Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Goon Squad


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

In my spare time, I have participated in some JFK forums for over a dozen years now.

Everywhere I go, an attacking "goon squad" previously not there has showed up to

make personal attacks on me. SOMEBODY must consider it important to keep me

quiet. I do not need to name these goons...everybody recognizes them and knows

who they are and the personal attack tactics they use. Most of them have been

banned from one forum, and another forum disallows them membership, but this forum

permits them and even promotes some to supervisory positions.

As Penn Jones once said to me...YOU WILL BE ATTACKED AND CALLED A WACKO. WEAR

IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR.

As Fletch Prouty once told me...THE CIA CONSIDERS YOU AS "THE MOST IMPORTANT" JFK

RESEARCHER BECAUSE YOU EXPLAIN PHOTOS, WHICH EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND."

So it is an honor to be attacked by goons. It tells me that I may be on the right track.

Jack

Jack, relax. While it is true that conspiracy theorists have been unfairly attacked over the years, you have been drifting further and further away from your fellow CTs for years now, to the point where you now assert as fact that all the autopsy photos and x-rays are fake, and all the films of the assassination have been altered to support a drastically altered Zapruder film. Do you not see how "far out" that is? Do you really think those "attacking you" are part of some vast conspiracy, and not just people unable to look through the world through your prism?

At the same time, isn't it the requirement of the CT community to be the ones to ask questions aout everything? It is the LNTs who fall into line and allow others to do their thinking for them.

Whereas we may not agree with every single position Jack has taken, he has consistently questioned *evidence* that otherwise we might just have assumed was authentic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't think of one person on this Forum more predictable than you, Len. That you showed-up on this thread[along with the others who just LOVE to attack Jack] is nothing short of sick;.....your sickness, IMO, is not so much of the mind and ability to analyze facts/evidence [although that too], but of the heart - and soul and kindness of spirit toward a better world - let alone toward others trying to make it so. The world you envision, to me, is a nightmare....the one we live in. Jack may not always be 100% correct, but at least he tries [HARD!] to do Justice to the Truth as he sees it; to strike out with what he has against those who would enslave and would attempt to deceive us. I believe we are now at a point in history to say that most of his JFK studies have been born out by others and he was often the first or close to that - leading the vanguard when others feared to tread. Of course, the professional ostriches and naysayers [as well as those working for the official ongoing cover-up] will continue to deny this, and try to bash him.

Jack, just know, some of us owe you one hell of a lot of gratitude! I also have had the privilege of knowing Jack in person and by phone, letter, and private email - and a more kindly, likable, unassuming, helpful person you'd be hard pressed to find. Who would say that about you Mr. Colby?! What exactly have YOU contributed to truth, freedom, democracy, justice, law, sanity, decency, and uncovering the machinations of the machinery of control/propaganda and lies lately? Nula!

Peter, Jack has never been 100% correct. Have you read any of his "studies"? I've yet to see one that isn't utter nonsense. BTW, why is someone as biased as you a moderator on this website? I'd be interested to know? It is, after all, called the Education Forum. There are very few people in this area that are willing to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, isn't it the requirement of the CT community to be the ones to ask questions aout everything? It is the LNTs who fall into line and allow others to do their thinking for them.

Whereas we may not agree with every single position Jack has taken, he has consistently questioned *evidence* that otherwise we might just have assumed was authentic.

Well said Pamela, and Pat back atcha ... :blink: Quote '' and consider Jack's studies a needless distraction. '' and if not for Jack and others such as he with their on going down through the 46 years of needless study as you put it Pat...such as Jones, meagher, wiesberg, lifton, prouty, etc etc etc...and ,some who were also attacked...we would still be back with only the lying crap of a government report the W/C alias the Water Closet...thank god for those who continue to think and search..b :blink:

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of one person on this Forum more predictable than you, Len. That you showed-up on this thread[along with the others who just LOVE to attack Jack] is nothing short of sick;.....your sickness, IMO, is not so much of the mind and ability to analyze facts/evidence [although that too], but of the heart - and soul and kindness of spirit toward a better world - let alone toward others trying to make it so. The world you envision, to me, is a nightmare....the one we live in. Jack may not always be 100% correct, but at least he tries [HARD!] to do Justice to the Truth as he sees it; to strike out with what he has against those who would enslave and would attempt to deceive us. I believe we are now at a point in history to say that most of his JFK studies have been born out by others and he was often the first or close to that - leading the vanguard when others feared to tread. Of course, the professional ostriches and naysayers [as well as those working for the official ongoing cover-up] will continue to deny this, and try to bash him.

Jack, just know, some of us owe you one hell of a lot of gratitude! I also have had the privilege of knowing Jack in person and by phone, letter, and private email - and a more kindly, likable, unassuming, helpful person you'd be hard pressed to find. Who would say that about you Mr. Colby?! What exactly have YOU contributed to truth, freedom, democracy, justice, law, sanity, decency, and uncovering the machinations of the machinery of control/propaganda and lies lately? Nula!

Stop being a ridiculous, as usual you get things backwards (like when you accused me of saying you'd disappeared a thread when I'd said precisely the opposite. Jack attacked us out of the blue us "goons" replied politely the sick one are Jack and you. As John pointed out Jack refuses to respond to legitmate criticism of his claims and prefers to attack questioner why don't you tell him he's sick?

I have a challenge for the two of you, point out when Mike Lewis, David Greer, Evan or I initiated personal attacks on Jack. And no telling him he's wrong does count as a personal attack.

The only thing Jack has contributed to the JFK case are red herrings and his 9/11, Apollo studies are risible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE. I am here ONLY to share and discuss

information. I WILL NOT DISCUSS RESEARCH WITH ANYONE WHO ATTACKS ME PERSONALLY.

I do not "dodge" debating issues. I am interested only in research, not in engaging in juvenile

arguments. Anyone who wants to debate me is wasting time taunting me.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Pamela, and Pat back atcha ... :blink: Quote '' and consider Jack's studies a needless distraction. '' and if not for Jack and others such as he with their on going down through the 46 years of needless study as you put it Pat...such as Jones, meagher, wiesberg, lifton, prouty, etc etc etc...and ,some who were also attacked...we would still be back with only the lying crap of a government report the W/C alias the Water Closet...thank god for those who continue to think and search..b :blink:

I am a big defender of the early critics. Even when they were wrong, I believe them to have been well-intentioned. But Jack has drifted away from their belief the truth is out there and worth searching for and is instead of the belief the only thing knowable is that "everything is fake". To me, this is as good as calling it quits, and is a slap in the face of those early researchers like Tink and Groden who risked imprisonment in order to get access to things like the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, and to expose them to the public.

Here's a quote from someone else considering Jack's "everything is fake" theory to be a needless distraction from the study of the JFK assassination:

Another pet peeve I have is the false association by many in academia and the media of all JFK assassination researchers with persons who don't believe we landed on the moon six times (from 1969-1972); or with persons who believe that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were really 'controlled demolitions' set off by the government, and were not caused by fanatics flying airplanes into buildings.

Doug Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE. I am here ONLY to share and discuss

information. I WILL NOT DISCUSS RESEARCH WITH ANYONE WHO ATTACKS ME PERSONALLY.

I do not "dodge" debating issues. I am interested only in research, not in engaging in juvenile

arguments. Anyone who wants to debate me is wasting time taunting me.

Jack

Translation: Jack is only here to present his studies and discuss them with sycophantic supporters. Any criticism of Pope Jack the Infallible's "studies" constitute "personal attacks", " juvenile arguments" and "taunting" him therefore his refusal to reply isn't "dodging". Amazing how well John sussed Jack out after so short a time, his description of the self styled "photo analyst" still ring true almost 5 years later.

If everyone took his attitude there would be no real discussion here, only only emperor's men telling each other how good each others research was no matter how fallacious. Amazing that some who doesn't know black from white or which way shadows point in the morning and afternoon could be some arrogant.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE. I am here ONLY to share and discuss

information. I WILL NOT DISCUSS RESEARCH WITH ANYONE WHO ATTACKS ME PERSONALLY.

I do not "dodge" debating issues. I am interested only in research, not in engaging in juvenile

arguments. Anyone who wants to debate me is wasting time taunting me.

Jack

The problem here is that the borders between self and opinion are very very blurred indeed. Adopt a contrary position to Jack and he interprets it as a very personal attack. His post is linguistically interesting for this reason. To attempt to discuss anything with Jack is pointless because a contrary opinion disturbs and threatens his very sense of self. He is not alone amongst conspiracists in this unfortunate trait but he is the most marked example seen here.

The paranoia evidenced is also clearly a defence mechanism against the horrible and catastrophic reality of indifference - Many elderly people become paranoid that the people around them wish to harm them or steal from them when nothing could be further from the truth - such thoughts protect them from the truly obliterating horror that no one is thinking about them at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a big defender of the early critics. Even when they were wrong, I believe them to have been well-intentioned. But Jack has drifted away from their belief the truth is out there and worth searching for and is instead of the belief the only thing knowable is that "everything is fake". To me, this is as good as calling it quits, and is a slap in the face of those early researchers like Tink and Groden who risked imprisonment in order to get access to things like the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, and to expose them to the public.

My thoughts exactly. Case in point: Jack's postings of quotes from the motorcycle officers who claim they "rode ahead" and told the lead car that the president has been shot, and that they did so before they drove under the overpass and that since we don't see that happen in the Z film, it was altered. Then Josiah posts pictures contradicting this theory and Jack says all those photos were altered. Pure denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case in point: Jack's postings of quotes from the motorcycle officers who claim they "rode ahead" and told the lead car that the president has been shot, and that they did so before they drove under the overpass and that since we don't see that happen in the Z film, it was altered. Then Josiah posts pictures contradicting this theory and Jack says all those photos were altered. Pure denial.

Pure sycophancy, in your case, as you plainly haven't a clue about SSID and its shocking dishonesty.

The principle or principles of selection by which Thompson focused on the testimony of some eyewitnesses, while ignoring that emanating, in important cases, from the even better placed, are nowhere articulated and defended in Six Seconds, but can be inferred: If it matched the thesis advanced in his book, it was in. If it didn't, testimony was reworked, mischaracterised, suppressed or ignored.

Like an example or five? Happy to oblige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a big defender of the early critics. Even when they were wrong, I believe them to have been well-intentioned. But Jack has drifted away from their belief the truth is out there and worth searching for and is instead of the belief the only thing knowable is that "everything is fake". To me, this is as good as calling it quits, and is a slap in the face of those early researchers like Tink and Groden who risked imprisonment in order to get access to things like the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, and to expose them to the public.

My thoughts exactly. Case in point: Jack's postings of quotes from the motorcycle officers who claim they "rode ahead" and told the lead car that the president has been shot, and that they did so before they drove under the overpass and that since we don't see that happen in the Z film, it was altered. Then Josiah posts pictures contradicting this theory and Jack says all those photos were altered. Pure denial.

Repeat after me: ALL THE FILMS HAVE BEEN ALTERED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case in point: Jack's postings of quotes from the motorcycle officers who claim they "rode ahead" and told the lead car that the president has been shot, and that they did so before they drove under the overpass and that since we don't see that happen in the Z film, it was altered. Then Josiah posts pictures contradicting this theory and Jack says all those photos were altered. Pure denial.

Pure sycophancy, in your case, as you plainly haven't a clue about SSID and its shocking dishonesty.

A sycophant is a servile person who, acting in his or her own self-interest, attempts to win favor by flattering one or more influential persons, or by saying lies against a fellow citizen for gaining a kind of profit.

No lies or profit here sir. Just the facts.

Seems you are the sycophant by coming to the rescue of Mr. White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sycophantic supporters.

Thats a very bold and alarming statement Len

In fact I feel like that was directed right at me

If it was directed at me your wrong, I do not need to flatter Jack at all, I am however going to show him my support when he is taking crap from all angles and I agree with his position

You do the same thing with Tink, but I would not say your trying to flatter him, I can see that, its just too bad you cant see the other side of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE. I am here ONLY to share and discuss

information. I WILL NOT DISCUSS RESEARCH WITH ANYONE WHO ATTACKS ME PERSONALLY.

I do not "dodge" debating issues. I am interested only in research, not in engaging in juvenile

arguments. Anyone who wants to debate me is wasting time taunting me.

Jack

Translated that means: "I will make claims but not try to defend them when questioned, nor retract them when proven wrong."

Edited by Evan Burton
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...