Jump to content
The Education Forum

Moderators:


Recommended Posts

...of the lone nut provocateurs that are taking over the forum.

Valenti is allowed to call me a pinhead (and much worse) and

falsely claim that 99 percent of my research is fake.

Instead of name calling and vague opinions, please require

that he and others CITE SPECIFICS.

1. Require that he cite specific research believed wrong,

and I will address the subject.

2. If he cannot cite a specific in a posting, I request that

the posting be deleted. His opinion that I am an idiot is

not relevant to JFK research.

3. He believes that only one percent of my research may

be accurate. Require him to say what that one percent

is, or delete his posting.

4. Require the same of everyone.

A person's name is his exclusive property. I request that

board rules be amended as follows:

A. Another forum member's name shall not be used in any

without authorization.

B. Any message referring to a person or name WILL BE

DELETED BY THE MODERATOR UPON REQUEST, unless

the author edits the posting when requested. No exceptions.

C.To request removal of a message using your name,

simply use the REPORT BUTTON at the bottom of each

message, AND THE MESSAGE WILL BE DELETED REGARDLESS

OF ANY OTHER MERIT.

Instituting this rule will restore order and decorum to the

research. The forum is becoming a laughingstock because

of its sheltering of obnoxious lone nut provocateurs whose

only purpose is to attack and insult.

Thanks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...of the lone nut provocateurs that are taking over the forum.

Valenti is allowed to call me a pinhead (and much worse) and

falsely claim that 99 percent of my research is fake.

Instead of name calling and vague opinions, please require

that he and others CITE SPECIFICS.

This from a guy who makes allusions to "paid provacateurs" without naming names. I must be the world's biggest sucker because I do it for FREE. Jack, instead of spamming this forum on a daily basis with misunderstood Zapruder footage (complete with color lines and arrows that lead to nowhere), why not take up a new hobby? Might I suggest origami? Stamps? Taxidermy?

Edited by Brendan Slattery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with Jack White in his basic observation that there is a lot of name calling. On any given JFK forum, let's be honest, the majority of the ruffled feathers and casting of aspersions comes from the "Photo people" for the lack of a better word. Don't ask me to explain it but it just seems to me it's forum culture. Mostly the alerationists versus the non-alterationists.

Since this is not my house, I won't demand a certain set of rules but would remind other members that Lone assassin theorists are critical to the "health" of a forum. If you want to see what happens to a forum where members get booted or leave via constant flaming (including threats of violence)for having voiced different opinions take a look at the prouty forum and how much of it is actually discussion of JFK issues. JFKresearch was very healthy as far as differing points of view and now it has lowered it's traffic and sometimes when I peek in I see the majority of the posts are coming from just a few people. Everyone thinks alike and you have stagnation.

Tracey Parnell and David Von Pein are two lone assassin theorists I consider mostly civil and they research and cite references. I'm not sure how often they contact primary or secondary sources but they DO at least offer alternative arguments. Tracey Parnell's not really active anymore but he's just an example. Yes, there are those here who come in to parrot tertiary sources, are not versed in counter arguments and want to argue even if it's not JFK related. Brendan's an example here in my opinion although I had hopes he would be more like David. He's more interested in berating those who don't subscribe to his ideology based on what I've seen.

I guess if I would like to see anything instituted, the posts on this forum as it is titled should be "JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE". Lancer does a good job of exporting posts to different sections when there is a large interest in a certain off topic subject.

Let the Lone Assassin theorists stay!!!

Jason Vermeer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the Lone Assassin theorists stay!!!

Yes. The Lone Assassin Theory is sort of like belling the cat, and is its own reward.

Ashton

Yes...let them stay, but DELETE ABUSIVE POSTING USING ANY PERSON'S NAME.

That was my point. Fortunately, and Mr. Charles-Dunn put it so much more eloquently,

LET THEM REVEAL THEMSELVES AS FOOLS.

They are just Posner wannabes...hoping to cash in big bucks, I guess. Let's see

if the agency promotes the Bugliosi book...another lone nut profiteer.

If MEMBER'S NAMES are left out...half the posters here will have NOTHING TO SAY.

JUST MEANINGLESS HOT AIR!

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, if you are going to complain about people using the term "pinhead", then you may not want to use terms about people being "ignorant". In response to one of my post you said, "More non sequiturs! Reflections on black shoes do not make the shoes ALL WHITE.

They are still BLACK SHOES with reflections. Of course specular reflections appear

white WHERE THEY MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE AT CERTAIN CURVATURES, but

a shoe has various curved surfaces which DO NOT MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE...

so the rest of the shoe still appears BLACK! I cannot believe these idiotic meaningless

claims. Nobody has claimed that shiny surfaces do not have specular reflections!

It is a fact that specular reflections are DIRECTIONAL reflecting light only when the

reflecting surface is at the proper angle to the camera, and cannot turn an object

from one color to another. On a curved surface, not all points are capable of

reflecting at the correct angle of incidence. Dumkoffs.

Bill Miller

pin·head (pĭn'hĕd')

n.

The head of a pin.

id·i·ot·ic (ĭd'ē-ŏt'ĭk)

adj.

Showing foolishness or stupidity.

Exhibiting idiocy.

Something very small or insignificant.

Slang. A stupid person; a dunce.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with Jack White in his basic observation that there is a lot of name calling. On any given JFK forum, let's be honest, the majority of the ruffled feathers and casting of aspersions comes from the "Photo people" for the lack of a better word. Don't ask me to explain it but it just seems to me it's forum culture. Mostly the alerationists versus the non-alterationists.

Since this is not my house, I won't demand a certain set of rules but would remind other members that Lone assassin theorists are critical to the "health" of a forum. If you want to see what happens to a forum where members get booted or leave via constant flaming (including threats of violence)for having voiced different opinions take a look at the prouty forum and how much of it is actually discussion of JFK issues. JFKresearch was very healthy as far as differing points of view and now it has lowered it's traffic and sometimes when I peek in I see the majority of the posts are coming from just a few people. Everyone thinks alike and you have stagnation.

This reflects my own philosophy. That is why I have refused to delete the membership of right-wingers, lone-nutters, etc.

Members are asked to refrain from name-calling. However, it is physically impossible for Andy and myself to read every posting and then delete insults. Even if it was, it is extremely difficult to make judgements about the terms being used. This is explained by the debate on this thread about terms like ignorant.

However, it is clear that some members are uniting up against certain individuals and are attempting to bully them off the Forum. Jack White and Ashton Gray have both suffered from this. My message to you is that I am sure most viewers are able to see this happening and it is the image of the bullies which is suffering. Stay strong, do not retaliate in kind, and you will win the battle. Their behaviour only illustrates the weakness of their arguments and the fear they have of your views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it is clear that some members are uniting up against certain individuals and are attempting to bully them off the Forum. Jack White and Ashton Gray have both suffered from this. My message to you is that I am sure most viewers are able to see this happening and it is the image of the bullies which is suffering. Stay strong, do not retaliate in kind, and you will win the battle. Their behaviour only illustrates the weakness of their arguments and the fear they have of your views.

Perhaps (how would I know?) but I haven't seen any evidence of bullying.

Let's not confuse bullying with the robust expression of contrary opinion.

Incidentally I receive all complaints and requests to delete posts or posters directly in my Inbox every time someone uses the "report a post" function.

Invariably recently such messages originate from Jack and Ashton. This could be evidence that they both being bullied or it could be evidence that neither like contrary opinion. Suffice to say I haven't had occasion to delete anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned, I started posting not too long ago and offered some opinions and theories. xxxx xxxxx was the first one to jump in and call me a Lone Nutter and a provocateur. He used insults. I thought, "Okay, so that's how we play the game here, eh?" So I responded in kind. And now there's a big hoo-hah about bullying.

Jack comes from a forum that catered to his idea that he should be allowed to do and say things that others could not. The emperor was never told that he was without clothes and there are some people here that feel that it should remain that way, so I am not surprised that Jack finds it unfair not to have a double standard on this forum.

In as much as I don't care for Posner or his views, this is what Jack had to say ...

"Pat, the coverup continues MOSTLY IN THE CONTROLLED MEDIA. It is virtually

impossible for me or Jim Fetzer or John Armstrong to get press coverage for

works like THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX or HARVEY&LEE...but jerks like

Gerald Posner are called by the major networks to comment on any new

development. Posner obviously is presenting the "CIA viewpoint", and no

opposition is tolerated.

So what does Jack do ... he starts such a thread as this one.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't always agree with Jack, his evidence or conclusions, I have to side with him on this matter.

I would strongly suggest that members take a trip over to the Internet Movie Database forum board for the movie "JFK" and read some of the posts. People who post there are just beginning their questioning of the WC report, and are just starting to look into the issue.

On that board, there has suddenly appeared a group of LNs who use bullying tactics, insults and spend all day and night replying to each other in an attempt to discredit any pro CT posters as totally nuts.

Pay special attention to two posters named "DVP-1" and "NickSlickReturns" and see if their attitude, quotes, phrases used, or anything else reminds you of any of the LN posters on here. Pay special attention to the times that they post, and the time separations when they reply back and forth to each other trying to show that CTers are in the minority. Personally, I have to wonder if they are one and the same person. Their posts number in the hundreds, and are always just a few minutes apart.

Are there any provisions made on this board to make sure that the members are using their real names and identities? I mean, I would hate to see an organized effort made on this board to discredit the research, and especially the researchers, no matter who they may be, by people with an agenda, and using multiple IDs (which would be a violation of forum rules).

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/threads/

JWK

P.S. This post: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/48820430 was made within 7 minutes of this post! Interesting.

Edited by J. William King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting indeed.

I was hoping you'd notice.

~~Hides Initials From View~~

Interesting? come on.....you're all over the internet boards.... You have 69 posts to this forum, where's your picture - what's the matter with you?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller' wrote:

Jack, if you are going to complain about people using the term "pinhead", then you may not want to use terms about people being "ignorant". In response to one of my post you said, "More non sequiturs! Reflections on black shoes do not make the shoes ALL WHITE.

They are still BLACK SHOES with reflections. Of course specular reflections appear

white WHERE THEY MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE AT CERTAIN CURVATURES, but

a shoe has various curved surfaces which DO NOT MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE...

dgh: get the real issue on the table. Which is, as seen in the Zapruder film: dark shoes that appear as COMPLETELY *white shoes* on the infield grass being worn by a certain woman, eh?

Sure you want to go THERE with what you've posted above AND below? If so, how was the light (sunlight) reflected back on "dark colored" infield shoes, turning them (dark shoes) entirely WHITE? The sun was to the rear and left of that certain woman, yes?

[...]

Unless JThompson or GMack want to step forward and endorse YOUR commercial photograpic work, noise! We know Craig Lamson is a professional photographer, not a bad one either, piss poor bedside manner, but not a bad phoptog.. At this time, you on the other hand, have no verifiable professional photgraphic expertise. So lets see, Thompson worked directly with LIFE regarding films, thats on the record. Gary Mack is all over the place on tape, film and articles concerning DP imagery, Lamson sells and promotes his photographic wares on a website someplace... JWhite has a 50 year track record as a professional photog, complete with University archive...We know Costella's physics background, light and optics specialty.

How about your professional photo/film resume? Want to be taken seriously, let us know

so the rest of the shoe still appears BLACK! I cannot believe these idiotic meaningless

claims.

dgh: NOT believe is the best you can do?

Nobody has claimed that shiny surfaces do not have specular reflections!

It is a fact that specular reflections are DIRECTIONAL reflecting light only when the

reflecting surface is at the proper angle to the camera, and cannot turn an object

from one color to another.

dgh: again how did a certain womans *dark* shoes turn "entirely white" in the Z-film?

On a curved surface, not all points are capable of

reflecting at the correct angle of incidence. Dumkoffs.

dgh: claim with no support, bluster....

Bill Miller

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller' wrote:

Jack, if you are going to complain about people using the term "pinhead", then you may not want to use terms about people being "ignorant". In response to one of my post you said, "More non sequiturs! Reflections on black shoes do not make the shoes ALL WHITE.

They are still BLACK SHOES with reflections. Of course specular reflections appear

white WHERE THEY MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE AT CERTAIN CURVATURES, but

a shoe has various curved surfaces which DO NOT MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE...

dgh: get the real issue on the table. Which is, as seen in the Zapruder film: dark shoes that appear as COMPLETELY *white shoes* on the infield grass being worn by a certain woman, eh?

Sure you want to go THERE with what you've posted above AND below? If so, how was the light (sunlight) reflected back on "dark colored" infield shoes, turning them (dark shoes) entirely WHITE? The sun was to the rear and left of that certain woman, yes?

[...]

Unless JThompson or GMack want to step forward and endorse YOUR commercial photograpic work, noise! We know Craig Lamson is a professional photographer, not a bad one either, piss poor bedside manner, but not a bad phoptog.. At this time, you on the other hand, have no verifiable professional photgraphic expertise. So lets see, Thompson worked directly with LIFE regarding films, thats on the record. Gary Mack is all over the place on tape, film and articles concerning DP imagery, Lamson sells and promotes his photographic wares on a website someplace... JWhite has a 50 year track record as a professional photog, complete with University archive...We know Costella's physics background, light and optics specialty.

How about your professional photo/film resume? Want to be taken seriously, let us know

so the rest of the shoe still appears BLACK! I cannot believe these idiotic meaningless

claims.

dgh: NOT believe is the best you can do?

Nobody has claimed that shiny surfaces do not have specular reflections!

It is a fact that specular reflections are DIRECTIONAL reflecting light only when the

reflecting surface is at the proper angle to the camera, and cannot turn an object

from one color to another.

dgh: again how did a certain womans *dark* shoes turn "entirely white" in the Z-film?

On a curved surface, not all points are capable of

reflecting at the correct angle of incidence. Dumkoffs.

dgh: claim with no support, bluster....

Bill Miller

David...they are building a case for black canvas shoes

that turn completely white, like this...caused by specular

highlights.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Miller' wrote:

Jack, if you are going to complain about people using the term "pinhead", then you may not want to use terms about people being "ignorant". In response to one of my post you said, "More non sequiturs! Reflections on black shoes do not make the shoes ALL WHITE.

They are still BLACK SHOES with reflections. Of course specular reflections appear

white WHERE THEY MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE AT CERTAIN CURVATURES, but

a shoe has various curved surfaces which DO NOT MIRROR THE LIGHT SOURCE...

dgh: get the real issue on the table. Which is, as seen in the Zapruder film: dark shoes that appear as COMPLETELY *white shoes* on the infield grass being worn by a certain woman, eh?

Sure you want to go THERE with what you've posted above AND below? If so, how was the light (sunlight) reflected back on "dark colored" infield shoes, turning them (dark shoes) entirely WHITE? The sun was to the rear and left of that certain woman, yes?

[...]

Unless JThompson or GMack want to step forward and endorse YOUR commercial photograpic work, noise! We know Craig Lamson is a professional photographer, not a bad one either, piss poor bedside manner, but not a bad phoptog.. At this time, you on the other hand, have no verifiable professional photgraphic expertise. So lets see, Thompson worked directly with LIFE regarding films, thats on the record. Gary Mack is all over the place on tape, film and articles concerning DP imagery, Lamson sells and promotes his photographic wares on a website someplace... JWhite has a 50 year track record as a professional photog, complete with University archive...We know Costella's physics background, light and optics specialty.

How about your professional photo/film resume? Want to be taken seriously, let us know

so the rest of the shoe still appears BLACK! I cannot believe these idiotic meaningless

claims.

dgh: NOT believe is the best you can do?

Nobody has claimed that shiny surfaces do not have specular reflections!

It is a fact that specular reflections are DIRECTIONAL reflecting light only when the

reflecting surface is at the proper angle to the camera, and cannot turn an object

from one color to another.

dgh: again how did a certain womans *dark* shoes turn "entirely white" in the Z-film?

On a curved surface, not all points are capable of

reflecting at the correct angle of incidence. Dumkoffs.

dgh: claim with no support, bluster....

Bill Miller

David...they are building a case for black canvas shoes

that turn completely white, like this...caused by specular

highlights.

Jack

E X A C T L Y, Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...