John Dolva Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Josiah,I can certainly understand why you, or anyone else, would pick particular areas of interest in this case. However, the questions I asked you are fundamental in nature. I'm curious as to how you feel about these aspects of the case, because it appears to me that you don't fully believe that a conspiracy took the life of John F. Kennedy. If I'm wrong, please correct me. That's just a suspicion I have, and I could easily be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm very sensitive about this subject because so many former believers in conspiracy appear to have become what I call "neo-cons" or even outright lone nutters. Among these would be Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Perry, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Gus Russo and Dave Reitzes. All these individuals are very knowledgable and once did good work on the subject. Their transformation into lone nutters or neo-cons is mysterious and unexplained. I attempted to ask some of them about this on forums in the past, and none was able to give me any kind of logical answer. My guess is that you once thought, as nearly everyone associated with this case did, that the backyard photos were amateurish and obvious forgeries. Now you say that they are "probably genuine." What makes you believe this? You wrote one of the early essential books on this subject. You regularly frequent this forum and Lancer (don't know about any others). Thus, surely you must be interested in something else besides film alteration and/or Jim Fetzer. I do respect your work, and value your opinion. Please share your views with us. Don, the vast majority of Americans believe in conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The problem still remains "who was behind the conspiracy" and what was their "motive"? Few Americans can do more than regurgitate the same old laundry list of bogey men. They simply don't know, and the thousands of conspiracy books, articles, TV specials have only helped to cloud the issue. That's the intent of most conspiracy books in my opinion. It is far easier to switch sides when the murder itself has been used as a "parlor game" for all these many years. In truth the JFK assassination signaled the demise of the United States as the single leading power for progress and good in the world. Most of the time the JFK murder is used to blame and discredit the US Government. I wouldnt worry too much about all the defections from conspiracy to the "lone nut" argument. Americans will continue to see the JFK murder as a case of conspiracy. The problem remains however the nature of the conspiracy. That has never been addressed with all the thousands of articles, books etc. pumped out by the media all these years. the JFK assassination signaled the truth to the world of the United States as a leading hindrance to progress and good in the divided US of A. change hurts hurt is pushed inside and projected out onto other a removal of the percieved source of hurt is desired suicide is an option, seeing a psychiatrist is better, but hurting the percieved hurter is more likely the us has bombed afghanistan bosnia cuba chile cambodia congo dominica granada haiti iran iraq korea libya laos lebanon nicaragua panama salvadore somalia sudan vieques vietnam yemen yugoslavia etc etc the mob is alive and well socialism/communism is as relevant today as ever the cia and other agencies are as crass as ever The one biggest Change that Kennedy brought was a hope for a fulfilment of centuries old dreams of equality. This means the last could be first. It means the liveliehood of many in all walks of life changes dramatically. It means the ultimate unification of the US of A and the final deathknell to the civil war. This is what hurt most in nut country. That is the motivator : projecting and not owning pain. Sudvival by well rehearsed ignorance of self. "..I cried out Who Killed the Kennedy's, when after all it was you and me..." Garden variety denial and ignorance of self killed Kennedy. solution? Know Thyself, or you'll keep getting what you don't vote for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Thanks, Peter ... that those in the future won't have to waste time on absurdities in the future is definitely part of the value of getting things like this taken care of ... and placed where they can be found in the future. Bests to you, Barb :-) The only "winner" that matters is truth and accuracy. Some issues in this arena cannot be resolved for various reasons, some can. The Moorman in the street issue is one that we believed could be resolved ... and those of us who worked to put together the essay believe it has been. That was our only intent ... to present a definitive essay on the claims and the facts and place it on forums where people can find it when looking into the claim that Moorman was in the street, not on the grass, when she took her photo. The information is now available in multiple places in cyberspace, and people can make up their own minds. That claim was the only issue the essay addressed. Bests, Barb :-) Methinks there were very few minds in doubt, Barb. The claim that Moorman was in the street was preposterous from the get go. Nevertheless, bravo for the efforts of this group. Long after we have passed from the scene, others will be researching the "beast". I've never had the patience to deal with obvious absurdities. Thanks heavens a few do! It will pay dividends in "time saved" for researchers venturing onto the trail in the future. Regards, Peter Fokes, Toronto Frankly what ex-moderators from alt.assassination.jfk (Barb and Peter here) think about any JFK assassination related film-photo issue (with or without Dr. Josiah Thompson) is, how do I put this mildly, kinda like watching a play in ...the Lone Nut, Theater of the Deranged, choreography by .john McAdams... I'm not impressed! Let me be the first to break the bad news to ya: selling the same old Lone Nut story to the same old crowd is what again? Yep, you guessed it. the same old story. Ya gotta stretch folks! I am a former moderator ... rather drafted into the position by CTs by a poll when the group was getting started, to be the CT voice on the moderation team. Peter, as I recall, came in to replace a fence sitter ... and as far as I know he is still a fence sitter himself. He also still is a moderator. Some people here sure are obsessed with what some believe, and if they don't believe all the right things, they are suspect of one thing or another.....really, how silly is that! Regardless of what one believes ... or is, ooooo...what any of us have to deal with are the words they put out ... their arguments for or against an issue. That's the great equalizer. Make people meet ya on the evidence ... and the less time spent fruitlessly suspecting others the more time can be spent discussing the issue and evidence in the case. That's what this place is for, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Barb, If it's fair to bring up Jim Fetzer's views on other subjects (911, Wellstone plane crash, etc.), when debating whether JFK assassination film was altered, it seems to me to be appropriate to link Josiah Thompson, or anyone else's, opinions about things like the backyard photos to the larger general issue of conspiracy. If some on this forum think Jim Fetzer or Jack White have questionable credibility about unrelated aspects of the assssination, because they believe in film alteration and other assorted conspiracy theories, why should Josiah's apparent faith in the backyard photos not taint his overall credibility with the more fervent believers in conspiracy here? I don't bother to debate with lone nutters much, unless they play the ever popular "I used to believe in conspiracy" card. Then I ask them what specifically caused them to change their mind. They never can answer that simple question. Those whose perspectives on this subject have dramatically changed, like Gary Mack, intrigue me, however. I don't accuse Josiah of being another Gary Mack. I'm just curious. I'm not saying Josiah or anyone else is a lone nutter, but I would like to hear more about this "tangled mess," as he defines the evidence regarding the backyard photos. I'd also like to have him answer the other questions I asked in an earlier post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Don, you say: "The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures." I don't know whether the photos are fake or not. I have not seen any evidence that convinces me they are, but I also haven't looked into them in a very long time. If they are fake, it's obvious they were produced to inculpate Oswald. If they are not fake, I don't think they are particularly incriminating as far as the assassination goes. Lurking in the attics of anyone over 40 or 50 yrs of age, are probably pictures of them as children dressed to the hilt as a cowboy or cowgirl complete with holsters and six guns. Playing cowboy was a favorite thing for kids in those days, and pictures dressed up for this role playing were common ... some pics even taken on a pony as photographers once roamed neighborhoods with ponies and cowboy paraphenalia to take such pictures. I know the pic of me is in our attic. ;-) If Oswald was involved in some sort of intel, and I think he was, these pics could be nothing more than him dressed up his commie/marxist/whatever role playing duds ...and the pic produced later by the DeMorenschildts with the "Hunter of Fascists" and "xa xa xa" (ha ha ha) on the back fits with that rather well ... especially given what we know about DeM. Oswald all decked out ... complete with, as I recall, papers from opposing factions. Look at me, all dressed for work and ready to go ... that sort of thing. I am a firm conspiracy believer, and the photos being authentic wouldn't shake that a bit. Bests, Barb :-) Kathy,The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. Of course, this is without even taking into consideration the obviously fraudulent nature of the photos. Indeed, the many problems with the backyard photos are one of the strongest indications that there was an effort to frame Oswald. Josiah's statement that these photos are "probably genuine" echo the kind of changing positions Gary Mack has taken in recent years, on a variety of issues. There is nothing personal here; I don't know either Gary or Josiah. However, the reason I take Gary's about face so personally is because I used to respect all the good work he did for "The Continuing Inquiiry" and know that he can't truly believe the official nonsense. Josiah Thompson was a real celebrity to many of us as youngsters first studying this case, along with Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, etc. Thus it is especially painful to have someone of his background label these photos "probably genuine." There is no reason to believe they are genuine in any way, shape or form. I don't know what he means by not being a "true believer." Are we to take this to mean that he doesn't truly believe in conspiracy? If not, what does he mean by that statement? I don't believe in attacking anyone, but this is a crucial issue. Many of us looked up to Josiah as much as you presumably did, and it naturally disappoints us if he seems to be accepting the unacceptable official view of the backyard photos. How does he stand on some of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned- the ones that are part and parcel of the new neo-con platform? Does he think Oswald killed Tippit? Does he think the Umbrella Man was actually an innocuous guy named Steven Witt? Bill Miller, please comment on the backyard photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I remember reading a newstory when I was 6. This was my first introduction to some of the incredible things that grownups believe bullets can do. (specters folly) By the time Teddy was done like a dinner I lost interest. Some years ago I took a set of east west photos of the great australian bite (bight) where the cliffs start to rise in South Oz and the humpbacks come in to calve. The process of trying to create a seamless panorama brought to my attention many issues re parallax, color values and so on. So I hunted for a film that also shows a series spanning about 180 degrees. There was the z film. In the process of working with it and subsequently looking at other films of the same event I learnt much re aligning and creating seamless panoramas. I invented a number of techniques in the process. I started to see things that seemed interesting and felt a need to communicate with other people discussing the films. Which brought me to this Forum. Over a number of months I read much nonsense and sense but had come to a mindset that believed I could show Oswald did it. Then I saw somethiong in the nix film that made me wonder what was behind Nix. Again a feeling I had something to say, but now with a reaffirmed belief something is indeed rotten in denmark (actually central Kopenhagen stinks so much because it's so old) so I requested to join the forum. That Oswald posed for the photos and that they are genuine, and easily shown to be so, is clear, as is the fact that it was a conspiracy. It's the type of conspiracy that's the issue. All is not what it seems. Much is in fact the opposite of what it seems to a (of whatever flavour) pre judiced mindsets cursory glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Wow, so many believers in conspiracy who accept the backyard photos as legitimate....No one would have believed this thirty years ago. The question is- what has occured during that time to make Josiah think they are "probably genuine," to make Barb state that she has not seen any evidence that they are fake, and to make John Dolva say that it can be easily shown that Oswald posed for the photos and that they are genuine? Even Bill Miller is not as certain as he was not so long ago, when he eloquently pointed out the many obvious indications that the photos are forgeries. What is going on here? Did I miss some kind of actual unbiased inquiry into this subject? I'm not talking about the predictable, HSCA "investigation" whose only goal was to agree with the untenable official version of events. The backyard photos are like the single-bullet theory. Any child can glance at them, for a moment, and realize they aren't normal pictures. Overanalyzing this is counterproductive- just as the government can find an "expert" to help convict anyone they want to convict, they can certainly find "experts" to claim that the single bullet theory is possible or even likely, and that these fraudulent photos are genuine. That's one of the perks of power. While it may have been common, as Barb suggests, for youngsters to dress up as cowboys and be photographed as such back then, it wasn't common for grown men to do so. Especially when the weapons they brandished in such photographs would later allegedly be used to murder the President of the United States and a police officer. The backyard photos, Oswald shooting Tippit, the Umbrella Man, the mysterious deaths of witnesses, the identity of the man in the doorway of the Altgens photo, the entrance wound to the throat, the culpability of the Secret Service- I could go on and on. Why are so many of you yielding ground on so many aspects of this case, for no apparent reason? What has happened to cause this crucial shift in critical opinion? The backyard photos are one of the clearest indicators of an effort to frame Oswald for the assassination. They go hand in glove with all the "second Oswald" encounters prior to the assassination. Do some of you now reject them as well? What next- a Gary Mack-like denial of all hard conspiracy evidence while clinging to a belief in conspiracy solely on the basis of the accoustics evidence and Badgeman- actually two of the weakest pieces of evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Barb,If it's fair to bring up Jim Fetzer's views on other subjects (911, Wellstone plane crash, etc.), when debating whether JFK assassination film was altered, it seems to me to be appropriate to link Josiah Thompson, or anyone else's, opinions about things like the backyard photos to the larger general issue of conspiracy. If some on this forum think Jim Fetzer or Jack White have questionable credibility about unrelated aspects of the assssination, because they believe in film alteration and other assorted conspiracy theories, why should Josiah's apparent faith in the backyard photos not taint his overall credibility with the more fervent believers in conspiracy here? I don't bother to debate with lone nutters much, unless they play the ever popular "I used to believe in conspiracy" card. Then I ask them what specifically caused them to change their mind. They never can answer that simple question. Those whose perspectives on this subject have dramatically changed, like Gary Mack, intrigue me, however. I don't accuse Josiah of being another Gary Mack. I'm just curious. I'm not saying Josiah or anyone else is a lone nutter, but I would like to hear more about this "tangled mess," as he defines the evidence regarding the backyard photos. I'd also like to have him answer the other questions I asked in an earlier post. Hi Don, I am not sure why you are telling me this ... asking anyone their opinion on any of the issues or evidence is part of discussing the case. Using a question as some sort of litmus test for one to prove they qualify as a CT in someone else's opinion, though, is, imo, nonsense. All anyone needs to prove is their arguments, their claims. If you are not one of the litmus testers ... I am happy to know that. There are some here, clearly, who are. Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Don, the "tangled mess" of the backyard photos involves the following facts. The records show that the DPD found two photos and a negative (as I recall) and gave the WC two photos and one negative. Well, what's wrong with that? Well, they also gave them a blow-up from the photo with the missing negative, and this was determined to have been a first generation print. This proves the DPD "lost" a negative. Flash forward a decade. A third photo emerges. It turns out there are two copies of this third photo. Both at one time in the possession of former DPD officers. The HSCA inspects these photos, and decides that they are ALSO first generation prints taken from the original negative. They talk to Studebaker from the crime lab. He confirms he made copies for his fellow cops as souvenirs. The HSCA thereby comes to the unspoken conclusion the DPD "lost" two negatives. This is problematic. How do we know these guys didn't steal even more important evidence? Flash forward two more decades. A former employee of the Dallas crime lab tells his story in First Day Evidence. He swears that no negatives disappeared, and that the copies handed out within the DPD were made from first generation prints using a copy camera, and not the original negatives. He says you can tell by the size of the images. He's right. The photos he says were taken from the original negatives are 4 by 5 but the photos he says were copy photos are cropped and 5 by 7. He fails to realize that this creates an even bigger problem. If the DPD copy camera was so good it fooled the WC and HSCA photo experts, how do we know the photos aren't composites made with this camera? (Or something like that...you get the idea.) Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is that, even if one assumes the photos are legit, they are still problematic, as they prove that either the DPD stole important evidence or that the HSCA photography panel didn't know what they were talking about. Edited March 31, 2009 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Barb, I must not have stated things clearly. My point was about consistency; if Jim Fetzer is held to one standard, why isn't Josiah Thompson held to the same standard? If issues unrelated to the alteration debate (other conspiracy theories, for instance) are allowed to taint his credibility in general, then what someone like myself would consider a remarkable stance on the backyard photos issue will naturally taint his credibility in general in my eyes. I don't believe in a litmus test, and don't think that those who disagree with me are disinfo agents. That being said, this is a discussion forum and I'm free to speculate as much as you are. Can you deny that a belief in film alteration automatically disqualifies one, in the eyes of those such as Josiah and yourself, as a credible researcher on the assassination? Isn't that a litmus test for you? This works both ways- you can't demand that someone agree with you that the Zapruder film is authentic, or instantly label them as unknowledgable or uncredible, and in the same breath protest when they affix the same label on you for not agreeing with them on some other aspect of the case (for instance, the backyard photos). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Pat, Thanks for providing that information. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just think that a child can tell something isn't right about the backyard photos by glancing at them. No one poses for a picture with the weapons that would later be used to convict him, with subversive literature that will almost certainly provide a convenient motive for a jury thrown in for good measure. That's so over the top it's ridiculous. Not to mention the obviously fake features of the photos, visible to all non-experts- the awkward, almost impossible stance of "Oswald," the head size not corresponding to the body size, etc. Taking into consideration all the witness encounters with a fake Oswald, these photos represent, imho, a very transparent effort to frame him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Pat,Thanks for providing that information. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just think that a child can tell something isn't right about the backyard photos by glancing at them. No one poses for a picture with the weapons that would later be used to convict him, with subversive literature that will almost certainly provide a convenient motive for a jury thrown in for good measure. That's so over the top it's ridiculous. Not to mention the obviously fake features of the photos, visible to all non-experts- the awkward, almost impossible stance of "Oswald," the head size not corresponding to the body size, etc. Taking into consideration all the witness encounters with a fake Oswald, these photos represent, imho, a very transparent effort to frame him. Thanks, Don. Watch my videos FAKE and MANY FACES OF LHO. http://www.jfkstudies.org/studies3.html Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Barb,I must not have stated things clearly. My point was about consistency; if Jim Fetzer is held to one standard, why isn't Josiah Thompson held to the same standard? If issues unrelated to the alteration debate (other conspiracy theories, for instance) are allowed to taint his credibility in general, then what someone like myself would consider a remarkable stance on the backyard photos issue will naturally taint his credibility in general in my eyes. I don't believe in a litmus test, and don't think that those who disagree with me are disinfo agents. That being said, this is a discussion forum and I'm free to speculate as much as you are. Can you deny that a belief in film alteration automatically disqualifies one, in the eyes of those such as Josiah and yourself, as a credible researcher on the assassination? Isn't that a litmus test for you? This works both ways- you can't demand that someone agree with you that the Zapruder film is authentic, or instantly label them as unknowledgable or uncredible, and in the same breath protest when they affix the same label on you for not agreeing with them on some other aspect of the case (for instance, the backyard photos). Hi Don, Standards should be equal ... save that I think those who publish and promote should have at least the expected standard of having their work vetted, peer reviewed, etc before publishing and promoting claims. You said, "Can you deny that a belief in film alteration automatically disqualifies one, in the eyes of those such as Josiah and yourself, as a credible researcher on the assassination?" I can only speak for myself, of course, and yes, I can deny that. People are entitled to their own opinions. I don't care what they believe ... but *how* they believe it ... which is the best way I can think of to describe it. A person who can engage in give and take on whatever the issue is, explain what and why they see something the way they do, who can acknowledge others perspectives even if they think they are wrong, who can run a clean discussion with reasoned give and take on both sides, I respect, I learn from hearing and understanding their perspective, and I can chalk it up to "we just disagree." Those who, as soon as someone disagrees with them, jump to the shill, disinfo agent, stupid, mental case, you're cheap and suspicious, you should be arrested route ... all the while completely ignoring issues raised, evidence pointed out, even documented evidence, and just twist words, lose context in their selective quoting and dodge points and issues and divert to other things to evade... nothing but froth and foam and repeating the same things over and over even though those things have already been addressed ... no, I don't find those types credible researchers, and the lack of scholarship in what they promote really shows when that is what they jump to anytime they are countered. If one has a sound claim, they should be able to defend it on point. When they can't, so go the uglies route, I see that as their ego needs being more important to them than accuracy. Just the way I see it. Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Barb,I must not have stated things clearly. My point was about consistency; if Jim Fetzer is held to one standard, why isn't Josiah Thompson held to the same standard? If issues unrelated to the alteration debate (other conspiracy theories, for instance) are allowed to taint his credibility in general, then what someone like myself would consider a remarkable stance on the backyard photos issue will naturally taint his credibility in general in my eyes. I don't believe in a litmus test, and don't think that those who disagree with me are disinfo agents. That being said, this is a discussion forum and I'm free to speculate as much as you are. Can you deny that a belief in film alteration automatically disqualifies one, in the eyes of those such as Josiah and yourself, as a credible researcher on the assassination? Isn't that a litmus test for you? This works both ways- you can't demand that someone agree with you that the Zapruder film is authentic, or instantly label them as unknowledgable or uncredible, and in the same breath protest when they affix the same label on you for not agreeing with them on some other aspect of the case (for instance, the backyard photos). Hi Don, Standards should be equal ... save that I think those who publish and promote should have at least the expected standard of having their work vetted, peer reviewed, etc before publishing and promoting claims. You said, "Can you deny that a belief in film alteration automatically disqualifies one, in the eyes of those such as Josiah and yourself, as a credible researcher on the assassination?" I can only speak for myself, of course, and yes, I can deny that. People are entitled to their own opinions. I don't care what they believe ... but *how* they believe it ... which is the best way I can think of to describe it. A person who can engage in give and take on whatever the issue is, explain what and why they see something the way they do, who can acknowledge others perspectives even if they think they are wrong, who can run a clean discussion with reasoned give and take on both sides, I respect, I learn from hearing and understanding their perspective, and I can chalk it up to "we just disagree." Those who, as soon as someone disagrees with them, jump to the shill, disinfo agent, stupid, mental case, you're cheap and suspicious, you should be arrested route ... all the while completely ignoring issues raised, evidence pointed out, even documented evidence, and just twist words, lose context in their selective quoting and dodge points and issues and divert to other things to evade... nothing but froth and foam and repeating the same things over and over even though those things have already been addressed ... no, I don't find those types credible researchers, and the lack of scholarship in what they promote really shows when that is what they jump to anytime they are countered. If one has a sound claim, they should be able to defend it on point. When they can't, so go the uglies route, I see that as their ego needs being more important to them than accuracy. Just the way I see it. Bests, Barb :-) "I can only speak for myself, of course, and yes, I can deny that. People are entitled to their own opinions. I don't care what they believe ... but *how* they believe it ... which is the best way I can think of to describe it." Oh-brother.... is it ANY wonder this case has languished in the hands of the Lone Nut WCR/SBT supporters. And speaking of EGO'S. You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence? As if their belief have bearing on anything? You're sounding more like .john McAdams as time goes on..... should we be surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Those who, as soon as someone disagrees with them, jump to the shill, disinfo agent, stupid, mental case, you're cheap and suspicious, you should be arrested route ... all the while completely ignoring issues raised, evidence pointed out, even documented evidence, and just twist words, lose context in their selective quoting and dodge points and issues and divert to other things to evade... nothing but froth and foam and repeating the same things over and over even though those things have already been addressed ... no, I don't find those types credible researchers, and the lack of scholarship in what they promote really shows when that is what they jump to anytime they are countered. If one has a sound claim, they should be able to defend it on point. When they can't, so go the uglies route, I see that as their ego needs being more important to them than accuracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the following from Dave Healy backs up your above statement very appropriately Barb. LOL quote Dave Healy: Oh-brother.... is it ANY wonder this case has languished in the hands of the Lone Nut WCR/SBT supporters. And speaking of EGO'S. You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence? As if their belief have bearing on anything? You're sounding more like .john McAdams as time goes on..... should we be surprised. Edited March 31, 2009 by Denis Pointing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 .....You not only disagree with film-photo alteration, you disagree with how those researchers came to believe what they believe (professionals in the field) concerning the film-photo evidence?..... So Tell us David, what is John Costella's professional experience in photo or film alteration...hell ANYTHING photo or film related? Oh thats right he has no experience, you believe him. Why not tell everyone how YOU PERSONALLY vetted his work on oh lets say the sign and lamp post mistake? You are on record as supporting it, so now defend your vetting of it. 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