Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

The veracity Rodriguez's claims are seriously in doubt he was interviewed on 9/11 live on CNN and said nothing about an explosion from below nor did he mention one in any of his numerous interviews untill years later nor did he mention one in the RICO suit complaint he only mentioned this in 2005 or 2006 and since then hasn't stopped embelishing his tale.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Len Colby

[Anthony Thorne]

I'm not sure if the claim of explosions needs to rest on Rodriguez's claims alone. The recent 9/11 doco 9/11 MYSTERIES contains ample footage of folks on the day who heard, or even directly witnessed, explosions. If you click the link below, there's a montage of witness statements from Fox, CNN and so on about 10 or 12 minutes into the video, and all of them are very clear about what they experienced. There's even a shell-shocked cop (or rescue worker) filmed walking away from the scene of the disaster - when asked if the noises he heard were from the building falling, or from explosions, he pauses, considers, and then says "Explosions...".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

After reading the various David Ray Griffin books (plus several others on the topic), I personally felt that the idea of explosive charges in the buildings was unlikely. It took the entire 9/11 MYSTERIES, 1:DEMOLITIONS doco (that's the full title) to make me reappraise that stance. I've shown the doco to a few others now too and they felt the same way. It was perversely amusing to see James Brolin reference the same doco on THE VIEW tv show a couple of weeks ago, presumably after having shown it to his wife Babs.

Even with an awareness of the likelihood of explosions, I still winced a little when James Fetzer mentioned them on one of his Fox News appearances. I'd rather he had mentioned things that are still generally avoided in mainstream discussion, like the suspicious stock trades during the event, or the numerous Pentagon war games staging a mock hijacking/terrorist-attack that 'coincidentally' took place on the same day.

I'm not completely keen to have my first post on this forum be about 9/11, as there are numerous forums around solely devoted to the topic and I don't want to stir the waters of folks who aren't completely sold on the notion of conspiracy there, whilst those same folk are proving incredibly useful in their thoughtful and well-researched comments on the JFK assassination. It's discussion of the latter that has drawn me to this forum, and I'd hate to bore people with too much discussion of the former.

All that said, the book I'm probably most keenly awaiting this year is Peter Dale Scott's THE ROAD TO 9/11, (Scott himself seems to seriously question the official 9/11 story, as evidenced by his outstanding COPA talk and Q&A) and he seems to be fairly well regarded here.

[Sid Walker]

I'm not sure if the claim of explosions needs to rest on Rodriguez's claims alone. The recent 9/11 doco 9/11 MYSTERIES contains ample footage of folks on the day who heard, or even directly witnessed, explosions. If you click the link below, there's a montage of witness statements from Fox, CNN and so on about 10 or 12 minutes into the video, and all of them are very clear about what they experienced. There's even a shell-shocked cop (or rescue worker) filmed walking away from the scene of the disaster - when asked if the noises he heard were from the building falling, or from explosions, he pauses, considers, and then says "Explosions...".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

After reading the various David Ray Griffin books (plus several others on the topic), I personally felt that the idea of explosive charges in the buildings was unlikely. It took the entire 9/11 MYSTERIES, 1:DEMOLITIONS doco (that's the full title) to make me reappraise that stance. I've shown the doco to a few others now too and they felt the same way. It was perversely amusing to see James Brolin reference the same doco on THE VIEW tv show a couple of weeks ago, presumably after having shown it to his wife Babs.

Even with an awareness of the likelihood of explosions, I still winced a little when James Fetzer mentioned them on one of his Fox News appearances. I'd rather he had mentioned things that are still generally avoided in mainstream discussion, like the suspicious stock trades during the event, or the numerous Pentagon war games staging a mock hijacking/terrorist-attack that 'coincidentally' took place on the same day.

I'm not completely keen to have my first post on this forum be about 9/11, as there are numerous forums around solely devoted to the topic and I don't want to stir the waters of folks who aren't completely sold on the notion of conspiracy there, whilst those same folk are proving incredibly useful in their thoughtful and well-researched comments on the JFK assassination. It's discussion of the latter that has drawn me to this forum, and I'd hate to bore people with too much discussion of the former.

All that said, the book I'm probably most keenly awaiting this year is Peter Dale Scott's THE ROAD TO 9/11, (Scott himself seems to seriously question the official 9/11 story, as evidenced by his outstanding COPA talk and Q&A) and he seems to be fairly well regarded here.

I recall watching a 'one year on' 9-11 anniversary special, here in Australia.

One of the people interviewed was the wife of famous Australian novelist Peter Carey. She had been in the vicinity of the towers on the fateful day.

I recall her saying something qlong these lines: "At first we all thought bombs were going off - only later did we realize that it was all the result of planes hitting the towers".

In other words, she made her memories of the event fit the reality presented to her afterwards by the mass media.

She seemed a nice woman and Carey is a very fine novelist.

I wonder if she's still living in fairyland - or whether she's figured out the hobgoblins are rather closer to home than the caves of the Hindu Kush?

She may have wised up, because I haven't seen her interviewed about this since.

[Michael G. Smith]

Don't be deterred on this forum by the presence of about five or six full-time

provocateurs who support "official govt stories" like the SBT, 911, and the Apollo

hoax. I suggest that you not even respond to their personal attacks. A few

of them are from faraway places like Australia, Brazil, Norway, etc. Their mode

of operation is personal attack, not facts.

Actually truth be told as we can see here Jack is normally the one to instigate personal attacks. If you go through the existent threads you will observe that those of us question the 9-11 CT's rebutt such theories with the facts. Jack all to often runs away when his pet theoroes have been disproven and neither defends them or admits error.

I welcome you to the forum as well. You will find that if you are polite yourself and debate fairly we (or atleast I) won't attack you personally.

Excuse me Len, I dont personally know you, and im sure I dont have to defend Mr. White, as he can hold his own in any situation. I am not personal friends with Jack, and the only correspondence with him has been through this forum. Personally, I am tired of people "attacking" Jack on this forum. If i could contribute 1/16th of what he has done for the JFK community, I would consider myself a very fortunate man. Nothing against you personally, but for some time [which hasnt been long] I have seen many people personally attack Jack for one reason or another on this forum. I am not speaking for Jack, or anyone else, but these attacks are unjustified for the most part. He has done so much for the JFK research community, I cannot even begin to list his contributions. He is entitled to his opinion, just like you are, and anyone else here. If you dont agree, fine. You dont, as an adult, and hopefully a professional, stoop to such tactics. I have held back for some time about responding to his attacks, but for some reason, when I read your post, it really hit home. I have read many of his book contributions, and I dont always agree with Jack, but that does not give me the right to attack him publically here or anywhere else. If you have done as much as he has over the years, which has been decades for him, you may have the right to maybe, and I repeat maybe, take umbrage with HIS opinions.

Just myopinion FWIW.Thanks-smitty

[Len Colby]

Smitty I realize you admire Jack White but his behavior isn't always admirable (nor is mine I admit). In case you hadn’t noticed the post of his which I was referring to complaining of personal attacks was in itself a inaccurate personal attack. He has in the past accused other members of this forum (including me) of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination and suggested that another had hacked it. He repeatedly accuses his opponents of being paid disinformation agents without the slightest evidence.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Len Colby

[John Simkin]

Excuse me Len, I dont personally know you, and im sure I dont have to defend Mr. White, as he can hold his own in any situation. I am not personal friends with Jack, and the only correspondence with him has been through this forum. Personally, I am tired of people "attacking" Jack on this forum. If i could contribute 1/16th of what he has done for the JFK community, I would consider myself a very fortunate man. Nothing against you personally, but for some time [which hasnt been long] I have seen many people personally attack Jack for one reason or another on this forum. I am not speaking for Jack, or anyone else, but these attacks are unjustified for the most part. He has done so much for the JFK research community, I cannot even begin to list his contributions. He is entitled to his opinion, just like you are, and anyone else here. If you dont agree, fine. You dont, as an adult, and hopefully a professional, stoop to such tactics. I have held back for some time about responding to his attacks, but for some reason, when I read your post, it really hit home. I have read many of his book contributions, and I dont always agree with Jack, but that does not give me the right to attack him publically here or anywhere else. If you have done as much as he has over the years, which has been decades for him, you may have the right to maybe, and I repeat maybe, take umbrage with HIS opinions.

Just myopinion FWIW.Thanks-smitty

I agree. I find Len Colby's attacks on people like Jack White and Sid Walker repulsive. His attacks say more about him than it does about Jack and Sid.

[Len Colby]

And I could argue your post reveals more about your bias than it does about me. You were conspicuously silent when Jack accused members of this forum of being accessories to murder, nor did you say anything any of the numerous times when he accused members of the forum of being paid disinformation agents.

Can you point to any especially egregious personal attacks of mine against Jack? I have pointed out when I found his “research” to be unfounded and haven’t always been diplomatic about it. But then again neither is he when he disagrees with others, he referred to one of my posts as “a meaningless mass of xxxx” only to have to admit to his chagrin admit that I was right and he was wrong.

As to my criticism of Sid it has been quite mild compared to that of Andy Walker about which you have said nary a word (unless I missed it) besides referring to him to Sid as “Herr Walker” I can’t recall saying anything that could be considered a personal attack. I have described him as an Holocaust denier, anti-Semite and apologist for Hitler but there is compelling evidence that those are accurate descriptions of his viewpoints and he has been often less than kind when referring to me.

As I already pointed out elsewhere I’m hardly the only member of this forum who feels the way I do about Sid (nor I’m sure are you the only one who feels the way you do about me). I’ve been trying to be less confrontational and hope this forum becomes less divisive posts like Jack’s and yours don’t help.

[John Simkin]

Members might be interested in watching the second edition of Loose Change:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=78...se+change+recut

[Steve Ulman]

I would hope they will also do some follow-up here.

[John Simkin]

See this interesting article of how these three young men created a film that has been seen by an estimated 50 million people. Over 4 million have seen it at Google Video alone.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/st...1998179,00.html

This is an example of how the world of media is undergoing a revolution. When I say revolution I mean revolution. A power shift is taking place in the world of communication. The dominant ideology is under threat.

[Evan Burton]

See this interesting article of how these three young men created a film that has been seen by an estimated 50 million people. Over 4 million have seen it at Google Video alone.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/st...1998179,00.html

This is an example of how the world of media is undergoing a revolution. When I say revolution I mean revolution. A power shift is taking place in the world of communication. The dominant ideology is under threat.

Like most things, it is a double-edged sword. Although people can get the message out there, people can also get incorrect messages out there; it doesn't encourage people to actually investigate, research, and verify what we are told (I saw it on the internet so it must be true).

Loose Change SE, like the original Loose Change, is full of errors:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Yet millions of people have watched it, and no doubt a large proportion of them believe it - without checking on the verisimilitude of the claims or material. So is truth a popularity contest?

On the other hand, it has done much good - exposing the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners and other examples.

It really comes down to something I was taught a long time ago: listen to what everyone has to say, but don't necessarily believe them until you research what they have to say.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Evan Burton

[John Simkin]

And I could argue your post reveals more about your bias than it does about me. You were conspicuously silent when Jack accused members of this forum of being accessories to murder, nor did you say anything any of the numerous times when he accused members of the forum of being paid disinformation agents.

Can you point to any especially egregious personal attacks of mine against Jack? I have pointed out when I found his “research” to be unfounded and haven’t always been diplomatic about it. But then again neither is he when he disagrees with others, he referred to one of my posts as “a meaningless mass of xxxx” only to have to admit to his chagrin admit that I was right and he was wrong.

As to my criticism of Sid it has been quite mild compared to that of Andy Walker about which you have said nary a word (unless I missed it) besides referring to him to Sid as “Herr Walker” I can’t recall saying anything that could be considered a personal attack. I have described him as an Holocaust denier, anti-Semite and apologist for Hitler but there is compelling evidence that those are accurate descriptions of his viewpoints and he has been often less than kind when referring to me.

As I already pointed out elsewhere I’m hardly the only member of this forum who feels the way I do about Sid (nor I’m sure are you the only one who feels the way you do about me). I’ve been trying to be less confrontational and hope this forum becomes less divisive posts like Jack’s and yours don’t help.

Ever since you joined the forum you have done your best to stir up trouble. This has included defending those who are also committed to disrupting the forum.

You never post anything positive. You just follow certain people like Jack White and Sid Walker around and jump on them if they dare to post something you disagree with. You are not willing to just debate the facts. Instead you suggest that Jack is senile and Sid is a racist. I don’t agree with a lot of what Jack says, but he does deserve our respect. I am pleased that someone of his age is still so committed to finding out the truth about past events.

I have spent several hours in Sid’s company. I found him stimulating company. We disagreed about his interpretation of events that took place in Nazi Germany. However, there is no way that Sid is a racist. I say that as someone who has been politically active in the anti-racist movement for over 40 years. Mind you, I have been concerned with all types of racial discrimination, not only with those who appear to hate Jews.

You are very good at asking questions. Maybe I can ask you one? What was the name of your father? If you are under 30, what is the name of your father’s father?

[Jack White]

And I could argue your post reveals more about your bias than it does about me. You were conspicuously silent when Jack accused members of this forum of being accessories to murder, nor did you say anything any of the numerous times when he accused members of the forum of being paid disinformation agents.

Can you point to any especially egregious personal attacks of mine against Jack? I have pointed out when I found his “research” to be unfounded and haven’t always been diplomatic about it. But then again neither is he when he disagrees with others, he referred to one of my posts as “a meaningless mass of xxxx” only to have to admit to his chagrin admit that I was right and he was wrong.

As to my criticism of Sid it has been quite mild compared to that of Andy Walker about which you have said nary a word (unless I missed it) besides referring to him to Sid as “Herr Walker” I can’t recall saying anything that could be considered a personal attack. I have described him as an Holocaust denier, anti-Semite and apologist for Hitler but there is compelling evidence that those are accurate descriptions of his viewpoints and he has been often less than kind when referring to me.

As I already pointed out elsewhere I’m hardly the only member of this forum who feels the way I do about Sid (nor I’m sure are you the only one who feels the way you do about me). I’ve been trying to be less confrontational and hope this forum becomes less divisive posts like Jack’s and yours don’t help.

Ever since you joined the forum you have done your best to stir up trouble. This has included defending those who are also committed to disrupting the forum.

You never post anything positive. You just follow certain people like Jack White and Sid Walker around and jump on them if they dare to post something you disagree with. You are not willing to just debate the facts. Instead you suggest that Jack is senile and Sid is a racist. I don’t agree with a lot of what Jack says, but he does deserve our respect. I am pleased that someone of his age is still so committed to finding out the truth about past events.

I have spent several hours in Sid’s company. I found him stimulating company. We disagreed about his interpretation of events that took place in Nazi Germany. However, there is no way that Sid is a racist. I say that as someone who has been politically active in the anti-racist movement for over 40 years. Mind you, I have been concerned with all types of racial discrimination, not only with those who appear to hate Jews.

You are very good at asking questions. Maybe I can ask you one? What was the name of your father? If you are under 30, what is the name of your father’s father?

He already answered that one I think. When he first joined the forum and began

defending govt wrongdoing, I asked if his father's name was William. He denied

it, of course, just like he denied working for a Brazilian govt agency. But then

don't all agents deny they are agents?

Same with Mr. Valenti of the forum. I asked if he was related to LBJ's crony Jack.

He denied any relationship. We must take him at his word. There ARE coincidences.

I find Jack Valenti to be a very suspicious character. The late Madeleine Brown

had lots to say about this guy, including a case similar to hers, where one of

Lyndon's illegitimate children was adopted by Valenti (unverified).

Beware of ducks who defend govt wrongdoing. If they quack like a duck...

Jack

[Steve Ulman]

<snip>You never post anything positive. You just follow certain people like Jack White and Sid Walker around and jump on them if they dare to post something you disagree with. You are not willing to just debate the facts. Instead you suggest that Jack is senile and Sid is a racist. I don’t agree with a lot of what Jack says, but he does deserve our respect. I am pleased that someone of his age is still so committed to finding out the truth about past events.<snip>

John-

This is something I really don't understand abut jacks defenders – John, you are well aware that Jack NEVER defends his work on Apollo, yet, you have never said a word, why is that? - However you do complain about Len not debating the facts (when he actually does) and being mean to Jack. A bit more biased than you'd care to admit?

This is just my opinion based on the junk (the most polite word I can use) analysis Jack has done on Apollo, I can't believe any analysis he has ever done on JFK is any better. I have to ask all of you defenders of JW- do you like his work because of his “Outstanding Analyses” or is it his “Outstanding Confirmation” of what you want to believe???

If anyone doubts that Jack’s Apollo analyses is garbage, do some research yourselves and confirm where the LRV was stowed in the LM descent module, and then check out Jack’s “facts” regarding the LRV. If you are really honest, it should be a real eye opener.

[Michael G. Smith]

<snip>You never post anything positive. You just follow certain people like Jack White and Sid Walker around and jump on them if they dare to post something you disagree with. You are not willing to just debate the facts. Instead you suggest that Jack is senile and Sid is a racist. I don’t agree with a lot of what Jack says, but he does deserve our respect. I am pleased that someone of his age is still so committed to finding out the truth about past events.<snip>

John-

This is something I really don't understand abut jacks defenders – John, you are well aware that Jack NEVER defends his work on Apollo, yet, you have never said a word, why is that? - However you do complain about Len not debating the facts (when he actually does) and being mean to Jack. A bit more biased than you'd care to admit?

This is just my opinion based on the junk (the most polite word I can use) analysis Jack has done on Apollo, I can't believe any analysis he has ever done on JFK is any better. I have to ask all of you defenders of JW- do you like his work because of his “Outstanding Analyses” or is it his “Outstanding Confirmation” of what you want to believe???

If anyone doubts that Jack’s Apollo analyses is garbage, do some research yourselves and confirm where the LRV was stowed in the LM descent module, and then check out Jack’s “facts” regarding the LRV. If you are really honest, it should be a real eye opener.

Since it seems that my post started this, I have to respond. I have been on many other "forum type" sites over the years, [not just JFK related] and I have to say, I no longer belong to any of them any more. Reason being.........because of the BS that goes on such as this. This type of imature back and forths, are what ruin excellent, educational sites. Johns JFK forum is the best thing I personally have come across in a long time. I have to admit, I almost threw in the towel again at one point a few weeks ago. Jack is Jack. As I said, I dont know Jack personally, but I do feel as though I do, from all of the contributions he has made over the years concerning the JFK assassination. Jack deserves his due. He may be older than most of us, but I can tell you he knows more than most of us can ever hope to know. I was raised to respect my elders. I dont know about all of you, but I can do nothing but respect Jack. Not only because of his age, but for what he has done for everyone that is working on the JFK assassination. Im sure there are many people who are members here, who may not have ever come this far if it wasnt for something they read, written by Jack. This is not just about Jack at this point. There are many members of this forum, who do nothing but look for posts that they can attack. I guess they have nothing better to do, or..........they have an agenda that they have a working responsibility to do so because that is their job. Paid, or because they have volunteered to do so "because they feel as though they will "become" something by doing the dirty deeds they perform for others. Even Mr. Simkins has been accused of being a spook!??!!? Give me a break! This back stabbing crap has to be stopped at this point. I have noticed more than a several times, as soon as a "certain" subject is brought up, there they are. The same ones- arguing, fighting, and downgrading whoever it may be. [maybe the subject hit the neve that needs to be cut off quickly!!!] I have been set up to look like a j-ass several times here by the same people. Every time. I have watched when other members who brought up the same type of subject, get made out to be mental midgets. Humiliated, and made to look stupid by the same group of people, because these "expeirienced, and knowing" people "know more than they do" because they own more books, and took alot more pictures than most at Dealey Plaza. Thats BS! Most of these trouble makers have nothing to stand on. Just a bunch of long, technical words, most of us have to look up to understand, which I am the first to admit to. Certain people here have no respect for anything, and I mean anything, other people have to say. Forums such as Johns, are "open" sites where people can expresss, and exchange ideas, with hopefully some successful results. To have people here who purposefully disrupt and redirect the topics, just tells me one thing. Johns "Forum" is working! There are new, fresh ideas coming through every week that may lead to new discoveries, and answers, to decades old questions. But guess what? As soon as something comes up, there they are! To date I havent really had any arguements with anyone, since I try to be cool and be polite to all, and respect all who post, and for the most part, responders have basically been the same in return. Except for the few who are still doing what they are "made, paid, or just feel" that they have to do. This may stir the pot a bit, but you know what?................it needed to be said. If im the scapegoat, so be it. I have very broad shoulders, and if you want to pile it on, go ahead. I can take the load. Jack, Ashton, Peter, John, Lee, Bill, and the rest of you [you know who you are!] keep up the good work, and speak your mind. Dont be deterred by the few who want to drag you down to their level. As always..........Just my opinion FWIW.

thanks-smitty