said OH! MY GOD! RUN RUN, we thought it was going to crash on us. And then it went over and shook the ground. It hit the Pentagon, over there", she pointed. Eve Brown, Falls Church, VA.

From Sam Bartel of Greenberg PA. "My wife and I were riding on 395 when we saw this AIRLINER flying low. At first I thought it was going to land at the airport, but I told my wife, Its to low and then OH Jesus!, I said. And then it hit..."

There are over a hundred of these type of reports. I guess these people as well as all the fireman and those inside with the smell of burning jet fuel, trying to save their friends from death, are all part of this massive "cover-up".

The 911 recorded calls, also show where many said "An Airliner just crashed into the Pentagon". The switchboard was jammed within five minutes with reports. I guess they too, work for the government and are part of a "cover up", and conspiracy.

Talk to the wives of the pilots killed in the crash...., talk to their children. Take a look at the passenger's list and go and talk to their families. Talk to the doctors at the hospitals. Talk to the doctors and asked what was told to them by their patients.

Then come back on this forum and tell us what you found out. Look these people in the eye and tell them their love ones are not dead, that they were not on an airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, because they did not exist. Tell the children of these families that their mothers and fathers did not die in a plane that crash into the pentagon. Tell the first responders that they are all liars and be sure and tell the families they are liars also. Look them in the eye and tell them that.

None of you have the GUTS to do that, because you are COWARDS and hide in your closets and spit out Venom, and call yourselves professional researchers.

You people make me sick. And I refuse to be associated with any of you. And too, I refuse to be a part of a Forum that would allow this type of SLOPPY Research and special interest to put this type of CRAP in this forum with nothing more to back up their research than their theories and opinions presented as facts. A new generation looks to us as examples. They only seek truth, because they care. They are only trying to establish the facts behind such a tragic event.

.

Pentagon Conspiracy my XXX. I have reviewed many threads these past few weeks and I have yet to see anything move forward on the JFK investigation except name calling, rock throwing, back bitting, and the likes.

And I will not let the door hit me in the XXX on my way out. TOSH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited February 25, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Miles Scull]

I'm sure most folks will see it under YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY thread first. It has a rather catchy title, and. IMO,is a definite draw for the audience.

I would like you to know that not everyone has the same interests, and not everyone reads all the threads. To summarize everyone as being crazy may be just a bit much, ya think??

I agree with Kathy.

Now, where is she?

[William Plumlee]

I'm sure most folks will see it under YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY thread first. It has a rather catchy title, and. IMO,is a definite draw for the audience.

I would like you to know that not everyone has the same interests, and not everyone reads all the threads. To summarize everyone as being crazy may be just a bit much, ya think??

I apologize for lumping all on this forum as being CRAZY. The ones I made reference know who they are as well as the professionals who work hard on this forum.. Again I apologize to those but not the others. And my feelings have not change as to my association here.

[Jack White]

Jack, those are almost certainly the same woman. Look at the nose, the ears, the spot of gray in the left part of her hair. I've changed much more than that in my personal appearance over the years. My girlfriend can't even pick me out of my elementary school photos. (Out of 25 kids, I was her 5th choice.) There are pictures of me as an adult where I am unrecognizable to others as well.

Pat...clearly you did not read the text. One of the Marguerite photos was

made in Fort Worth when "Marguerite" worked at Paul's Shoe Store and

her son Lee was attending Stripling Junior High School. The other photo

was made in New Orleans where AT THE SAME TIME her son Lee was

attending Beauregard Junior High School.

Note the photos represent THE SAME TIME frame, not different eras.

Each had a son Lee in different schools in different cities AT THE SAME

TIME. Is that clear?

Please explain how this can be so.

Jack

[Denis Pointing]

Wim Dankbar denies that there were TWO MARGUERITES when the photo

evidence shows otherwise.

Jack

We all know the W.C. made many mistakes, some deliberately, some by accident. It seems more logical that's what we have here...a mistake, than the sensationalist claim of two Marguerite's. Denis.

[Michael Hogan]

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

A far more complex question than I am prepared to answer. I do think that the relatively recent formats of the internet have something to do with it. I just can't quite put my finger on it.

Depending on the venue, any admission of error is instantly seen by dozens, or hundreds, or thousands. Anything one writes can become instant fodder and shared all over the net.

The internet has allowed anyone with a computer to instantly make their opinions known, whether it's on YouTube, Amazon,

The New York Times, or The Education Forum.

Perhaps it's easier to admit an error (or the possibility of one) face to face, one on one than it is in front of a limitless gallery of faceless strangers.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Wim Dankbaar]

It's this kind of stuff that muddies up serious research. By the way, I agree entirely with Tosh on the "No plane hit the Pentagon" BS. The same goes for "The twin towers were taken down by controlled demolition".

Heck, but I do believe 9/11 was an job with advance US government knowledge. Unfortunately , stuff like above doesn't help credibility for that thesis.

Wim

Edited March 2, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[David G. Healy]

It's this kind of stuff that muddies up serious research. By the way, I agree entirely with Tosh on the "No plane hit the Pentagon" BS. The same goes for "The twin towers were taken down by controlled demolition".

Heck, but I do believe 9/11 was an job with advance US government knowledge. Unfortunately , stuff like above doesn't help credibility for that thesis.

Wim

you know when the moderators **"EDIT"** a posting, it might be nice to see WHERE they edited the post --

Very easy change the entire posts intent/meaning, especially if the reader is NOT aware of where and what the *mod* "altered"

[Wim Dankbaar]

Only BS was changed to an abbreviation..

Wim

[William Kelly]

This is a very good question Tink asks.

Two years ago, while researching the background of American revolutionary patriot John Barry, I came across a reference in a book on the history of the Episcopal Academy in Philadelphia, that one John Barry taught there for a few years while three young, aspiring US Naval officers were students.

These years just happened to coincide with a black hole in the documented life of Captain John Barry, who attended the church of the Academy founder, lived in the neighborhood of the school, and recruited the three students to be Navy midshipmen on the USS United States.

I was pretty much certain that Captain John Barry was the schoolmaster, thus certifying his status as "the Father of the US Navy."

But then I obtained a copy of the preface to school master John Barry's book The Philadelphia Spelling Book, the first book copyrighted in the United States, and I found a classified ad in the Philadelphia Gazzette by Barry asking for work as a tutor, which convinced me that there was another man named John Barry, who lived in the same neighborhood, was a member of the same Irish society and taught at the Academy.

I was wrong, and two years of my research was frustrated, but I had to admit I was wrong.

Now, in the course of JFK assassination research, those who have dedicated many years to working on a specific area of research - must also get frustrated, especially when some of their basic assumptions are proven wrong.

Like those who spend years trying to determine a motive for Oswald to kill the President when it turns out he didn't kill anybody, but was framed as the patsy, just like he claimed.

Then there are those who have maintained that the Zapruder film and other physical evidence in the assassination were not tampered with, and are accurate renditions of what happened, or constitute evidence of a crime that can be introduced into a court of law.

I too, counted myself among those who believed the Zapruder film was authentic and not tampered with, and those who saw anomalies were seeing things that everyone begins to see when staring at a pictures for too long a time.

I even came up with a theory that the more you looked at a picture the more anomalies you would see.

And I would like to apologize to Jack White for saying that, as I now believe that much of his work will be vindicated by Doug Horne's revelations.

Like the medical evidence, which I considered beyond my understanding, I relied on the judgement of Dr. Wecht, Dr. Aguliar and others who I know personally who have studied the subject.

And when it came to the photo evidence, I thought Tink Thompson, Bob Groden, John Judge and others were right, and the "alterationists" wrong, especially because I thought there is much better evidence of conspiracy than alteration of photos, and there is.

Now however, after reading "The Zapruder Film Mystery" chapter in Volume IV of Doug Horne's IARRB, I now realize that I was wrong.

Even Doug in his book says it was a hard decision for him to make, but as with the recognition that they used two different brains in writing the autopsy report(s), its now clear that they also controlled the Zapruder film from early on, and that even though copies were made, they were all controlled, and the chain of evidence was broken.

This is proven by the reports of three CIA officers who made enlargements of different versions of the original film at different times at the NPIC in DC, clearly describing different films, both said to be originals.

In retrospect, if they have the ability to kill the President and get away with it, frame the patsy and control the autopsy, they certainly had the ability to control and alter other evidence as well, including the Z-film.

Now without further debate over whether Mooreman was in the street or if leaves are real, I'd like Tink and others to read the relevant chapter in Vol. IV. IARRB and let us know if the loss of the true provenance of the Z-film has an effect on the value of the evidence?

Without regard to what's on the film, can it now be accepted that the Z-film we now have at the Archives, and pay copyright for use to the Sixth Floor Museum, is not the unedited, unaltered movie that Zapruder filmed?

I understand that it will take awhile for the details of this book to circulate, and for people to buy and read, but I think its important that we all do read it and consider the implications.

Bill Kelly

Edited December 1, 2009 by William Kelly

[Bernice Moore]

BILL ""Why Don't We Admit Our Mistakes?"" YES A VERY GOOD QUESTION BY TINK..I DO WONDER NOW IF HE AND MANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES WILL BE ABLE TO ADMIT HIS AND THEIRS..... TIME WILL TELL..THANKS TAKE CARE BEST B...

[Don Jeffries]

Thanks for ressurecting this thread, Bill. I look forward to Josiah's reaction to Doug Horne's research.

The problem here is, again, that the inference in Josiah's question is obviously- why don't critics admit their mistakes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; you can take all the alleged errors and distortions in the works of pro- conspiracy researchers and add them all together and they won't approach the errors and distortions of the official "investigations." I don't blame Jack White, or any other private citizen, when he makes an error. We all are human, and are prone to honest mistakes. The difference is that neither Jack, nor Jim Fetzer, nor any other private researcher is distorting data or purposefully misinterpreting anything because they are covering up for the real forces behind the crime(s). Those of us who have studied this case for decades recognize that the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, etc., have all engaged in a willful coverup designed to protect the interests of the real assassins of Kennedy.

The official version of 9/11 is just as ludicrous as the official version of the JFK assassination. I applaud Jack White, Jim Fetzer and all truth seekers, who must do the work that mainstream journalists will not (just as they have never done in regards to the assassinations of the 1960s). Consider the resources that any private citizen has at his disposal, as opposed to those an investigative journalist with a major television network would have. If you can prove Jack or anyone else purposefully distorted the truth about anything, then do so. Otherwise, recognize that you have a difference of opinion. I read many posts about Jack or Jim not acknowledging their errors. As Jack cogently points out, one doesn't admit mistakes if they aren't mistakes. There is a distinct philosophical difference between those who criticize the work of "conspiracy theorists" and those who investigate alleged conspiracies. Some of us believe that our leaders and institutions are basically good, while others believe they are basically corrupt.

It seems to me that every "mistake" discovered these days tends to minimize the size and scope of the conspiracy. That's part of the overall trend in the critical community towards neo-conspiracism, which I've bemoaned in previous threads. I don't think the alterationsts have conclusively proven their case, but the non-alterationists have not conclusively disproven it, either. I look forward to reading Doug Horne's work, and hope that Josiah and co. will as well. The same can be said of the 9/11 truthers, who have many different theories, but have raised enough questions about the official story to show how bogus it is.