Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes every now and again; you are no different. It's just a human condition. After all, no-one is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Having served as Tim McVeigh's defense investigator in the Oklahoma City bombing, I know a little bit about that bombing. This is not just silly. It is preposterous. The federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a bomb constructed of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil... the sort of materials you could buy at your local feed store and fuel depot. This is not controversial. It is simply the unvarnished, established truth of the Oklahoma City bombing.Josiah Thompson Wow, I never knew that Did you ever meet McVeigh? Being on his defense team how did you feel when he was executed? Did you think he was guilty or not guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 BTW - this will involve 9-11 and Apollo claims, so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread and move this section to the political conspiracies sub-forum since it doesn't involve JFK. If the JFK forumites don't mind, then I am happy for the thread to remain whole and stay here. I protest this thread being moved to another category. I started this thread IN THE JFK CATEGORY AND IT DOES NOT BELONG IN ANOTHER CATEGORY. IT HAS ATTRACTED QUITE A BIT OF COMMENTARY, SO WHY MOVE IT WHERE NOBODY WILL SEE IT??? JACK Thank you Jack! You have claimed in a report that you protest my moving the thread. Where did I say that, Jack? I said - as quoted above - "...so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread...". Are you going to admit you are wrong here Jack? It would help your assertion if you did. Within one minute of my filing a report, Burton backed off. He would have you believe otherwise. Games-playing! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes every now and again; you are no different. It's just a human condition. After all, no-one is perfect. You have just made a mistake...and got caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Jack White takes more abuse on this forum than anyone. Yes, he can be cantakerous. Yes, he is sometimes impatient with those who question him. I might not agree with the way he responds at times, but then I'm not having my work ridiculed on a constant basis. As Jack has noted, just because Len or Evan or Craig or anyone else says he is wrong doesn't make it so. All the threads where Jack and Jim Fetzer argue with their usual opponents over what is seen in a partcular photograph are debates about individual interpretation. Bill Miller or Craig Lamson can shout as loud as they want that there is nothing suspcious about a frame of the Zapruder film, but it's just their opinon vs. the opinon of Jack, of Jim Fetzer, or whoever is claming there is something suspicious there. Jack White's work on the backyard photos was impressive, but I was already convinced they were fakes well before then. I think that a simple glance at them reveals a very amateurish fabrication, along the lines of much of the purposefully shoddy coverup (almost pristine "magic" bullet, misaligned scope on Carcano, etc.) When you throw in the monumental overkill of both alleged murder weapons being proudly displayed, and commie literature to boot, well, I don't see how anyone can take them seriously. I agree neither Jack, nor Peter, nor anyone else, should be accusing fellow posters of being disinfo agents. I think it's unfortunate that they've done that, but I do understand their frustration. None of that has anything to do with their interpretation of the evidence, their research, or their opinions about anything connected to this case. I agree wholeheartedly with most everything Jack White says about the evidence in this and other related cases. Yes, Virginia, there are conspiracies. Being the subject of lies does make most people cantankerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Well - there is my first example. I said that I was happy for OTHER moderators to split the thread, or keep it whole if the JFK forumites were happy. I was happy either way. Jack accuses ME of wanting to split it in a report ("I PROTEST BURTON MOVING THIS THREAD. IT RELATES TO JFK, NOT TO ANOTHER CATEGORY!"). Even when presented with this and given the opportunity to admit he made a simple error, Jack claims: You have just made a mistake...and got caught. Jack cannot admit he made an error. I'll still follow up with more examples, even though this has amply demonstrated my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes every now and again; you are no different. It's just a human condition. After all, no-one is perfect. You have just made a mistake...and got caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 BTW - this will involve 9-11 and Apollo claims, so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread and move this section to the political conspiracies sub-forum since it doesn't involve JFK. If the JFK forumites don't mind, then I am happy for the thread to remain whole and stay here. I protest this thread being moved to another category. I started this thread IN THE JFK CATEGORY AND IT DOES NOT BELONG IN ANOTHER CATEGORY. IT HAS ATTRACTED QUITE A BIT OF COMMENTARY, SO WHY MOVE IT WHERE NOBODY WILL SEE IT??? JACK Thank you Jack! You have claimed in a report that you protest my moving the thread. Where did I say that, Jack? I said - as quoted above - "...so I am more than happy for another moderator to split the thread...". Are you going to admit you are wrong here Jack? It would help your assertion if you did. Within one minute of my filing a report, Burton backed off. He would have you believe otherwise. Games-playing! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I've just copied the last couple of post from Jack so he cannot later claim he never made them. Just in case, you understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 You wrote: "Exotic weaponry tested in Oklahoma City was then used to bring down the twin towers."Having served as Tim McVeigh's defense investigator in the Oklahoma City bombing, I know a little bit about that bombing. This is not just silly. It is preposterous. The federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a bomb constructed of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil... the sort of materials you could buy at your local feed store and fuel depot. This is not controversial. It is simply the unvarnished, established truth of the Oklahoma City bombing. Josiah Thompson Few are as relaxed as I. My doctor always compliments my heart rate and blood pressure.Your prism on things is too narrow. There ARE conspiracies. Vast conspiracies. Not "far out," as you have been led to believe. Politicians faked going to the moon. Exotic weaponry tested in Oklahoma City was then used to bring down the twin towers. The war on "terrorism" is a fake. "Presidents" past and present have been elected unconstitutionally and illegally. Agencies of the government fake evidence to suit their purposes...as far back as the JFK assassination. It is YOU who need to learn how FAR OUT conspiracies have become. WAKE UP and smell the fakery...from Zfilms to fake presidents. Jack Wake up to the exotic weaponry. Jack I think it is interesting that nobody here is interested in DEW weaponry...oh, yeah...Burton says that cannot be discussed in the JFK CONSPIRACY category. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 I've just copied the last couple of post from Jack so he cannot later claim he never made them.Just in case, you understand... Burton again being ad hominem...implying I will lie at some future time. Will he never cease hounding me? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Okay - second example (thanks for the first Jack). Jack's claim here. My reply here. Jack has made a simple misidentification of which side of the lunar module faces the camera. This was pointed out to him in 2006. Has he corrected his - ahem - "study"? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) I think it is interesting that nobody here is interested in DEW weaponry...oh, yeah...Burton says thatcannot be discussed in the JFK CONSPIRACY category.Jack Now - where did I say that it "...cannot be discussed in the JFK CONSPIRACY category..." Jack? Nowhere is the correct answer. Will you admit you are wrong in this case? Edited January 22, 2010 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Hello, and welcome to the Jack White show. What purpose is this thread serving, appart from that of a lightning rod for ad homs? Four pages of this nonsence, seriously, sort yourselves out. this board is supposed to be an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the assassination of JFK, not some egotistical screaming contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Okay - second example (thanks for the first Jack).Jack's claim here. My reply here. Jack has made a simple misidentification of which side of the lunar module faces the camera. This was pointed out to him in 2006. Has he corrected his - ahem - "study"? No. Then as now, your "rebuttal" is made up of obfuscatory nonsense about some imagined defect. It is proof of nothing. Wasn't then. Is not now. Come right out and say what is wrong instead of obfuscating. If your point is that is said left instead of right or vice versa, just say so in plain language. Jack 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