Jack White Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Despite the massive federal funding behind their positions, the numereous provocateurs here are in a very precarious position. In the Apollo moon photo case, there are 5771 photos to examine; Lamson and Burton have to prove 5771 are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. In the Zapruder film case, there are 486 frames to examine; Miller and Thompson have to prove 486 are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. In the 911 case, there are thousands of photos to examine; Colby and friends have to prove thousands are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. In the Oswald case, there are hundreds of photos to examine; Miller et al have to prove they all are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. In the backyard photos case, there are three photos to examine; Miller et al have to prove all are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. The odds are in favor of TRUTH. Give up, lone nutters. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Despite the massive federal funding behind their positions, the numereous provocateurs here are in a very precarious position. In the Apollo moon photo case, there are 5771 photos to examine; Lamson and Burton have to prove 5771 are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. In the Zapruder film case, there are 486 frames to examine; Miller and Thompson have to prove 486 are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. In the 911 case, there are thousands of photos to examine; Colby and friends have to prove thousands are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. And yet you (Jack) have failed in each and every instance pertaining to the items listed above. Your modus-operandi of just pointing out everything that you were not capable of understanding doesn't necessarily mean something was afoul, but rather you were inept at photograph interpretations and lacking knowledge of the facts surrounding the evidence. In the Oswald case, there are hundreds of photos to examine;Miller et al have to prove they all are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. In the backyard photos case, there are three photos to examine; Miller et al have to prove all are genuine, but I only have to prove one is faked. I like the odds. This is just one example of you not learning the facts before posting on a particular matter because I have posted many times that I believe the backyard photos are suspicious to say the least. In fact, I created numerous overlays showing that in one backyard photo the camera had moved closer to the subject causing the body to grow in size between photos and yet the head remained the same size. That one particular, whether I am missing something, has caused me to believe the backyard photos may not be authentic. So I do not have to prove anything about them being genuine for I am not convinced that they are genuine .... but I am convinced you were just in error once again when it comes to me and my position on the assassination. The odds are in favor of TRUTH.Give up, lone nutters. Jack Jack, as many times as I have posted visuals showing that I believe there was a conspiracy and for you to keep referring to me as a LN'r only shows that even if things were in favor of the truth - you will not be the one of finding it. Bill Miller Edited July 19, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Your posts are beginning to isolate you. You are lashing out like buckshot in all directions. Faked moon landing, 911 conspiracies. You're alienating others routinely. Seeing shadowy enemies where there are none. Imagining all sorts of paranoid scenarios. Kind of like...a lone nut. Agreed. Jack sadly appears to be paranoid and/or confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Your posts are beginning to isolate you. You are lashing out like buckshot in all directions. Faked moon landing, 911 conspiracies. You're alienating others routinely. Seeing shadowy enemies where there are none. Imagining all sorts of paranoid scenarios. Kind of like...a lone nut. Agreed. Jack sadly appears to be paranoid and/or confused. Andy...I am surprised that an educator would make such a statement WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK. Here is your assignment: Jack's websites: http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/A%20Trib...ack%20White.htm http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm also... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081269547...ce&n=283155 http://www.jfkresearch.com/armstrong/ Get back to us after doing your homework. There will be a test. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Your posts are beginning to isolate you. You are lashing out like buckshot in all directions. Faked moon landing, 911 conspiracies. You're alienating others routinely. Seeing shadowy enemies where there are none. Imagining all sorts of paranoid scenarios. Kind of like...a lone nut. Agreed. Jack sadly appears to be paranoid and/or confused. Andy...I am surprised that an educator would make such a statement WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK. Here is your assignment: Jack's websites: http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/A%20Trib...ack%20White.htm http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm also... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081269547...ce&n=283155 http://www.jfkresearch.com/armstrong/ Get back to us after doing your homework. There will be a test. Jack LOL! Just a few weeks ago on this forum Jack White told us he had no website, and now in his last post he lists NINE WEBSITES under the heading...Jacks Websites. Clearly Andy was right on one count...Jack is confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Your posts are beginning to isolate you. You are lashing out like buckshot in all directions. Faked moon landing, 911 conspiracies. You're alienating others routinely. Seeing shadowy enemies where there are none. Imagining all sorts of paranoid scenarios. Kind of like...a lone nut. Agreed. Jack sadly appears to be paranoid and/or confused. Andy...I am surprised that an educator would make such a statement WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK. Here is your assignment: Jack's websites: http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/A%20Trib...ack%20White.htm http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm also... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081269547...ce&n=283155 http://www.jfkresearch.com/armstrong/ Get back to us after doing your homework. There will be a test. Jack LOL! Just a few weeks ago on this forum Jack White told us he had no website, and now in his last post he lists NINE WEBSITES under the heading...Jacks Websites. Clearly Andy was right on one count...Jack is confused. It is Lamson who is confused. All of these websites are provided to me FREE by others, including a prestigious university. I do have a rather "obsolete" website which I never use any more that is provided FREE by my service provider. It has not been updated for about 12 years. I did not even list two other websites (also provided free by others) which use some of my research. One is Dr. Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website, and the other a new site under construction on JFK research by an admirer in England. The new site will offer the viewer a chance to see my videos FREE online. I will post notification when it is further along. It will also feature much of my photo collection and JFK research. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Your posts are beginning to isolate you. You are lashing out like buckshot in all directions. Faked moon landing, 911 conspiracies. You're alienating others routinely. Seeing shadowy enemies where there are none. Imagining all sorts of paranoid scenarios. Kind of like...a lone nut. Agreed. Jack sadly appears to be paranoid and/or confused. Andy...I am surprised that an educator would make such a statement WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK. Here is your assignment: Jack's websites: http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html http://users.skynet.be/copweb/jfk/A%20Trib...ack%20White.htm http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/oldftw.htm also... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081269547...ce&n=283155 http://www.jfkresearch.com/armstrong/ Get back to us after doing your homework. There will be a test. Jack LOL! Just a few weeks ago on this forum Jack White told us he had no website, and now in his last post he lists NINE WEBSITES under the heading...Jacks Websites. Clearly Andy was right on one count...Jack is confused. It is Lamson who is confused. All of these websites are provided to me FREE by others, including a prestigious university. I do have a rather "obsolete" website which I never use any more that is provided FREE by my service provider. It has not been updated for about 12 years. I did not even list two other websites (also provided free by others) which use some of my research. One is Dr. Fetzer's ASSASSINATION SCIENCE website, and the other a new site under construction on JFK research by an admirer in England. The new site will offer the viewer a chance to see my videos FREE online. I will post notification when it is further along. It will also feature much of my photo collection and JFK research. Jack Not confused at all Jack, you stated you have no website, then you have nine but they are not yours, (even though you CLAIM them as yours in this very thread) oh and yes you do have one of your own...sheesh and you think I'm confused! The truth is your friend Jack, try telling it sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Not confused at all Jack, you stated you have no website, then you have nine but they are not yours, (even though you CLAIM them as yours in this very thread) oh and yes you do have one of your own...sheesh and you think I'm confused! Jack also said that he had more important things like 9/11 and the Apollo stuff to contend with, yet he is still here wasting our time with his insane observations ... now I'm confused! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 QUOTE* ... now I'm confused! Bill Miller UNQUOTE Now we are in agreement. Jack *quote edited for accuracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 Thanks, Peter! I do not claim 100% accuracy. Like a baseball player, if I only bat .300, it is enough to be an all-star. I would settle for that. But I believe my batting average is at least .900, with very few foul balls. I think I have hit a few out of the park. Thanks for your kind support. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 If Von Pain has to ask who I am and what do I believe, he is not a serious researcher. Am I correct? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Carry on Jack. You've got 'em running scared. Peter, It's not so much Jack that gets attacked as it is the errors he consistantly makes. Yes, the backyard photo work was pretty good, so was the badge man work, but that was many years ago. In recent years, Jack has made a complete ass out of himself with the off-the-wall poorly researched claims he makes. You may not know this, but Jack has at times even withheld information so to make his claims appear valid. I gather from your remark above that you have not a clue as to the damage Jack has caused his fellow CT's. You seem to think that because it is Jack - no one should be critical of the things he says and I can only tell you that it a selfish idiot who thinks that anyone of us is above the truth. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 (edited) Sorry, I am not a member of the 'we hate [and work to counter] Jack White' club. His work on the backyard photos was seminal. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but those of you who attack him all the time, personally [even though he is 80 and has had a near-death experience for his work IMO], at every post, on every site, are the ones who are 'sick'. If he were [as you claim] just a deluded person seeing things that aren't there you would ignore him. Most of you have an agenda and a 'job' to do. Some of you are the character 'assassins' trying to do what the naked attacker did not...maybe even funded and backed by the same source. Andy, I'm surprised you joined them - even if you don't agree with Jack's conclusions. Your level of energy attacking Jack belies your claims that he is all nonsense and to be ignored. Why don't you take your own advice and ignore him....? I'd add to that that most of you have an agressive and hateful streak [or more than a streak] clearly visible in the strenght of and energetic pursuit of your jihad against Jack. He has made contributions to the elucidation on the JFK case and for IMHO the most unselfish and nobel of reasons - concern for his country, the morality of the coup d'etat, justice, truth. Most of the attackers have no concern for country, morality, justice nor truth - in fact the opposite. Differing would be one thing, but the attacks and often as savage as you can manage gives you away in more ways than you are aware. It is clear to me that photos were concealed [see new thread on extra set of autopsy photos, for example], removed from witnesses and never seen again, some were tampered with [we can argue about which, but some were] and more faked. Jack has found persons, actions of persons, changes of the stage set and, yes, IMHO magic tricks or hidden things in the/with the photos. Again, I don't agree with all of his conclusions - but he has made a huge contribution, perhaps the greatest of which was just to ask we look at the photo evidence as with all the other evidence - tampered with and often not what it seems to be. The keepers of the Big Lie know that the public can 'understand' photos more easily than the written word and the complex testimony- both often contradictory and worry that images (and information about these images) will awake the narcotized and purposely confused public. Carry on Jack. You've got 'em running scared. You are looking ever more foolish Peter. You don't have the first clue about what is right or wrong about Jacks ability to understand photography and yet here you are praising him to high heaven. It sure cements your status as a nutjob. You are clearly NOT the "serious researcher and truth seeker" you claim to be. You have no interest in the real truth, only that which supports your warped worldview. Thanks, Peter! I do not claim 100% accuracy. Like a baseball player, if I only bat .300, it is enough to be an all-star. I would settle for that. But I believe my batting average is at least .900, with very few foul balls. I think I have hit a few out of the park. Thanks for your kind support. Jack Jack has always asked for us to question the photos and other evidence, some of which has been shown to have been concealed, destroyed, tampered with, altered, and new evidence put in its place - along with just plain filler to confuse further. He and a few others who have followed this case from nearly the day it happened have made a contribution to regaining our country and preserving noble ideals in it and the world. I know Jack has spent his own money on this and can't even concieve of all the time - and personal pain. Those of you who jump on him...seach for his name to play thug and taunt him IMO have done nothing but act to furhter conceal the truth [and I belive many of you know this fact well]. A century from now Jack White's name will still be know...you others...shall I list your names...(including the one going under a false name) will not be....unless they have a roll of dishonor/disinformation on the Assassination. You ask us to accept en toto the fu**ing lie of the offical version. Most American don't believe it and I have travelled in over 35 countires and there about 90+% do not. If you are not working for dark forces (which I would bet many of you are), why not discuss and debate with Jack (or ignore him) and stop the attacks and slander - professional and personal. The reasons are apparent to me.....in most cases....ignorance, mallace and/or to keep the Big Lie keeping the Big Liars in power. He never claimed to be right on all his theories. I stand with him that the offical version is a total sham, without merit and some of the 'evidence' as phony as a $4 bill. No "Dark Forces" at work here Peter, only the blinding white light of truth...works wonders and always sends the cockroaches like you guys running! Your problem is you would not know the truth if it bit you on the azz, Another "nutjob" post...thanks Peter. Edited July 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Sorry, I am not a member of the 'we hate [and work to counter] Jack White' club. His work on the backyard photos was seminal. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but those of you who attack him all the time, personally [even though he is 80 and has had a near-death experience for his work IMO], at every post, on every site, are the ones who are 'sick'. If he were [as you claim] just a deluded person seeing things that aren't there you would ignore him. Most of you have an agenda and a 'job' to do. Some of you are the character 'assassins' trying to do what the naked attacker did not...maybe even funded and backed by the same source. Andy, I'm surprised you joined them - even if you don't agree with Jack's conclusions. Your level of energy attacking Jack belies your claims that he is all nonsense and to be ignored. Why don't you take your own advice and ignore him....? I'd add to that that most of you have an agressive and hateful streak [or more than a streak] clearly visible in the strenght of and energetic pursuit of your jihad against Jack. He has made contributions to the elucidation on the JFK case and for IMHO the most unselfish and nobel of reasons - concern for his country, the morality of the coup d'etat, justice, truth. Most of the attackers have no concern for country, morality, justice nor truth - in fact the opposite. Differing would be one thing, but the attacks and often as savage as you can manage gives you away in more ways than you are aware. It is clear to me that photos were concealed [see new thread on extra set of autopsy photos, for example], removed from witnesses and never seen again, some were tampered with [we can argue about which, but some were] and more faked. Jack has found persons, actions of persons, changes of the stage set and, yes, IMHO magic tricks or hidden things in the/with the photos. Again, I don't agree with all of his conclusions - but he has made a huge contribution, perhaps the greatest of which was just to ask we look at the photo evidence as with all the other evidence - tampered with and often not what it seems to be. The keepers of the Big Lie know that the public can 'understand' photos more easily than the written word and the complex testimony- both often contradictory and worry that images (and information about these images) will awake the narcotized and purposely confused public. Carry on Jack. You've got 'em running scared. You are looking ever more foolish Peter. You don't have the first clue about what is righ or wrong about Jacks ability to unerstand photography and yet here you are praising him to high heaven. It sure cements your status as a nutjob. You are clearly NOT the "serious researcher and truth seeker" you claim to be. You have no interest in the real truth, only that which supports your warped worldview. Peter is a much respected researcher. His understanding of world politics is clearly greater than your limited knowledge of the subject. I wonder how many members will be willing to post that they respect your views on anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Sorry, I am not a member of the 'we hate [and work to counter] Jack White' club. His work on the backyard photos was seminal. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but those of you who attack him all the time, personally [even though he is 80 and has had a near-death experience for his work IMO], at every post, on every site, are the ones who are 'sick'. If he were [as you claim] just a deluded person seeing things that aren't there you would ignore him. Most of you have an agenda and a 'job' to do. Some of you are the character 'assassins' trying to do what the naked attacker did not...maybe even funded and backed by the same source. Andy, I'm surprised you joined them - even if you don't agree with Jack's conclusions. Your level of energy attacking Jack belies your claims that he is all nonsense and to be ignored. Why don't you take your own advice and ignore him....? I'd add to that that most of you have an agressive and hateful streak [or more than a streak] clearly visible in the strenght of and energetic pursuit of your jihad against Jack. He has made contributions to the elucidation on the JFK case and for IMHO the most unselfish and nobel of reasons - concern for his country, the morality of the coup d'etat, justice, truth. Most of the attackers have no concern for country, morality, justice nor truth - in fact the opposite. Differing would be one thing, but the attacks and often as savage as you can manage gives you away in more ways than you are aware. It is clear to me that photos were concealed [see new thread on extra set of autopsy photos, for example], removed from witnesses and never seen again, some were tampered with [we can argue about which, but some were] and more faked. Jack has found persons, actions of persons, changes of the stage set and, yes, IMHO magic tricks or hidden things in the/with the photos. Again, I don't agree with all of his conclusions - but he has made a huge contribution, perhaps the greatest of which was just to ask we look at the photo evidence as with all the other evidence - tampered with and often not what it seems to be. The keepers of the Big Lie know that the public can 'understand' photos more easily than the written word and the complex testimony- both often contradictory and worry that images (and information about these images) will awake the narcotized and purposely confused public. Carry on Jack. You've got 'em running scared. You are looking ever more foolish Peter. You don't have the first clue about what is righ or wrong about Jacks ability to unerstand photography and yet here you are praising him to high heaven. It sure cements your status as a nutjob. You are clearly NOT the "serious researcher and truth seeker" you claim to be. You have no interest in the real truth, only that which supports your warped worldview. Peter is a much respected researcher. His understanding of world politics is clearly greater than your limited knowledge of the subject. I wonder how many members will be willing to post that they respect your views on anything? Respected? By who? The likes of you and most of the members of this forum? Hate to break this to you John but to most of the rest of the world you guys are not respected, you are considered nutjobs. Your self importance is worth nothing. I expect no repect for my views here. The respect of this "group" is not high on my list of things to be desired. One thing is for certain about Peter, he has no clue about the photographic issues of the JFK case. 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