David G. Healy Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 'Michael Hogan' wrote: [...] It's not fair to selectively pick and choose what parts of Zapruder's testimony you want to use to support events as you interpret them, and than dismiss other parts of his testimony by claiming he is being less than honest. Mike ************ Eliminating the "verbose" gets right to the LN POV, doesn't it? Guess if we all thought and felt that way, the WCR would of been swallowed hook, line and sinker, by one and all, including Harold Weisberg. For your information, there's more than a few out here that understand, as well as KNOW, Zapruder was less than honest. However, he is on the record as one that wanted to cooperate isn't he?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 This post of mine has been too verbose and too long... Yup. Not to mention self-pitying, illogical and dishonest. It's not fair to selectively pick and choose what parts of Zapruder's testimony you want to use to support events as you interpret them, and then dismiss other parts of his testimony... Quite so. Have a stern word with yourself. Which leaves us where exactly? On 22 November 1963, Zapruder said he filmed the turn from Houston. Reporters who viewed the film 23 November and shortly thereafter said/wrote they saw the turn. Film as available to be viewed as film - since late 1964? - has NO turn. Not that difficult, surely? Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 This post of mine has been too verbose and too long... Yup. Not to mention self-pitying, illogical and dishonest. The real Paul Rigby emerges. Your lack of a meaningful response to the issues raised in my last post actually speaks more about you and your theories than the above quote. Paul, I'm going to resist the temptation to continue the discussion on that level. Take care. Mike Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 'Michael Hogan' wrote:[...] It's not fair to selectively pick and choose what parts of Zapruder's testimony you want to use to support events as you interpret them, and than dismiss other parts of his testimony by claiming he is being less than honest. Mike ************ Eliminating the "verbose" gets right to the LN POV, doesn't it? Guess if we all thought and felt that way, the WCR would of been swallowed hook, line and sinker, by one and all, including Harold Weisberg. For your information, there's more than a few out here that understand, as well as KNOW, Zapruder was less than honest. However, he is on the record as one that wanted to cooperate isn't he?... In event that one gets to "pick and choose" then I would prefer to utilize the words of the great Mr. Dan Rather. "The President's automobile was preceded by one other car" Somewhere, I missed that the current version of the Z-film shows the "Lead" vehicle in the motorcade. And, with all of this "lead time", which included the "Lead" vehicle, Mr. Zapruder could not get re-started in filming until after the Presidential Limousine had made the complete turn onto Elm St. And! I am certain that as a surveyor, Mr. West would have been most curious as to exactly how the WC came up with "Position "A"" for their survey work, if no such position for JFK appeared on the film. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050a.htm CE886. "NOT ON ZAPRUDER FILM" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone have any clue as to how one would go about positioning a vehicle onto Elm St, when in fact they reportedly do not have anything which demonstrates the position of the vehicle on Elm St.????????????? Certainly puzzles me! But then again, the US Secret Service seemed to have no difficulties in positioning the location of the Presidential Limo during the turn onto Elm St. off of Houston St. But then again, they also had a first generation and "untouched" version of the Z-film, did they not?/! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0452b.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 "Should be posted elsewhere..." _________________ Yeah, should be posted elswhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 "Should be posted elsewhere..."_________________ Yeah, should be posted elswhere... "Flectere si nequero superos, acherona movebo." (If I cannot bend the higher powers, I shall stir up Hell) "The Aenid" - Virgil Vacuity allied to pretension: potent combo you got there, Mr. G! In event that one gets to "pick and choose" then I would prefer to utilize the words of the great Mr. Dan Rather."The President's automobile was preceded by one other car" Somewhere, I missed that the current version of the Z-film shows the "Lead" vehicle in the motorcade. And, with all of this "lead time", which included the "Lead" vehicle, Mr. Zapruder could not get re-started in filming until after the Presidential Limousine had made the complete turn onto Elm St. And! I am certain that as a surveyor, Mr. West would have been most curious as to exactly how the WC came up with "Position "A"" for their survey work, if no such position for JFK appeared on the film. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050a.htm CE886. "NOT ON ZAPRUDER FILM" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone have any clue as to how one would go about positioning a vehicle onto Elm St, when in fact they reportedly do not have anything which demonstrates the position of the vehicle on Elm St.????????????? Certainly puzzles me! But then again, the US Secret Service seemed to have no difficulties in positioning the location of the Presidential Limo during the turn onto Elm St. off of Houston St. But then again, they also had a first generation and "untouched" version of the Z-film, did they not?/! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0452b.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bang on the money, Tom, pleasure to read. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 This post of mine has been too verbose and too long... Yup. Not to mention self-pitying, illogical and dishonest. The real Paul Rigby emerges. Your lack of a meaningful response to the issues raised in my last post actually speaks more about you and your theories than the above quote. Paul, I'm going to resist the temptation to continue the discussion on that level. Take care. Mike Hogan Ah, yes, Mike Hogan in full, disputational flow, the very epitome of sweet reason and iron discipline. This the real Mike Hogan? Aug 13 2006, 08:37 PM “So why the f___ are you asking me such rhetorical questions? Shortly after joining this Forum you and I had a go of it. Since then, I learned never to comment on anything you say. But since you saw fit to interject, I've made an exception. I don't like your style. I don't like your attitude. I don't like your methods. I don't think I like you. You type so much crap, I've quit trying to ascertain what is accurate and what is not.” I feel quite ashamed that I’ve never scaled those dizzy depths of intolerance and petulance! Anyway, your hypocrisy, not to mention that transparent, nauseating amalgam of over-familiarity, oleaginousness and highly-strung fanaticism, is of no real interest or consequence – save perhaps to your shrink. But this is interesting, mildly. Yesterday, 12:13 AM “I submit that you have a burden of proof…” Now, I’ve heard this sort of pseudo-legalese before. But who from? It finally came back to me today: Stephen Dorril, in a telephone conversation, circa 1993. It is Dorril we have to thank for that immortal opening to a footnoted paragraph, “Helms is not a man I would normally trust, but in these circumstances…” (“Permindex: The International Trade in Disinformation,” Lobster, 2, (November 1983), p.30). Coincidence? Or horses from the same table? You take good care, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Paul, If you insist on taking my quotes out of context, why not have enough honesty and integrity to make it clear I was responding to David Healy instead of you in one of the quotes you cited? It would have been easy enough to do that. Instead, you made it appear as if it was something I said to you in the context of our discussion. And there is no question that you did so purposefully. You have no idea what transpired between Healy and me in the past. Yet, you clipped off the first part of what I said to Healy, explaining that, when you could have easily included it. Weak, Paul. Just like your arguments. Mike Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Paul, If you insist on taking my quotes out of context, why not have enough honesty and integrity to make it clear I was responding to David Healy instead of you in one of the quotes you cited? It would have been easy enough to do that. Instead, you made it appear as if it was something I said to you in the context of our discussion. And there is no question that you did so purposefully. You have no idea what transpired between Healy and me in the past. Yet, you clipped off the first part of what I said to Healy, explaining that, when you could have easily included it. Weak, Paul. Just like your arguments. Mike Hogan Let me bring'em up to date.... I think your a royal a**hole, you think the same of me... You stay on the LN side of the street, I'll stay on the CT side, satisified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) Let me bring'em up to date.... I think your a royal a**hole, you think the same of me... You stay on the LN side of the street, I'll stay on the CT side, satisified? Tell ya what. Take a class on remedial spelling and grammar. Read a few books on the case. Learn to differentiate what constitutes an "LN" and a "CT." Quit acting like a jerk and a fool. Then maybe the "lurkers" as you call them won't think you're a "Lone Nut" Then I'll be satisfied. Edited August 17, 2006 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Let me bring'em up to date.... I think your a royal a**hole, you think the same of me... You stay on the LN side of the street, I'll stay on the CT side, satisified? Tell ya what. Take a class on remedial spelling and grammar. Read a few books on the case. Learn to differentiate what constitutes an "LN" and a "CT." Quit acting like a jerk and a fool. Then maybe the "lurkers" as you call them won't think you're a "Lone Nut" Then I'll be satisfied. Mike ... you are trying to reason with a jerk-off ... Healy isn't interested in anything but trolling the JFK forums. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) Let me bring'em up to date.... I think your a royal a**hole, you think the same of me... You stay on the LN side of the street, I'll stay on the CT side, satisified? Tell ya what. Take a class on remedial spelling and grammar. Read a few books on the case. Learn to differentiate what constitutes an "LN" and a "CT." Quit acting like a jerk and a fool. Then maybe the "lurkers" as you call them won't think you're a "Lone Nut" Then I'll be satisfied. Mike ... you are trying to reason with a jerk-off ... Healy isn't interested in anything but trolling the JFK forums. Bill tsk-tsk, alleged CTer's that have been called out certainly squirm. Put up something original, I'll consider it -- Hogan's nothing more LN clone, just like YOU, till then, you are just another voice in the LN choir Edited August 17, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 tsk-tsk, alleged CTer's that have been called out certainly squirm. Put up something original, I'll consider it -- Hogan's nothing more LN clone, just like YOU, till then, you are just another voice in the LN choir Well, David ... at least Pee-Wee Herman did his business in a dark movie house Vs. you doing it on a forum whose subject matter is of no real interest to you. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 tsk-tsk, alleged CTer's that have been called out certainly squirm. Put up something original, I'll consider it -- Hogan's nothing more LN clone, just like YOU, till then, you are just another voice in the LN choir Well, David ... at least Pee-Wee Herman did his business in a dark movie house Vs. you doing it on a forum whose subject matter is of no real interest to you. Bill Miller well, of course -- Bill Miller comes up with something original -- what-a-loon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 well, of course -- Bill Miller comes up with something original -- what-a-loon! You know what's funny, David ... your responses are my best evidence. Bill Miller 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