Moderators:

[Craig Lamson]

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

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

highlights.

Jack

No that would be a diffuse highlight (reflection), pinhead.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Nick Bartetzko]

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.

John

The name calling and extreme rudeness is......was distressing. That is why I am now so indebted to Ron Ecker for alerting me about the "ignore" feature. Have used it twice now. Visiting your forum has again become an informative and pleasant experience.

Regards

Nick

[Bill Miller]

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?[/b]

Want to be taken seriously, let us know[/b]

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

claims.

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

David, you really are not doing Jack a favor by trying to be his mouth-piece. You see, you not only remind us of Jack's incompetence at photo interpretation (largely because he chooses to use poor images), but you show people that individuals like yourself are as bad as Jack is at reading an image. Your answer is seen below in the illustration. Jack misread, just as you have, Moorman's white socks as being shoes. A good quality image allows one to see Mary's black shoe at the base of her white sock.

It should have been so obvious that it is a waste of time debating it with someone who couldn't see it in the first place. What is worse is that I have already shown this image on this forum and yet someone like yourself wants to debate this matter without first seeing what evidence was presented beforehand ... there is no excuse in such research practices IMO. You and Jack must have thought that Moorman and Hill turned into cattle when they stepped onto the south pasture because if one doesn't notice that the whitish/light tones are not their complete foot, then they must assume these women had hooves for feet and hadn't given any consideration where their forefoot would be.

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[John Simkin]

John, while I also believe in freedom of speech, I suspect some of the persons we are talking about are not individuals in the true sense, but part of the dis-information/coverup 'borg' [star Trek reference]...ie interconected to each other or an organization out to harm others on this matter. I'd ask you enforce your own rules about persons having photos and maybe even having them have to send you a copy of an ID to prove it [not to be posted]. I'd note that many [not all] of the persons do work at suspicious hours given their timezone [or don't sleep] and/or only counter with one-liner putdowns and other childish efforts at defaiming and defeating others. They use with volume what they can't muster with arguement. It shows them up, but to a casual guest from outside seems to make their numbers and 'backers' inflated and diminish the momentum of the research community - this is the plan. More than that they waste time and turn off so many to even want to post or discuss. I think it is a problem that needs addressing.

See my posting on this issue here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7491

The only reason this rule has not been enforced is that I am so busy with other matters. However, David R. Von Pein has refused point-blank to do so and has been suspended until he does upload a photograph.

I do not share your views about these individuals being part of a disinformation/cover-up group. Even the CIA are not this daft. People like David R. Von Pein do more harm than good to their cause.

I do think it is possible that we do have some members who are involved in disinformation. However, they do it so well that it is almost impossible to identify them. For example, few were aware at the time that Dick Billings was a disinformation agent.

For example, I believe that Craig Lamson is really a left-winger attempting to discredit the far-right with his posts on political issues.

[Craig Lamson]

Yea, thats the ticket there John, however next time please spell mymnake correctly...you can find it over my picture in all of my posts.

Research is your friend.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Simkin]

Yea, thats the ticket there John, however next time please spell mymnake correctly...you can find it over my picture in all of my posts.

Always willing to be corrected. I thought this passage was very funny: "please spell mymnake correctly". I assume that was a joke.

[Jack White]

John, while I also believe in freedom of speech, I suspect some of the persons we are talking about are not individuals in the true sense, but part of the dis-information/coverup 'borg' [star Trek reference]...ie interconected to each other or an organization out to harm others on this matter. I'd ask you enforce your own rules about persons having photos and maybe even having them have to send you a copy of an ID to prove it [not to be posted]. I'd note that many [not all] of the persons do work at suspicious hours given their timezone [or don't sleep] and/or only counter with one-liner putdowns and other childish efforts at defaiming and defeating others. They use with volume what they can't muster with arguement. It shows them up, but to a casual guest from outside seems to make their numbers and 'backers' inflated and diminish the momentum of the research community - this is the plan. More than that they waste time and turn off so many to even want to post or discuss. I think it is a problem that needs addressing.

See my posting on this issue here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7491

The only reason this rule has not been enforced is that I am so busy with other matters. However, David R. Von Pein has refused point-blank to do so and has been suspended until he does upload a photograph.

I do not share your views about these individuals being part of a disinformation/cover-up group. Even the CIA are not this daft. People like David R. Von Pein do more harm than good to their cause.

I do think it is possible that we do have some members who are involved in disinformation. However, they do it so well that it is almost impossible to identify them. For example, few were aware at the time that Dick Billings was a disinformation agent.

For example, I believe that Craig Lamson is really a left-winger attempting to discredit the far-right with his posts on political issues.

John...I think you should require that Lamson, the great photographer,

post an IDENTIFIABLE photograph of himself. His "avatar" is as bad

as the VonPein avatar.

Jack

Edited July 22, 2006 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

See my posting on this issue here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7491

The only reason this rule has not been enforced is that I am so busy with other matters. However, David R. Von Pein has refused point-blank to do so and has been suspended until he does upload a photograph

John - this reeks of a double standard he said "I don't have one that I can post" and just over 4 hours later you suspended him. Was he aware that this was mandatory? David Healy, the person who complained about DRVP, refused "point-blank" to comply with a similar forum rule, submitting a bio, and was given several weeks (Or was it months? I don't remember anymore) to comply. Von Pein's "refusal" seemed jocular to me it didn't sound like he knew he was obliged to upload a photo; Healy's refusal on the other hand was clearly an attempt to defy forum rules. At the very least, as Peter Lemkin suggested, he (DRVP) should have been asked by one of the moderators to comply and given a reasonable amount of time (2 – 3 days).

Yes of course Healy was a longstanding member of the forum and Von Pein has only been here a couple of weeks but the difference in amount of time afforded them to comply is striking. What was the last time a member of this forum was suspended without warning from a moderator or for repeatedly violationing the rules?

Len

Edited July 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

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

I here by request that Jack not only longer refer to me by name but no longer refer to me in anyway and that any such post in which he does so be deleted.

Jack your complaint would carry more weight if it didn't come from some who regularly insults those who disagree with him.

Len

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.

This of course isn't IMDb and thus what happens their is irrelevant. As Jason pointed out there only 2 or 3 or 4 LN posting here they serve a "devil's advocate" role here. Jack's belief that will take over this forum is absurd.

I agree with you Jack was right to call for the tone of this forum to be civil but if one looks at Jack's behaviour his request rings hollow.

The only LN I've noticed being obnoxious is BS.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Len Colby

[John Simkin]

John - this reeks of a double standard he said "I don't have one that I can post" and just over 4 hours later you suspended him. Was he aware that this was mandatory? David Healy, the person who complained about DRVP, refused "point-blank" to comply with a similar forum rule, submitting a bio, and was given several weeks (Or was it months? I don't remember anymore) to comply. Von Pein's "refusal" seemed jocular to me it didn't sound like he knew he was obliged to upload a photo; Healy's refusal on the other hand was clearly an attempt to defy forum rules. At the very least, as Peter Lemkin suggested, he (DRVP) should have been asked by one of the moderators to comply and given a reasonable amount of time (2 – 3 days).

You have no idea of the private communication with David R. Von Pein since he has arrived on this forum. From day one he said he had no intention of supplying me with a photograph. I should have deleted his membership there and then.

As I have said before, if you don’t like the way I run this forum, please leave.

[Bill Miller]

John...I think you should require that Lamson, the great photographer,

post an IDENTIFIABLE photograph of himself. His "avatar" is as bad

as the VonPein avatar.

Jack

Oh come now, Jack ... maybe Craig just figured that you'd be able to see him better by using a poor quality picture of himself ... after all, it seems to be your preference when discussing the photographical evidence of the JFK assassination.

Bill Miller

[Dawn Meredith]

...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?

BS:

I will have you know that Jack White is a well known and highly respected member of the JFK assassination research community. As for myself I never did believe there was a moon landing. And I agree with Jack on 9-11.

Why don't YOU take up a "hobby" : There are some excellent books on the jfk assassination I can suggest.

You might try reading some before you come in here with your flippant comments.

Just what JFK assassination books have you actually read???? Case Closed and what else?

I await your reply.

Dawn

This is a serious post Brendan. Are you capable of a serious reply?

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Andy Walker' date='Jul 21 2006, 11:21 AM' post='69573']

For the record, I believe the WC is a tissue of lies and I believe LHO was part of a conspiracy. No Lone Nut stuff in there. I just DON'T believe silly photo stuff.

Mark:

Specifically what "silly photo stuff"?

And I still want to know if you are related to Jack V.

(If so, why the secrecy? if not, again,why the secrecy?)

Thanks

Dawn

FWIW I agree with Jack: lets stop all the name calling and be civil. My dearest friend from childhood who has no interest in politics of any sort took a look here about a month ago and was just amazed at all the name calling and fighting "in spite of the rules". Sadly she will now never return. I had hoped Linda might find this forum of interest...but...she is not willing to take another look. I wonder how many others come here and leave for the very same reason. The CIA is laughing when they come here. And that is a sad indictment of the research community.

[John Simkin]

Mark, you seem to have placed your photograph in the wrong place. If you send it to me by email I will sort it out for you.

[J. William King]

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, rases 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.

This of course isn't IMDb and thus what happens their is irrelevant. As Jason pointed out there only 2 or 3 or 4 LN posting here they serve a "devil's advocate" role here. Jack's belief that will take over this forum is absurd.

I agree with you Jack was right to call for the tone of this forum to be civil but if one looks at Jack's behaviour his request rings hollow.

The only LN I've noticed being obnoxious is BS.

I realize that this isn't the IMDB forum, but the same two people I singled out on that board are also on here attempting to do the same thing. BS is one of them, and DVP is the other. I just wanted to make our members aware of who they're dealing with so we can avoid "feeding the trolls".

JWK