The precarious position of provocateurs

[John Simkin]

I expect no repect for my views here. The respect of this "group" is not high on my list of things to be desired.

You should not put yourself down like this. I am sure Brendan Slattery and David R. Von Pein will be willing to say how clever you are.

[Craig Lamson]

I expect no repect for my views here. The respect of this "group" is not high on my list of things to be desired.

You should not put yourself down like this. I am sure Brendan Slattery and David R. Von Pein will be willing to say how clever you are.

I could care less John, I'm not here for "repect". Only the truth. You do understand what the truth is, right?

[Guest]

I expect no repect for my views here. The respect of this "group" is not high on my list of things to be desired.

You should not put yourself down like this. I am sure Brendan Slattery and David R. Von Pein will be willing to say how clever you are.

I could care less John, I'm not here for "repect". Only the truth. You do understand what the truth is, right?

Nice to see a high level of debate persisting

[Bill Miller]

I agree on the backyard photos and badgeman and some other things. If you feel he has additionally only made trivial or incorrect work why the passion to jump all over him. I am not aware of any major damage he has caused and your use of the the term 'CT' makes me think you believe in the offical version and thus question your agenda [and sanity].

Peter,

I am sure that you know about world events, as John said, but you do not know the history of Jack's responses over the years. Just as you wonder why I use the term "CT's" as if I must believe the official version and have an agenda .... I hear the same crap from the other side when I use the term "LN's". But those who actually have followed the assassination over time on these forums know that I believe there was a conspiracy and that I do not believe for one minute parts of the official version. Your remark reflects the "all or nothing" position that I see all to often in people who come to these forums. I am as quick to challenge a CT's claim as a LN'r position. You seem to think that Jack only tells us to challenge the official version and to be suspicious of the evidence and if that is all he did, then I'd see nothing wrong with it. But Jack has said over and over that he only cites fact! Yes, Jack's name is well known around the JFK assassination circles, but what I am not hearing from you is that with notoriety comes responsibility. This means that someone like Jack has more of a responsibility to be correct in what he says because there will be countless people who will never take the time to investigate this case on their own, so they will assume that Jack's observations are accurate because people of authority have surely had their work peer reviewed and validated, when in Jack's case this is not the way it is. For someone like yourself to be so intelligent and able to follow worldly matters, I find it most puzzling how you could not see the damage Jack has caused the CT's position. Robert Groden, myself, and others have discussed this many times and we all realize that while not fair, we are in an uphill battle to ever get an unbiased investigation into Kennedy's murder launched. The reason for this is that the government has most, if not all the power and the first thing they will do is point out all the nutty irresponsible things that have been said and they will use it to lump all CT's together in an effort to prevent us from ever being heard. Our government in particular doesn't like to admit its mistakes and those who have ever beaten them at anything had done so by being thorough and accurate concerning their position. If debating the evidence on a forum such as this is all one hopes will ever happen with this case, then Jack's claims are harmless, but if one can see the bigger picture in hopes of there finally being a chance to see an honest unbiased inveatigation into Kennedy's murder, then one cannot ignore the damage Jack has been doing in recent years by giving the opposition the ammunition to question our right to even be heard.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

deleted duplicate post

Edited July 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

I agree on the backyard photos and badgeman and some other things. If you feel he has additionally only made trivial or incorrect work why the passion to jump all over him. I am not aware of any major damage he has caused and your use of the the term 'CT' makes me think you believe in the offical version and thus question your agenda [and sanity].

Peter,

I am sure that you know about world events, as John said, but you do not know the history of Jack's responses over the years. Just as you wonder why I use the term "CT's" as if I must believe the official version and have an agenda .... I hear the same crap from the other side when I use the term "LN's". But those who actually have followed the assassination over time on these forums know that I believe there was a conspiracy and that I do not believe for one minute parts of the official version. Your remark reflects the "all or nothing" position that I see all to often in people who come to these forums. I am as quick to challenge a CT's claim as a LN'r position. You seem to think that Jack only tells us to challenge the official version and to be suspicious of the evidence and if that is all he did, then I'd see nothing wrong with it. But Jack has said over and over that he only cites fact! Yes, Jack's name is well known around the JFK assassination circles, but what I am not hearing from you is that with notoriety comes responsibility. This means that someone like Jack has more of a responsibility to be correct in what he says because there will be countless people who will never take the time to investigate this case on their own, so they will assume that Jack's observations are accurate because people of authority have surely had their work peer reviewed and validated, when in Jack's case this is not the way it is. For someone like yourself to be so intelligent and able to follow worldly matters, I find it most puzzling how you could not see the damage Jack has caused the CT's position. Robert Groden, myself, and others have discussed this many times and we all realize that while not fair, we are in an uphill battle to ever get an unbiased investigation into Kennedy's murder launched. The reason for this is that the government has most, if not all the power and the first thing they will do is point out all the nutty irresponsible things that have been said and they will use it to lump all CT's together in an effort to prevent us from ever being heard. Our government in particular doesn't like to admit its mistakes and those who have ever beaten them at anything had done so by being thorough and accurate concerning their position. If debating the evidence on a forum such as this is all one hopes will ever happen with this case, then Jack's claims are harmless, but if one can see the bigger picture in hopes of there finally being a chance to see an honest unbiased inveatigation into Kennedy's murder, then one cannot ignore the damage Jack has been doing in recent years by giving the opposition the ammunition to question our right to even be heard.

Bill Miller

How dare you use Robert Groden to attempt to discredit me! Robert and I have

been very good friends since the 1970s. He and I disagree on one thing...the

authenticity of the Zapruder film. He has his reasons and I have mine. That in

no way affects our friendship and high regard for each other. Through his dedication

he has done more good than any other researcher. I made major contributions

of photographs to his "picture books". I know that he has very LOW regard for

provocateurs like you and those you associate with!

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I expect no repect for my views here. The respect of this "group" is not high on my list of things to be desired.

You should not put yourself down like this. I am sure Brendan Slattery and David R. Von Pein will be willing to say how clever you are.

I could care less John, I'm not here for "repect". Only the truth. You do understand what the truth is, right?

"TRUTH" was once that the world was flat.

Therefore, one is much better to stick with "FACTS", as opposed to what one may be lead to believe as being "truth".

Many an innocent person has been sent to jail based on "truth", which was somewhat lacking in fact.

Just as many have been lead to accept that the WC is some form of "Truth".

[Josiah Thompson]

I would like to say that I respect Craig Lamson enormously for his careful scrutiny of photographic claims and his ability to speak knowledgeably and pithily about such claims. Jack White has been claiming faux this and faux that for decades. The fact that he keeps wasting our time does not entitle him to our respect. It only entitles him to a sigh of weariness, "Not again, Jack." Craig Lamson's ability to skewer Jack has proved useful in the past and will be again in the future. You claim that Mr. Lemkin has considerable "knowledge of world politics." I fail to understand what that has to do with anything, least of all with Jack White and his latest whine about "provocateurs." He's been whining like this for years if not decades.

Josiah Thompson

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?

[Craig Lamson]

I would like to say that I respect Craig Lamson enormously for his careful scrutiny of photographic claims and his ability to speak knowledgeably and pithily about such claims. Jack White has been claiming faux this and faux that for decades. The fact that he keeps wasting our time does not entitle him to our respect. It only entitles him to a sigh of weariness, "Not again, Jack." Craig Lamson's ability to skewer Jack has proved useful in the past and will be again in the future. You claim that Mr. Lemkin has considerable "knowledge of world politics." I fail to understand what that has to do with anything, least of all with Jack White and his latest whine about "provocateurs." He's been whining like this for years if not decades.

Josiah Thompson

Well of course you would post this...you get your checks from the same ABC agency that I do! You are one of the "Bad Guys"

Thanks Tink.

[David G. Healy]

I would like to say that I respect Craig Lamson enormously for his careful scrutiny of photographic claims and his ability to speak knowledgeably and pithily about such claims. Jack White has been claiming faux this and faux that for decades. The fact that he keeps wasting our time does not entitle him to our respect. It only entitles him to a sigh of weariness, "Not again, Jack." Craig Lamson's ability to skewer Jack has proved useful in the past and will be again in the future. You claim that Mr. Lemkin has considerable "knowledge of world politics." I fail to understand what that has to do with anything, least of all with Jack White and his latest whine about "provocateurs." He's been whining like this for years if not decades.

Josiah Thompson

**************

In the spirit of even handedness, here we go, AGAIN. Why not stick to the books, Josiah! I wouldn't worry about Lamson's reputation, he's just window dressing around here, he does however, take the nicest pictures of chairs, in a row, YET! With and without specular highlights!

you know one question I have always wondered about, how did a Ph.D. in Philosphy, professor at Haverford college, overnight, make it to LIFE magazine, handle, study, review, [not to mention] photograph the alledged in-camera Abraham Zapruder film and other JFK related photos?

Go on to write (6 Seconds in Dallas), which at the time was the definitive CT book regarding the JFK assassination? I suspect many here haven't a clue regarding how all that came about.

p.s. we do notice how much time you spend reviewing Jack's work, though

Edited July 21, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

p.s. we do notice how much time you spend reviewing Jack's work, though

The same can be said about the time you spend responding to post that you have little knowledge of. You realize that there is a reason why Josiah is well respected in the JFK community and elsewhere and you are not. I notice that you put forth a constant effort to judge someone because of their position on a particular matter rather than the quality of their work and I believe that approach to be wrong.

Bill Miller

[Len Colby]

I would like to say that I respect Craig Lamson enormously for his careful scrutiny of photographic claims and his ability to speak knowledgeably and pithily about such claims. Jack White has been claiming faux this and faux that for decades. The fact that he keeps wasting our time does not entitle him to our respect. It only entitles him to a sigh of weariness, "Not again, Jack." Craig Lamson's ability to skewer Jack has proved useful in the past and will be again in the future. You claim that Mr. Lemkin has considerable "knowledge of world politics." I fail to understand what that has to do with anything, least of all with Jack White and his latest whine about "provocateurs." He's been whining like this for years if not decades.

Josiah Thompson

**************

In the spirit of even handedness, here we go, AGAIN. Why not stick to the books, Josiah! I wouldn't worry about Lamson's reputation, he's just window dressing around here, he does however, take the nicest pictures of chairs, in a row, YET! With and without specular highlights!

you know one question I have always wondered about, how did a Ph.D. in Philosphy, from a unknown college, overnight, make it to LIFE magazine, handle, study, review, [not to mention] and photograph the alledged in-camera Abraham Zapruder film and other JFK related photos?

Go on to write (6 Seconds in Dallas), which at the time was the definitive CT book regarding the JFK assassination? I suspect many here haven't a clue regarding how all that came about.

p.s. we do notice how much time you spend reviewing Jack's work, though

Dave - Tink's PhD was from Yale, he taught at Haverford

US News and World Report

America's Best Colleges

1 Williams College (MA)

2 Amherst College (MA)

3 Swarthmore College (PA)

4 Wellesley College (MA)

5 Carleton College (MN)

6 Bowdoin College (ME)

6 Pomona College (CA)

8 Haverford College (PA)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/r...artco_brief.php

Haverford College is a private, coeducational liberal arts college located in Haverford, Pennsylvania. The college is known for its academic excellence and is consistently rated as one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haverford_College

For the record I respect Craig for his expert understanding of photography as well as his ability to debunk nonsense regarding the Wellstone crash and Zapruder film. Can't say that I agree with his politics or (sometimes) overly strident tone.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Len Colby

[David G. Healy]

I would like to say that I respect Craig Lamson enormously for his careful scrutiny of photographic claims and his ability to speak knowledgeably and pithily about such claims. Jack White has been claiming faux this and faux that for decades. The fact that he keeps wasting our time does not entitle him to our respect. It only entitles him to a sigh of weariness, "Not again, Jack." Craig Lamson's ability to skewer Jack has proved useful in the past and will be again in the future. You claim that Mr. Lemkin has considerable "knowledge of world politics." I fail to understand what that has to do with anything, least of all with Jack White and his latest whine about "provocateurs." He's been whining like this for years if not decades.

Josiah Thompson

**************

In the spirit of even handedness, here we go, AGAIN. Why not stick to the books, Josiah! I wouldn't worry about Lamson's reputation, he's just window dressing around here, he does however, take the nicest pictures of chairs, in a row, YET! With and without specular highlights!

you know one question I have always wondered about, how did a Ph.D. in Philosphy, from a unknown college, overnight, make it to LIFE magazine, handle, study, review, [not to mention] and photograph the alledged in-camera Abraham Zapruder film and other JFK related photos?

Go on to write (6 Seconds in Dallas), which at the time was the definitive CT book regarding the JFK assassination? I suspect many here haven't a clue regarding how all that came about.

p.s. we do notice how much time you spend reviewing Jack's work, though

Dave - Tink's PhD was from Yale, he taught at Haverford

US News and World Report

America's Best Colleges

1 Williams College (MA)

2 Amherst College (MA)

3 Swarthmore College (PA)

4 Wellesley College (MA)

5 Carleton College (MN)

6 Bowdoin College (ME)

6 Pomona College (CA)

8 Haverford College (PA)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/r...artco_brief.php

Haverford College is a private, coeducational liberal arts college located in Haverford, Pennsylvania. The college is known for its academic excellence and is consistently rated as one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haverford_College

For the record I respect Craig for his expert understanding of photography as well as his ability to debunk nonsense regarding the Wellstone crash and Zapruder film. Can't say that I agree with his politics or (sometimes) overly strident tone.

yep, I know he went to Yale, and taught at Haverford. I'll make that clear in my original post

[David G. Healy]

p.s. we do notice how much time you spend reviewing Jack's work, though

The same can be said about the time you spend responding to post that you have little knowledge of. You realize that there is a reason why Josiah is well respected in the JFK community and elsewhere and you are not. I notice that you put forth a constant effort to judge someone because of their position on a particular matter rather than the quality of their work and I believe that approach to be wrong.

Bill Miller

pssst, I could care less whose respected in the JFK internet research community, I'm not looking for a job, nor act as diversion for the Lone Nutter camp... 12 years of internet debate stands as testement to Lone Nutter intransegence.

I suspect sooner rather later, cameras; lights and microphones will appear!

[Bill Miller]

pssst, I could care less whose respected in the JFK internet research community, I'm not looking for a job, nor act as diversion for the Lone Nutter camp... 12 years of internet debate stands as testement to Lone Nutter intransegence.

I doesn't seem that you are interested in learning the evidence of the case either, David.

Bill Miller