Will Emaus Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Another film alterationist who cannot find the DELETE BUTTON?What is it with you film alterationist guys? Don't you know this is the 21st Century? Sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Sorry... Okay Will. You are new to the forum and therefore entitled to some slack. YOUR thoughts are always appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 [quote name='Will Emaus' date='Jan 20 2010, 06:10 AM' post='179857'Sorry... Okay Will. You are new to the forum and therefore entitled to some slack. YOUR thoughts are always appreciated. Holy cow Ray! This is the 21st century, dont you know how to delete the right amount of quote bars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Anti-alterationists are very selective in what they will discuss. They will not address studies indicative of alteration of all films, claiming it would be "too hard" to make several films match. Jack That's just plain silly, Jack ... and documentably untrue. Many discussions about the alleged "proofs" of the Z-film being fake have taken place here and in other forums all over the net, and several articles looking at specific "proofs" have been written, published and discussed. As I recall, you claimed at the time that you would not even bother to read the ETERNAL RETURN: Was There a Hole Through the Windshield? article. The Moorman in the street "proof" has been extensively covered, and an article was devoted to it ... specifically addressing every bit of your "proofs" on that issue. Mr. Fetzer did not participate at all in the extensive thread on the limo windshield article, after being the one to raise the issue and drag you and other non yahoo group members into it on the yahoo group. You posted but one post in the thread saying: Cliff is correct. Anyone who has studied the evidence for years should have made up their mind by now on many issues. Was the single bullet theory real? NO. Were all shots fired by LHO from the 6th floor? NO. Was there a hole in the windshield? YES. Was LHO employed by an intelligence agency? YES. Is the Zapruder film genuine? NO. Was LBJ one of the plotters? YES. Was Mary standing in the street? YES. Were there two Oswalds? YES. Was James Files a shooter? NO. Did the limo stop? YES. Did Judyth Baker have a passionate affair with LHO? NO. Was Chauncey Holt the old tramp? NO. Etcetcetcetc. Give me a list of as many questions as you want. I will give you a yes or no answer to all unless there is a reason to say "maybe/maybe not." Endless debate after studying the case 45 years is a sign of indecisiveness. Find another hobby if you are afraid to weigh the evidence and reach a decision. Jack The entire thread is here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0#entry169299 Those who do not believe in alteration WANT to discuss these "proofs" ... but are regularly met with condescension, character assassination and nothing but a lot of dive, dodge and divert from the majority of your "alterationists" team... especially from those who keep coming up with and ballyhooing these "proofs." Sometimes, non alteration believers attempts to discuss are ignored completely. It is not the "anti-alterationists" who are not interested in discussing these issues. It appears you, Jack, are one of the "very selective in what they will discuss" people you describe above. Barb :-) HaHaHaHa! Great comic relief. I needed a good laugh. Seriously, get the "anti-alterationists" to discuss the "Hesters" in this image. I have been trying all day. Jack You're no Charles Durning, but nice demo, Jack! The dodge, dive & divert ... and a drag in of another thread besides. Trying "all day" ??? ROTFL. Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Holy cow Ray!This is the 21st century, dont you know how to delete the right amount of quote bars? OK Dean You got me this time. But that's just this once. Can't you get your alterationist friends to straighten up and fly right? I am also taking this opportunity to say hello to Barb, whose research skills I have long admired. But IMO Barb has just let the side down here by HER FAILURE TO USE THE DELETE BUTTON in her last post. Barb: Do you really want to be put in the same boat with Jim Fetzer and Jack White? Please read the thread on USING THE JFK FORUM, or I will be on your case again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Can't you get your alterationist friends to straighten up and fly right? Ray I dont care if they use 20 quotes in each post, it does not bother me I however know it makes people mad, so I will try harder to shorten the quotes with only the info needed in them, or not use them at all if I am in a one on one debate However like I said before sometimes I will use the entire quote if I feel it needs to be used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) professor thompson....quote ''It would be stupid to fake them up because you could never know if yet another film or photo would show up to expose your fakery.''.....But please no one forget that a few years back the tsbd museum put notices in the newspapers and let it be known to anyone who had films or photographs taken of the assassination to be handed into the Museum for posterity's sake and to be cared for...and they have been how many i have no idea...so imo yes whatever has been handed in can be controlled...by the tsbdm..b Edited January 20, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I will try harder to shorten the quotes with only the info needed in them, or not use them at all if I am in a one on one debate I am proud of you Dean. We'll make an anti-alterationist out of you yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 We'll make an anti-alterationist out of you yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I am also taking this opportunity to say hello to Barb, whose research skills I have long admired. But IMO Barb has just let the side down here by HER FAILURE TO USE THE DELETE BUTTON in her last post. Barb: Do you really want to be put in the same boat with Jim Fetzer and Jack White? LOL ... thank you for the reminder, kind sir! As for the boat ... a slow boat, a tug boat, a banana boat, even a gravy boat, but not the SS Minnow... please! <g> Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) Barb are you the one behind all the rain im getting right down I-5 from you? Remember that Redding is close to Oregon when you do your rain magic Edited January 20, 2010 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Barb are you the one behind all the rain im getting right down I-5 from you?Remember that Redding is close to Oregon when you do your rain magic Naw, this time of year I pray for snow. Loving all the rain and wind though! Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Anti-alterationists are very selective in what they will discuss. They will not address studies indicative of alteration of all films, claiming it would be "too hard" to make several films match. Jack That's just plain silly, Jack ... and documentably untrue. Many discussions about the alleged "proofs" of the Z-film being fake have taken place here and in other forums all over the net, and several articles looking at specific "proofs" have been written, published and discussed. As I recall, you claimed at the time that you would not even bother to read the ETERNAL RETURN: Was There a Hole Through the Windshield? article. The Moorman in the street "proof" has been extensively covered, and an article was devoted to it ... specifically addressing every bit of your "proofs" on that issue. Mr. Fetzer did not participate at all in the extensive thread on the limo windshield article, after being the one to raise the issue and drag you and other non yahoo group members into it on the yahoo group. You posted but one post in the thread saying: Cliff is correct. Anyone who has studied the evidence for years should have made up their mind by now on many issues. Was the single bullet theory real? NO. Were all shots fired by LHO from the 6th floor? NO. Was there a hole in the windshield? YES. Was LHO employed by an intelligence agency? YES. Is the Zapruder film genuine? NO. Was LBJ one of the plotters? YES. Was Mary standing in the street? YES. Were there two Oswalds? YES. Was James Files a shooter? NO. Did the limo stop? YES. Did Judyth Baker have a passionate affair with LHO? NO. Was Chauncey Holt the old tramp? NO. Etcetcetcetc. Give me a list of as many questions as you want. I will give you a yes or no answer to all unless there is a reason to say "maybe/maybe not." Endless debate after studying the case 45 years is a sign of indecisiveness. Find another hobby if you are afraid to weigh the evidence and reach a decision. Jack The entire thread is here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0#entry169299 Those who do not believe in alteration WANT to discuss these "proofs" ... but are regularly met with condescension, character assassination and nothing but a lot of dive, dodge and divert from the majority of your "alterationists" team... especially from those who keep coming up with and ballyhooing these "proofs." Sometimes, non alteration believers attempts to discuss are ignored completely. It is not the "anti-alterationists" who are not interested in discussing these issues. It appears you, Jack, are one of the "very selective in what they will discuss" people you describe above. Barb :-) HaHaHaHa! Great comic relief. I needed a good laugh. Seriously, get the "anti-alterationists" to discuss the "Hesters" in this image. I have been trying all day. Jack You're no Charles Durning, but nice demo, Jack! The dodge, dive & divert ... and a drag in of another thread besides. Trying "all day" ??? ROTFL. Barb :-) "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Anti-alterationists are very selective in what they will discuss. They will not address studies indicative of alteration of all films, claiming it would be "too hard" to make several films match. "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. See above. You started out discussing, and in uncomplimentary fashion, "anti-alterationists" people. 'Nuf, Jack. Have a good week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 I suppose my position on the evidence before us is...folks, don't hold your breath on some magnificent revelation coming along that will add the "crucial" evidence we need to solve the JFK assassination. I'm pretty sure we have almost all the evidence we'll ever get to see in our lifetimes. I tend to think that ALL the evidence--the WC Report, the Zapruder film, the HSCA testimony, the misleading autopsy photos, ALL of it--is the map to solving the crime. Unfortunately, the mapmakers [Angleton, et al] have quite cleverly hidden the KEY to the map--what symbols are merely symbols, what artifacts are true artifacts, and what film records are accurate and which are not. As I understand the general gist of Doug Horne's work, it seems that just because some witnesses' testimonies are in direct conflict, it doesn't mean someone is lying; it just means that we don't yet know how to interpret what we DO know. [speaking specifically here about the Bethesda sleight-of-hand, or sleight-of-hearse, or whatever it finally turns out to be...but the same principle applies to the developing of the Z-film, whether in Dallas or at the Hawkeye works or both, and to many other situations that APPEAR, at surface level, to be in direct conflict...but which might have PARALLEL explanations, rather than CONFLICTING explanations.] So I can't totally agree that we impeach the Z-film totally...for if we do, how then do we use the frames after the shooting that contain Sitzman standing with the Hesters to "prove" Abe's vertigo was a lie? After all, we've said we can't trust ANY of the Z-film...and then we turn around and use a segment of it to attempt to prove a point? In MY eyes, the frames with Sitzman are simply another CLUE...and if we can only decode the KEY to the map before us, the complete truth will eventually become self-evident. UNTIL we find the key, the Z-film--altered or not--is simply another clue, and something we don't need to discard with such extreme haste, IMHO. [And sometimes I DO think we spend too much time, as John Bevilaqua puts it, straining to tell the "gnat xxxx" from the "peppah."] 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