Jump to content
The Education Forum

Has anyone attempted to explain....


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what we need Paul are your replies in a public, face-to-face forum (with cameras rolling). A forum where you can't hide behind aliases, thus certifying your experience, capability and viability answering/commenting on technical questions, especially film composing techniques regarding case relate films-photos. And lest we forget, your blanket approval of *known* WCR failings. Till then, son you're just another lone nutter-xxxxx with an opinion demonstrating not a clue concerning the photographic record of the JFK assassination.

Carry on (as I'm sure you will in that typical nuuter-xxxxx inane way)

You almost became coherent there David, well done. Shame you couldn't answer those questions. Have you ever answered a question?

They were not technical questions. Using my eyeballs, wired up to my brain, I have never seen any convincing discrepancies amongst the photographic record. If anyone would care to point me in the direction of the evidence I'd be interested to see it. I'm not a "lone-nutter xxxxx", by the way. Believe it or not, if I saw evidence of a consipiracy I'd change my stance and admit that my judgement was wrong. Go on, try me.

All of Jacks work has been debunked? By who? You?

Please show me all of Jacks work that you debunked

Dean, go off and search for any of Jack's "studies" in this forum. I haven't seen one yet that hasn't been debunked. Personally I haven't debunked any of them, why do I need to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using my eyeballs, wired up to my brain, I have never seen any convincing discrepancies amongst the photographic record.

Quite right Sir. There are no discrepancies in the photographic evidence. You can examine all the films and photographs until the end of time and you will still find that there is not a single shred of photographic evidence that implicates Lee Oswald.

I'm not a "lone-nutter xxxxx", by the way.

Well, to plagiarize Damon Runyon, if you are not a lone nutter xxxxx, you will do until a lone nutter xxxxx comes along

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of Jacks work has been debunked? By who? You?

Please show me all of Jacks work that you debunked

Dean, go off and search for any of Jack's "studies" in this forum. I haven't seen one yet that hasn't been debunked. Personally I haven't debunked any of them, why do I need to?

Paul,

Im sorry but all of Tink's gangs "debunking" of Jack's work means nothing to me, you might as well have posted a link to Mcadams website because its seems to me you have been taken in by these guys and believe if they say "Oh we owned Jack and Jim and David today! We debunked everything! The score is now Tink's gang-1 and Fetzer's gang-0"

If you want to believe researchers who think its a game then go right ahead, but if you want me to believe that Jacks work has been debunked (It has not) then do some work on his studies yourself and get back to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OR BETTER STILL STUDY THEM FOR 46 ALMOST YEARS EARN JACKS CREDENTIAL'S THEN GET BACK TO ALL OF US INCLUDING JACK....THAT I SHALL AWAIT..

DEAN MCADAM'S :D ISN'T THAT WHERE THE NEOCONS PLAY THEIR GAMES..I DO BELIEVE.THOUGH ON OCCASION THEY DO TAKE A STROLL.....TAKE CARE..BEST B ;)

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OR BETTER STILL STUDY THEM FOR 46 ALMOST YEARS EARN JACKS CREDENTIAL'S THEN GET BACK TO ALL OF US INCLUDING JACK....THAT I SHALL AWAIT..

DEAN MCADAM'S :D ISN'T THAT WHERE THE NEOCONS PLAY THEIR GAMES..I DO BELIEVE.THOUGH ON OCCASION THEY DO TAKE A STROLL.....TAKE CARE..BEST B ;)

;)

Everytime I am directed to McAdams website by a Lone Nutter I just shake my head, its hard to believe how much BS McAdams crams into his website for all the LNers to drool over, I dislike his website so much, but no need to go on and on about it

And Bernice I agree with you 100% that Paul will never debunk or even come close to doing anything that would make me rethink any of Jack's work, what he does not understand is that not only do I think of Jack as one of the best researchers on the case but who has put in more time researching then Jack?

Not many

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OR BETTER STILL STUDY THEM FOR 46 ALMOST YEARS EARN JACKS CREDENTIAL'S THEN GET BACK TO ALL OF US INCLUDING JACK....THAT I SHALL AWAIT..

DEAN MCADAM'S :blink: ISN'T THAT WHERE THE NEOCONS PLAY THEIR GAMES..I DO BELIEVE.THOUGH ON OCCASION THEY DO TAKE A STROLL.....TAKE CARE..BEST B ;)

:lol:

Everytime I am directed to McAdams website by a Lone Nutter I just shake my head, its hard to believe how much BS McAdams crams into his website for all the LNers to drool over, I dislike his website so much, but no need to go on and on about it

And Bernice I agree with you 100% that Paul will never debunk or even come close to doing anything that would make me rethink any of Jack's work, what he does not understand is that not only do I think of Jack as one of the best researchers on the case but who has put in more time researching then Jack?

Not many

now Dean we must be fair mcAdams is not the only who clutters up his L/NRS site many/birds of a feather..there..he is far from alone.....and some even still spew the old i sit on the fence so hopefully they can get along with all........ that fence was taken down and replaced many

years ago.....Jack has put in more time than so many combined and taken so much from so many also....I have found it amazing at times that he would still bother to attempt to continue to bring us the truth of the coup and cover-up ..of the jfk..assassination..cheers...best b.. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Bernice I agree with you 100% that Paul will never debunk or even come close to doing anything that would make me rethink any of Jack's work, what he does not understand is that not only do I think of Jack as one of the best researchers on the case but who has put in more time researching then Jack?

Dean, why do I have to debunk any of Jack's "studies" when that work has already been done? You state that Jack's work has not been debunked. Er, what can I say? It has. Look around, take those blinkers off. Oh, and the amount of time that Jack has wasted over the years has nothing to do with anything.

OR BETTER STILL STUDY THEM FOR 46 ALMOST YEARS EARN JACKS CREDENTIAL'S THEN GET BACK TO ALL OF US INCLUDING JACK....THAT I SHALL AWAIT..

DEAN MCADAM'S blink.gif ISN'T THAT WHERE THE NEOCONS PLAY THEIR GAMES..I DO BELIEVE.THOUGH ON OCCASION THEY DO TAKE A STROLL.....TAKE CARE..BEST B wink.gif

Yes, well said. Take caps lock off and learn English. All the nutters seem to be in the conspiracy camp!

Quite right Sir. There are no discrepancies in the photographic evidence. You can examine all the films and photographs until the end of time and you will still find that there is not a single shred of photographic evidence that implicates Lee Oswald.

I'm sure some trajectory analysis has been undertaken using the Z-film which demonstrates that the bullets came from the TSBD. Isn't that a 'shred' of photographic evidence that helps to implicate him? Tell me if I'm wrong, I really don't mind being wrong.

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure some trajectory analysis has been undertaken using the Z-film which demonstrates that the bullets came from the TSBD.

These are only theories, opinions and conjectures which in turn are "corroborated" by further conjectures like the Jet Effect and the magic bullet theory, and by junk science like the acoustics and NAA.

Isn't that a 'shred' of photographic evidence that helps to implicate him?

Sorry old chap but there is not a shred of photographic or film evidence that implicates Lee Oswald,

I really don't mind being wrong.

Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority, and clearly not the result of your own independent inquiry..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

What books have you read that changed your mind?

"Reclaiming History" or "Case Closed" im sure will be your reply

I have some books for you to read

Lets start off with a nice easy to read book that while small it packs a big CT punch, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor

When you are done with that you need to break out the big bucks for this one, "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman

After you have read those two books I would love to talk to you about them

Then you can move on to the three books from Fetzer starting with TGZFH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone.

And since you seem to have no doubt about that, the purpose of your involvement in this forum of inquiry is hard to fathom.

"Where there is no doubt there can be no inquiry" (Charles Sanders Peirce)

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

What books have you read that changed your mind?

"Reclaiming History" or "Case Closed" im sure will be your reply

I have some books for you to read

Lets start off with a nice easy to read book that while small it packs a big CT punch, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor

When you are done with that you need to break out the big bucks for this one, "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman

After you have read those two books I would love to talk to you about them

Then you can move on to the three books from Fetzer starting with TGZFH

Just wondering, if TGZFH is so good, then how did Dr. John get it soooo wrong?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

And if Jack White does such a good job at 'photo analysis' how did he miss the above error and how did he make this whopper?

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone.

And since you seem to have no doubt about that, the purpose of your involvement in this forum of inquiry is hard to fathom.

"Where there is no doubt there can be no inquiry" (Charles Sanders Peirce)

LMFAO.... perhaps he could explain to our readers, why the Warren Commission Report doesn't stand up to even the merest bit of scrunity? Yet, the small lone nut community (of the educated variety, and a few lawyers I might add) and their supporters are willing to go to the wall for one of the biggest joke-investigations in near recent-history.... Next, we'll be hearing the upstarts espouse assassination is not a political move.....

Lest we remind folks that up to 90% of the American public thinks the 1963 murder of JFK was part of a conspiracy. After all these years... hmm...

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your certainty ("I'm sure") is the result of blind reliance on authority

No it isn't. I used to believe in a consipiracy. After reading numerous books on the subject I changed my mind, and now I believe that LHO killed JFK and acted alone. I used my brain, you see. I'll change it back as soon as someone comes up with some hard evidence that proves otherwise. To date there isn't any.

What books have you read that changed your mind?

"Reclaiming History" or "Case Closed" im sure will be your reply

I have some books for you to read

Lets start off with a nice easy to read book that while small it packs a big CT punch, "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor

When you are done with that you need to break out the big bucks for this one, "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman

After you have read those two books I would love to talk to you about them

Then you can move on to the three books from Fetzer starting with TGZFH

Just wondering, if TGZFH is so good, then how did Dr. John get it soooo wrong?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

And if Jack White does such a good job at 'photo analysis' how did he miss the above error and how did he make this whopper?

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

ENVY will get you nowhere, Craigster.... surely you know that.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...