Len Colby Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) John Costella says he is now an employee of the federal government of Australia. I was wondering if he or any of his friends would be willing to elaborate. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html Len Edited February 24, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 John Costella says he is now an employee of the federal government of Australia. I was wondering if he or any of his friends would be willing to elaborate.http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html Len What an interesting turn of events. A few examples of Costella's mistakes show up on this forum and a request for a correction to the web page you list is made...and suddenly this new disclaimer appears I would bet the mistakes (which now becomes disinformation) will remain to fool the unsuspecting for as long as the page remains active. What a crock. Still it's kind of funny to see Fetzers own site hosting proven disinformation given his tirades on the subject of disinformation. Whats even more interesting is that another forum member, Evan Burton, is an employee of the Australian Federal Government and he seems pretty free to speak his mind about the US Space program, the Wellstone crash and 9/11. Perhaps Evan could comment on thios sudden stroke of nationalism on Costella's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Did it occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects? You may have noted in his disclaimer that he STANDS BY all of his previous work, but his new job makes it inappropriate that he comment any further on any of it. However, even without further comments, you can take his work to the bank and cash it! It is genuine. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Didit occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects? Jack You can bet that they didn't see that ridiculous "Moorman in the Street" garbage or they may not have hired him. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Didit occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects? You may have noted in his disclaimer that he STANDS BY all of his previous work, but his new job makes it inappropriate that he comment any further on any of it. However, even without further comments, you can take his work to the bank and cash it! It is genuine. Jack Well except for the stuff he says about not being able to sharpen a photo without a computer, which is just plain not true...but hey he's an expert in physics, math, computers and OPTICS...well maybe.... Lots of other stuff he's wrong about as well, but I guess it's his choice to STAND by his mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Did it occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects? You may have noted in his disclaimer that he STANDS BY all of his previous work, but his new job makes it inappropriate that he comment any further on any of it. However, even without further comments, you can take his work to the bank and cash it! It is genuine. Jack Well except for the stuff he says about not being able to sharpen a photo without a computer, which is just plain not true...but hey he's an expert in physics, math, computers and OPTICS...well maybe.... Lots of other stuff he's wrong about as well, but I guess it's his choice to STAND by his mistakes. ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL! I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me! David Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL! I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me! David Healy Is the above the extent of your rebuttal, David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) John Costella says he is now an employee of the federal government of Australia. I was wondering if he or any of his friends would be willing to elaborate. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html Len What an interesting turn of events. A few examples of Costella's mistakes show up on this forum and a request for a correction to the web page you list is made...and suddenly this new disclaimer appears I would bet the mistakes (which now becomes disinformation) will remain to fool the unsuspecting for as long as the page remains active. What a crock. Still it's kind of funny to see Fetzers own site hosting proven disinformation given his tirades on the subject of disinformation. Whats even more interesting is that another forum member, Evan Burton, is an employee of the Australian Federal Government and he seems pretty free to speak his mind about the US Space program, the Wellstone crash and 9/11. Perhaps Evan could comment on thios sudden stroke of nationalism on Costella's part. please continue -- you too Evan if you find it necessary to join in -- seems Lampoon needs a little support when he attacks ones motives for doing something unrelated to his (Lamson) wet dreams... Lampoon's pettiness is duly noted for all to see -- as for comments regarding nationalism... well, never mind, I have much respect for others freedom and their flag to degrade the term 'patriotism' with the likes of you know who... For the record, this tidbit found should only embolden you, I suspect it already has ---- thanks! You ever serve in the military Craig? have a nice life, guy -- ______________________________ 'Bill Miller' wrote ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL! I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me! David Healy Is the above the extent of your rebuttal, David? be MORE than enough for you -- still plugging away... Edited February 25, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 "please continue -- you too Evan if you find it necessary to join in -- seems Lampoon needs a little support when he attacks ones motives for doing something unrelated to his (Lamson) wet dreams... Lampoon's pettiness is duly noted for all to see -- as for comments regarding nationalism... well, never mind, I have much respect for others freedom and their flag to degrade the term 'patriotism' with the likes of you know who... For the record, this tidbit found should only embolden you, I suspect it already has ---- thanks! You ever serve in the military Craig? have a nice life, guy -- be MORE than enough for you -- still plugging away... " Two replies and no specifics ... now is this the extent of your rebuttal, David? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 "please continue -- you too Evan if you find it necessary to join in -- seems Lampoon needs a little support when he attacks ones motives for doing something unrelated to his (Lamson) wet dreams... Lampoon's pettiness is duly noted for all to see -- as for comments regarding nationalism... well, never mind, I have much respect for others freedom and their flag to degrade the term 'patriotism' with the likes of you know who...For the record, this tidbit found should only embolden you, I suspect it already has ---- thanks! You ever serve in the military Craig? have a nice life, guy -- be MORE than enough for you -- still plugging away... " Two replies and no specifics ... now is this the extent of your rebuttal, David? Bill Are we debating something here? Should I be nervous about something? rofl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) Costella is an expert in physics, math, computers, and optics. Did it occur to you that they hired him for his expertise in these subjects? You may have noted in his disclaimer that he STANDS BY all of his previous work, but his new job makes it inappropriate that he comment any further on any of it. However, even without further comments, you can take his work to the bank and cash it! It is genuine. Jack Well except for the stuff he says about not being able to sharpen a photo without a computer, which is just plain not true...but hey he's an expert in physics, math, computers and OPTICS...well maybe.... Lots of other stuff he's wrong about as well, but I guess it's his choice to STAND by his mistakes. ahhhh, this is the best the other side of the equation can come up with? LOL! I suggest, save it, for your comments regarding discussion soon at hand -- you'll have your hands full, believe me! David Healy No its simply the TRUTH. I know thats hard stuff for you to deal with, but it is what it is, and Dr. John screwed the pooch on this one. bow wow. Edited February 25, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Are we debating something here? Should I be nervous about something? rofl! No, David .... debate would call for you to have knowledge of the assassination. When you get pressed for information - you respond like this "I think I'm done with you, Bill-goodnight." Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Are we debating something here? Should I be nervous about something? rofl! No, David .... debate would call for you to have knowledge of the assassination. When you get pressed for information - you respond like this "I think I'm done with you, Bill-goodnight." Bill and knowledge of the assassination buys you what, Bill -- be very specific, what do all those .gif animations and the thousands, upon thousands of posts buy YOU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) and knowledge of the assassination buys you what, Bill -- be very specific, what do all those .gif animations and the thousands, upon thousands of posts buy YOU? One thing those animations do is help support and/or debunk any false claims concerning the assassination. "The Mystery Man seen through the pyracantha bush" not being an assassin, but rather Emmett Hudson was one such example. That allows the researcher to separate the fact from the fiction before getting started. There is also infromation within those animations that gives a researcher something to draw on. The moment of impact to Connally's right shoulder is just one example. The fact that Connally's right wrist was to the right and above his right nipple when the bullet passed through his chest has disproven the existence of the single bullet theory. Now tell us what all those say nothing snotty-assed replies that you make offer the advancement of the JFK assassination case ... "yes there is, Stephen -- Bill Miller and I have had our last exchange" ... especially those remarks that you had no intention on following through with? Bill Miller JFK assassination researcher/investigator Edited February 25, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Since I've been invited into this topic, I'll make some thoughts known. I can't comment on the validity of Mr Costella's work because, as I have said many times, I don't have the necessary knowledge of the complex issues involved in the debate to make a meaningful contribution. At best, they'd be speculation by an uninformed observer. I do find interesting the comments made by Mr Costella regarding what he can or cannot do. To me, it doesn't make sense. When you are granted access to official information, it is on the understanding that it will not be released to unauthorised persons or discussed with persons who do not have the necessary 'need to know' and clearance. Part of gaining this access is to undergo a security assessment to determine if you are a fit and proper person to be granted access. Your background is discussed, as well as your political views, associations, and beliefs. If your views are incompatible with security guidelines, then you'd most likely be denied access - or your access would be only within certain areas. So how does this relate to Mr Costella's JFK research? I'm not sure. He would not be allowed to discuss conclusions he has reached that are based on his official work or information gained as part of his official duties. He should not discuss his duties. If it was felt that his JFK research somehow compromised his position, he would most likely be asked to remove that research from the public domain and cease participation in discussing the topic. I find it unlikely that he'd be allowed to maintain a public webpage but not discuss the contents. Sometimes you'd not comment on matters that might relate to employment because they might be interpreted as being an 'official' position from your employers. In most cases, as long as it was made clear that this was a personal opinion and did not necessarily reflect the views of your employer, there would be no problem (although statements to the media would be different). I don't see this situation being relevant to Mr Costella's JFK research. You are certainly not 'gagged' in expressing views and opinions on politics or other related subjects. For instance, in the public eye at the moment is the inquiry into the crash of a Royal Australian Navy helicopter, SeaKing SHARK 02 at Nias in APR 05. I have discussed this with many people in public forums. Because of my employment, there may be times that I cannot comment on aspects of the incident because they might be related to my work or information I have become aware of in an official capacity. In those cases, I don't comment - but it does not stop me talking about the subject. This is what I find so strange about Mr Costella's statement. It would actually seem to contravene good security practice by drawing attention to the matter, rather than the opposite. It is almost like standing on a soapbox in a public square and saying loudly that you have access to highly sensitive & classified information which reveals astounding facts - but you can't talk about that. 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