Jump to content
The Education Forum

Has anyone attempted to explain....


Recommended Posts

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...

Assuming that is true - which I don't believe it is - what does it prove, exactly? David, be careful. If you continue to laugh your 'FA' off, you might end up with nothing left to speak out of.

What books have you read that changed your mind?

Murder In Dealey Plaza convinced me that there was no conspiracy. I've got Reclaiming History, I've read about half of that, but I'd already made up my mind by then. I haven't read Case Closed. I've read two of Matthew Smith's books, The Second Plot and ... I can't remember what the other is called but it was even worse. The approach of many consipracy theorists is less about serious research or scientiific study, and more akin to shooting xxxx from a blunderbus to see what sticks.

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

This isn't a forum of inquiry. I'm here because I'm interested. I'm fascinated by the case and by people like you.

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it doesn't matter who fired the shots, the Secret Service still did not move to protect the president when the shots rang out.

You mean other than jumping out of the follow up car into JFK's? There was only a few seconds between the 1st and last shots. No one had shot at a president since 1932. Or 1901 since FDR was president elect.

Hey, Len !

...........................................
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&...nge=1951%2C1994

PRESIDENT RESTING; Excitement in Front of President's Residence, …

- New York Times - Nov 2, 1950

With Pvt. Joseph O. Davidson at his side, they blazed away .t Collazo. Mr. Davidson was the only member of the uniformed force in front of Blair House who ...

Gunmen 'Just Took a Chance' to Kill Truman,... - Los Angeles Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_assassination_attempt

The assassination attempt on U.S. President Harry S. Truman occurred on November 1, 1950.

.....Torresola realized he was out of ammunition. He stood to the immediate left of the Blair House steps while he reloaded. At the same time, President Truman, who had been taking a nap in his second-floor bedroom, awoke to the sound of gunfire outside. President Truman went to his bedroom window, opened it, and looked outside. From where he stood reloading, Torresola was thirty-one feet away from that window. It is unknown whether either man saw the other....

My point is that we now know that the SAIC in New Orleans, John W. Rice, was a member of a group of Secret Service agents in the field who in the aggregate, made up, by their experience in November, 1950 related to the attempt on Truman's life, an institutional memory, both in the field at the various Secret Service offices in cities across the country, as well as in those members assigned directly to the protective services detail. This is a memory based on first hand experience or of being on the detail during the 1950 attempt, a memory that Len denies existed in 1963.

D’uuoh

Forgot about the attempt on Truman.The rest of my point still stands though. The time between shots was very short and Clint Hill reacted quickly. Based on your bios neither you nor Peter nor Bernice has any experience/expertise in personal protection or being shot at. Are you certain that in the same situation you would have done any better? Do you like Peter believe this is proof of conspiracy? Shall we conclude that Rosie Grier and Rafer Johnson were “in on” the assassination of JFK’s bother 5 years later?

I‘m not sure what your point was about Rice, was he in Dallas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darkening the back of JFK's head to mask the rear exit wound blowout. Sanitizing the view by reducing number of frames in which blood spray appears, making temporal wound seem an exit wound. Painting in an overlarge temporal wound skull flap to disguise frontal entrance. Making the timing of the shots harder to establish. Masking wounding of JFK with overlarge Stemmons Freeway sign, now undamaged by rifle fire miss.

Two important questions to consider:

1. Why did 'they' leave the apparent rearward headsnap in, which gave fuel to the conspiracy fire when the film was first shown on American TV in 1975?

2. How did 'they' ensure that the altered Zapruder film was consistent with the entire photographic record of events in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day? (Please spare us any reference to any of Jack White's 'studies', all of which have been debunked).

I'd be interested to read sensible answers.

Paul.

1) Because there is no way to mask the headsnap, only to do aftermarket explaining away - the "jet effect," the neuromuscular spasm...

Why not? Costella said they could make peoples limbs move anyway the wanted

2) It just does not match with all other photos in Dealey, as at the NW corner of Houston/Elm, and at the NW side of Elm east of the Pergola.

These supposed discrepancies have been shown not to be based on ignorance of perspective or of images that weren't really simultaneous.

It doesn't even match eyewitness testimony (Hill, Moorman).

Witnesses, especially to traumatic events, often make mistakes IIRC their (H & M's) versions have changed a bit, normally forensic evidence trumps witness testimony not the other way round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
.....D’uuoh

Forgot about the attempt on Truman.The rest of my point still stands though. The time between shots was very short and Clint Hill reacted quickly. Based on your bios neither you nor Peter nor Bernice has any experience/expertise in personal protection or being shot at. Are you certain that in the same situation you would have done any better? Do you like Peter believe this is proof of conspiracy? Shall we conclude that Rosie Grier and Rafer Johnson were “in on” the assassination of JFK’s bother 5 years later?

I‘m not sure what your point was about Rice, was he in Dallas?

Len,

You posted your opinion that in 1963, the Secret Service had not had to defend against assailants attempting to shoot the president since 1932, an implication that members of the Secret Service in 1963 had no first hand knowledge or experience reacting to "shots fired" in the proximity of the president.

I posted proof that this was not true. I pointed out that a shooter got within 31 feet of the president, at his residence, just 13 years before 1963. The rest of my observations seem unambiguous. I used Rice as an example, since it has only been documented in recent times that he was assigned to guard the president in the 1950 to 1951 period, that he and other agents who were guarding the president in late 1950 were still on the job, both in Secret Service offices around the nation, as well as on the protective detail in Dallas.

In you post, you acted confused about my points, which seem quite clear, and you reacted to being proved wrong about when the last time was that the Secret Service had seen "action" in defense of a president against gunmen, by posting words to the effect of, "well, what do any of you know?"

Apparently, more than you, do, in this instance!

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.....

Exactly who would you suggest I am envious of davie? dr. john, who failed the basics of parallax? Not hardly. Ditzy jack white who can't understand how a simple shadow works? Not in this lifetime. You can't save the ignorant rantings of costella and white.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a forum of inquiry.

That statement is manifestly false and insulting to the members and the moderators.

The purpose of this forum is to facilitate inquiry and the exchange of information and ideas between genuine researchers into the world's greatest murder mystery. Since you have already solved the case in your own mind, you really have no legitimate business here.

I'm here because I'm interested. I'm fascinated by the case

Since you believe the case is already solved, then yours is just an idle fascination.

and by people like you.

Yes I am quite fascinating, and I am actually a totally unique individual, just like everybody else.

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

Craig its nice to finaly meet you

As a part of Tink's gang all you care to do is smear Jack White's name

Thats all you care about

You dont care who killed JFK, you dont care about the case as a whole, you dont care about research, and you dont care about people who have tried for most of their lives to help solve this case

I dont care what you have to say, I do care what Tink has to say because "Six Seconds In Dallas" was one of the first books I read about the assassination and I still give Tink credit for writing a great book

However Tink and his gang (that includes you) have devoted all of your time to trying to smear the researchers who I not only agree with but looked up to as a young kid trying to get a grip on the assassination

Nothing you can say to me about jack White will ever change my mind about the man or his work

If you would like to talk to me about what you know and what you think about the photgraphic evidence I would love to chat with you about it.

Dean

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

Craig its nice to finaly meet you

As a part of Tink's gang all you care to do is smear Jack White's name

Thats all you care about

You dont care who killed JFK, you dont care about the case as a whole, you dont care about research, and you dont care about people who have tried for most of their lives to help solve this case

I dont care what you have to say, I do care what Tink has to say because "Six Seconds In Dallas" was one of the first books I read about the assassination and I still give Tink credit for writing a great book

However Tink and his gang (that includes you) have devoted all of your time to trying to smear the researchers who I not only agree with but looked up to as a young kid trying to get a grip on the assassination

Nothing you can say to me about jack White will ever change my mind about the man or his work

If you would like to talk to me about what you know and what you think about the photgraphic evidence I would love to chat with you about it.

Dean

Lets rephrase Deans post:

"Dean does not give a tinkers damn about the actual truth as proven by unimpeachable empirical evidence. Instead he simply BELIEVES."

Thats a hell of a way to go about life but it seems to par for the course for the JFKResearch gang.

What do I know about the photographic evidence?

The links are above. Refute them if you can or not, it's your choice.

BTW, I guess I live in a different world than the fantasy one you live in. Attacking and proving work wrong is nothing close to "smearing". You need a clue.

Jack White has made a mess of his name by posting the nonsense he has posted on subject of photography for many years, wioht his shoddy work on JFK, Apollo and 9/11. His own words have shown him to ignorant of even the very basics of photography. No one needs to "smear" him. He did it to himself. However there seems to be a new fool born every second like eager to follow along, in blissful ignornace and just "believe".

In their world, those who point out the falllacy of his position is engaging in a "smear". Fantasy suits you.

Edited by Craig Lamson
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

Craig its nice to finaly meet you

As a part of Tink's gang all you care to do is smear Jack White's name

Thats all you care about

You dont care who killed JFK, you dont care about the case as a whole, you dont care about research, and you dont care about people who have tried for most of their lives to help solve this case

I dont care what you have to say, I do care what Tink has to say because "Six Seconds In Dallas" was one of the first books I read about the assassination and I still give Tink credit for writing a great book

However Tink and his gang (that includes you) have devoted all of your time to trying to smear the researchers who I not only agree with but looked up to as a young kid trying to get a grip on the assassination

Nothing you can say to me about jack White will ever change my mind about the man or his work

If you would like to talk to me about what you know and what you think about the photgraphic evidence I would love to chat with you about it.

Dean

Lets rephrase Deans post:

"Dean does not give a tinkers damn about the actual truth as proven by unimpeachable empirical evidence. Instead he simply BELIEVES."

Thats a hell of a way to go about life but it seems to par for the course for the JFKResearch gang.

What do I know about the photographic evidence?

The links are above. Refute them if you can or not, it's your choice.

BTW, I guess I live in a different world than the fantasy one you live in. Attacking and proving work wrong is nothing close to "smearing". You need a clue.

Jack White has made a mess of his name by posting the nonsense he has posted on subject of photography for many years, wioht his shoddy work on JFK, Apollo and 9/11. His own words have shown him to ignorant of even the very basics of photography. No one needs to "smear" him. He did it to himself. However there seems to be a new fool born every second like eager to follow along, in blissful ignornace and just "believe".

In their world, those who point out the falllacy of his position is engaging in a "smear". Fantasy suits you.

Well thanks for spelling out my post for me

You seem to think im some new fool who just started following Jack White, well I followed Gary Mack back in the late 80s as well as Jack White

I have nothing bad to say about about Gary Mack, and most of his views are way different then Jack's

I have nothing bad to say about Robert Groden either, I like Groden's work and his views are different then Jack's

And like I said I like Tinks work as well, as a matter of fact the theory I have about the number of shots and the position of the shooters matches his theory in SSID almost perfectly

Yet you seem to think I only follow Jack and JFKresearch.com guys and gals

That is true that JFKresearch.com is where I belong in terms of what I believe and posting among researcher who believe in the same things that I do.

But I have my own theory and follow the work of many researchers who dont agree with Jack White

I do agree with Jack White and the TGZFH guys, but thats not my only basis for research as you clearly pointed that is what you thought of me out in your last post

So let me ask you a question, you think Jack's work on the backyard photos is wrong? Do you think the pictures are genuine?

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

Craig its nice to finaly meet you

As a part of Tink's gang all you care to do is smear Jack White's name

Thats all you care about

You dont care who killed JFK, you dont care about the case as a whole, you dont care about research, and you dont care about people who have tried for most of their lives to help solve this case

I dont care what you have to say, I do care what Tink has to say because "Six Seconds In Dallas" was one of the first books I read about the assassination and I still give Tink credit for writing a great book

However Tink and his gang (that includes you) have devoted all of your time to trying to smear the researchers who I not only agree with but looked up to as a young kid trying to get a grip on the assassination

Nothing you can say to me about jack White will ever change my mind about the man or his work

If you would like to talk to me about what you know and what you think about the photgraphic evidence I would love to chat with you about it.

Dean

Lets rephrase Deans post:

"Dean does not give a tinkers damn about the actual truth as proven by unimpeachable empirical evidence. Instead he simply BELIEVES."

Thats a hell of a way to go about life but it seems to par for the course for the JFKResearch gang.

What do I know about the photographic evidence?

The links are above. Refute them if you can or not, it's your choice.

BTW, I guess I live in a different world than the fantasy one you live in. Attacking and proving work wrong is nothing close to "smearing". You need a clue.

Jack White has made a mess of his name by posting the nonsense he has posted on subject of photography for many years, wioht his shoddy work on JFK, Apollo and 9/11. His own words have shown him to ignorant of even the very basics of photography. No one needs to "smear" him. He did it to himself. However there seems to be a new fool born every second like eager to follow along, in blissful ignornace and just "believe".

In their world, those who point out the falllacy of his position is engaging in a "smear". Fantasy suits you.

Well thanks for spelling out my post for me

You seem to think im some new fool who just started following Jack White, well I followed Gary Mack back in the late 80s as well as Jack White

I have nothing bad to say about about Gary Mack, and most of his views are way different then Jack's

I have nothing bad to say about Robert Groden either, I like Groden's work and his views are different then Jack's

And like I said I like Tinks work as well, as a matter of fact the theory I have about the number of shots and the position of the shooters matches his theory in SSID almost perfectly

Yet you seem to think I only follow Jack and JFKresearch.com guys and gals

That is true that JFKresearch.com is where I belong in terms of what I believe and posting among researcher who believe in the same things that I do.

But I have my own theory and follow the work of many researchers who dont agree with Jack White

I do agree with Jack White and the TGZFH guys, but thats not my only basis for research as you clearly pointed that is what you thought of me out in your last post

So let me ask you a question, you think Jack's work on the backyard photos is wrong? Do you think the pictures are genuine?

Geez Dean I read your bio, how silly can you be? Oh wait. Pretty silly, you "believe" Jack White and his wacky pals.

There are questions on the table, posed to you, yet you prefer to dodge them and move elsewhere. I wonder why. Again its a pretty standard tactic for a cornered rat. Not that I'm calling you a cornered rat mind you, but I'm just sayin...

In any case you don't need to look far for my views of the backyard photos.

Now, back to these, can you refute them or are Costella and White incorrect? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

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

Craig its nice to finaly meet you

As a part of Tink's gang all you care to do is smear Jack White's name

Thats all you care about

You dont care who killed JFK, you dont care about the case as a whole, you dont care about research, and you dont care about people who have tried for most of their lives to help solve this case

I dont care what you have to say, I do care what Tink has to say because "Six Seconds In Dallas" was one of the first books I read about the assassination and I still give Tink credit for writing a great book

However Tink and his gang (that includes you) have devoted all of your time to trying to smear the researchers who I not only agree with but looked up to as a young kid trying to get a grip on the assassination

Nothing you can say to me about jack White will ever change my mind about the man or his work

If you would like to talk to me about what you know and what you think about the photgraphic evidence I would love to chat with you about it.

Dean

Lets rephrase Deans post:

"Dean does not give a tinkers damn about the actual truth as proven by unimpeachable empirical evidence. Instead he simply BELIEVES."

Thats a hell of a way to go about life but it seems to par for the course for the JFKResearch gang.

What do I know about the photographic evidence?

The links are above. Refute them if you can or not, it's your choice.

BTW, I guess I live in a different world than the fantasy one you live in. Attacking and proving work wrong is nothing close to "smearing". You need a clue.

Jack White has made a mess of his name by posting the nonsense he has posted on subject of photography for many years, wioht his shoddy work on JFK, Apollo and 9/11. His own words have shown him to ignorant of even the very basics of photography. No one needs to "smear" him. He did it to himself. However there seems to be a new fool born every second like eager to follow along, in blissful ignornace and just "believe".

In their world, those who point out the falllacy of his position is engaging in a "smear". Fantasy suits you.

Well thanks for spelling out my post for me

You seem to think im some new fool who just started following Jack White, well I followed Gary Mack back in the late 80s as well as Jack White

I have nothing bad to say about about Gary Mack, and most of his views are way different then Jack's

I have nothing bad to say about Robert Groden either, I like Groden's work and his views are different then Jack's

And like I said I like Tinks work as well, as a matter of fact the theory I have about the number of shots and the position of the shooters matches his theory in SSID almost perfectly

Yet you seem to think I only follow Jack and JFKresearch.com guys and gals

That is true that JFKresearch.com is where I belong in terms of what I believe and posting among researcher who believe in the same things that I do.

But I have my own theory and follow the work of many researchers who dont agree with Jack White

I do agree with Jack White and the TGZFH guys, but thats not my only basis for research as you clearly pointed that is what you thought of me out in your last post

So let me ask you a question, you think Jack's work on the backyard photos is wrong? Do you think the pictures are genuine?

Geez Dean I read your bio, how silly can you be? Oh wait. Pretty silly, you "believe" Jack White and his wacky pals.

There are questions on the table, posed to you, yet you prefer to dodge them and move elsewhere. I wonder why. Again its a pretty standard tactic for a cornered rat. Not that I'm calling you a cornered rat mind you, but I'm just sayin...

In any case you don't need to look far for my views of the backyard photos.

Now, back to these, can you refute them or are Costella and White incorrect? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

What questions besides the ones you just posted did I dodge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked

I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one

I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened

Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real.

As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat

Edited by Dean Hagerman
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

Craig its nice to finaly meet you

As a part of Tink's gang all you care to do is smear Jack White's name

Thats all you care about

You dont care who killed JFK, you dont care about the case as a whole, you dont care about research, and you dont care about people who have tried for most of their lives to help solve this case

I dont care what you have to say, I do care what Tink has to say because "Six Seconds In Dallas" was one of the first books I read about the assassination and I still give Tink credit for writing a great book

However Tink and his gang (that includes you) have devoted all of your time to trying to smear the researchers who I not only agree with but looked up to as a young kid trying to get a grip on the assassination

Nothing you can say to me about jack White will ever change my mind about the man or his work

If you would like to talk to me about what you know and what you think about the photgraphic evidence I would love to chat with you about it.

Dean

Lets rephrase Deans post:

"Dean does not give a tinkers damn about the actual truth as proven by unimpeachable empirical evidence. Instead he simply BELIEVES."

Thats a hell of a way to go about life but it seems to par for the course for the JFKResearch gang.

What do I know about the photographic evidence?

The links are above. Refute them if you can or not, it's your choice.

BTW, I guess I live in a different world than the fantasy one you live in. Attacking and proving work wrong is nothing close to "smearing". You need a clue.

Jack White has made a mess of his name by posting the nonsense he has posted on subject of photography for many years, wioht his shoddy work on JFK, Apollo and 9/11. His own words have shown him to ignorant of even the very basics of photography. No one needs to "smear" him. He did it to himself. However there seems to be a new fool born every second like eager to follow along, in blissful ignornace and just "believe".

In their world, those who point out the falllacy of his position is engaging in a "smear". Fantasy suits you.

Well thanks for spelling out my post for me

You seem to think im some new fool who just started following Jack White, well I followed Gary Mack back in the late 80s as well as Jack White

I have nothing bad to say about about Gary Mack, and most of his views are way different then Jack's

I have nothing bad to say about Robert Groden either, I like Groden's work and his views are different then Jack's

And like I said I like Tinks work as well, as a matter of fact the theory I have about the number of shots and the position of the shooters matches his theory in SSID almost perfectly

Yet you seem to think I only follow Jack and JFKresearch.com guys and gals

That is true that JFKresearch.com is where I belong in terms of what I believe and posting among researcher who believe in the same things that I do.

But I have my own theory and follow the work of many researchers who dont agree with Jack White

I do agree with Jack White and the TGZFH guys, but thats not my only basis for research as you clearly pointed that is what you thought of me out in your last post

So let me ask you a question, you think Jack's work on the backyard photos is wrong? Do you think the pictures are genuine?

Geez Dean I read your bio, how silly can you be? Oh wait. Pretty silly, you "believe" Jack White and his wacky pals.

There are questions on the table, posed to you, yet you prefer to dodge them and move elsewhere. I wonder why. Again its a pretty standard tactic for a cornered rat. Not that I'm calling you a cornered rat mind you, but I'm just sayin...

In any case you don't need to look far for my views of the backyard photos.

Now, back to these, can you refute them or are Costella and White incorrect? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

What questions besides the ones you just posted did I dodge?

Well as far as I can see, those are the only questions in play, aside from you sidestep question about the backyard photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your question about the Apollo moon landing being faked

I believe we landed on the moon back in 1969 and I believe in all the moon landings that took place after the first one

I would never look into anyones work on the Apollo moon landing pictures being faked because I think the moon landings happened

Not only that I did watch a great episode of Mythbusters (aweome show I might add) and they did a great job of showing that the pictures in question were in fact real.

As to the other links give me a while to read them before calling me a rat

Let me see if I understand ytour position correctly.

You find Jack Whites work on the photography of JFK to be solid, well researched and shows an excellent grasp of the principals of photography.

Yet Jack White, whos same solid, well researched work relying on his excellent grasp of the principals of photography...and has claimed the Apollo photography to be fake, is WRONG?

Did I get that correct?

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...