Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 I must repeat: I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYONE. I am here ONLY to share and discussinformation. 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." This is an ad hominem attack...implying that I lie and am dishonest! My words need NO TRANSLATION. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I immediately redo any of my studies PROVEN wrong by anyone. It does me no good to have ERRORS in any of my studies. Because somebody THINKS I am wrong is proof of nothing. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 22, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) I say what I mean and mean what I say. I immediatelyredo any of my studies PROVEN wrong by anyone. That has been proven multiple times to be an incorrect statement. It doesn't matter what evidence proves you wrong; you just refuse to accept it and therefore refuse to correct your so-called studies. I don't know about in the JFK debate, but there are multiple examples of you doing this in the 9-11 and Apollo debates. Edited January 22, 2010 by Evan Burton 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 I say what I mean and mean what I say. I immediatelyredo any of my studies PROVEN wrong by anyone. That has been proven multiple times to be an incorrect statement. It doesn't matter what evidence proves you wrong; you just refuse to accept it and therefore refuse to correct your so-called studies. I don't know about in the JFK debate, but there are multiple examples of you doing this in the 9-11 and Apollo debates. This is only another example of what I mean. SAYING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Please show any counter studies disproving any of my studies. I have never yet seen one. And again...I do not DEBATE my studies. I present them. Take them or leave them. Or show counter studies disproving them...but do not just SAY I AM WRONG. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 22, 2010 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 Josiah, As Tim McVeigh's defense investigator, are you satisfied he received a fair trial? Were you disturbed at the evidence that the judge didn't permit to be introduced (like the large defense brief prepared by attorney Stephen Jones?) Do you feel a bit uneasy that a man was convicted who wasn't even legally placed at the scene of the crime? I say this because the prosecution didn't introduce a single witness who testified to seeing McVeigh there. The reason- all those witnesses (who did exist) saw him with the infamous "John Doe #2." Did you have any contact with Glenn and Cathy Wilburn? Hoppy Heidelberg? Jayna Davis? Jesse Trentadue? General Ben Partin? Ted Gunderson? David Hoffman- whose The Oklahoma City Bombing And The Politics Of Terror is the Rush To Judgment of this case? There are tons of unanswered questions, mysterious deaths and government goverup here, just as there was with the JFK assassination. If you look at all the evidence, the magic fertilizer bomb is just as impossible as the magic bullet theory. McVeigh received a sham of a trial and was executed more swiftly than any criminal in modern times. Jack is completely right to scoff at the official explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 This is only another example of what I mean. SAYING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Please show any counter studies disproving any of my studies. I have never yet seen one. And again...I do not DEBATE my studies. I present them. Take them or leave them. Or show counter studies disproving them...but do not just SAY I AM WRONG. Jack I'll do so in coming posts, but as always you'll just deny it and continue on your merry way. You even confirm it with the above statement: "I do not debate my studies". How can people convince you that you are in error when you refuse to discuss any fault with them! You have your lovely circular argument and won't leave that comfort zone for fear of the consequences: the harsh light of reality. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 22, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Don...thanks for presenting some of the ACCURATE Murrah information...not the misinformation we were told. It is quite interesting that PI Thompson REVEALS that he was the investigator on the case. I know of nobody who knew that before. He should have seen a pattern: McVeigh only suspect...Oswald only suspect McVeigh quickly convicted...Oswald quickly convicted McVeigh killed without telling his story...Oswald killed without telling his story ANFO bomb...single bullet theory John Does...Oswald associates buying fertilizer and oil...buying the MC rifle General Partin refutes ANFO...researchers refuting WCR etcetera Jack 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'll take a leaf out of the Jack White book of obfuscation techniques and refuse to debate any of the following.... until I have finished posting all the examples. At THAT time I'll debate the merits or faults or my arguments. 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 I am happy for it to remain here. Jack supports this opinion. Do others agree? 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 SO...AFTER I FILED A REPORT TO BE SEEN BY OTHER MODERATORS...BURTON "RELENTS". TYPICAL!!!! JACK 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. 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