Evan Burton Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Correct Bill - I have no position on the JFK debate because I do not have the necessary knowledge to make any sort of meaningful judgement. ************************** 2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eagerthan anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT. More little White lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Just today you accused Brendan, Craig, Bill and I of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination While it's true that I'm a terrible person, nobody in their right mind would use me as an accessory to something this big. I'm more the patsy type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Jack if it upsets you that this thread went off topic you should take it up with your co-author David Healy because he is the person who brought up the Zapruder film here. Jack you lost any grounds you had to complain about persnal attacks with that murder accusation thread you started. Jack has spent too much time on JFK Research (aka. The Jack White Show) where he was protected from criticism. There Jack could make his own rules and relish the idea that he would not be held to the same standards as the other members who didn't agree with him. Below is the post from this forum that Len made which was followed by the forum xxxxx who hijacked this thread by referencing Zavada's report on the Zapruder film. Jack seems to only be concerned about thread hijacking if it is done by those who do not support his alteration claims. Post 16 - Len: Jack for all your complaints about provocateurs on this forum lately the worst offender has been you, stop being such a hypocrite. Let’s see you keep accusing Bill of being somebody else, you started what was it three or four threads attacking Gary Mack, you called Evan a xxxx for correctly citing your position that the Moon landings were faked. Just today you accused Brendan, Craig, Bill and I of being accessories after the fact to the JFK assassination because we cast doubt on your theory that just about every image taken in DP that day was altered, funny you didn’t level that accusation at Grodin or Martin Schakleford or Josiah Thompson who have likewise opposed your theories. And now you insinuate without any evidence that Evan was responsible for bringing down the forum should I point out that your co-author John Costella is also an Australian and that he has written sophisticated computer programs and that Sid Walker a webmaster also hails from “down under”. It seems that John Simkin was wrong anyway according to info turned up by John Dolva and Dave Weaver the hacker was based in Osaka not Australia. Evan’s position AFAIK is that he has no position regarding the assassination, He has opposed your nonsense regarding the Moon landings, ‘chemtrails’ and 9/11. In all those cases he gets the better of you so there would be no need from him to want to crash the forum. Post 18 - Healy: When it comes to "theories", how is Roalnd Zavada and Ray Fielding doing re the upcoming new and improved ZAVADA report....? As you, representing [to this forum] their side of the report; how are they pprogressing? 8 months and counting. all Jack has to do is post -- and YOU go bonkers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 all Jack has to do is post -- and YOU go bonkers .... and all I have to do is post and YOU respond ... unlike myself, you do it almost always without any evidence to support what you're saying. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I get emails from people on this forum who I never heard of before who read these threads who have asked that I never back down, so it appears that I am not going to be able to please them and you at the same time. Allow me to share just a few of some of those messages ... Bill, I just want one thing to be clear. Nowhere in this thread did I say anything negative about the quality or value of your research. One the contrary, in my initial comment, I said you were a capable photo researcher. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to respond to me with testimonials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 (edited) I get emails from people on this forum who I never heard of before who read these threads who have asked that I never back down, so it appears that I am not going to be able to please them and you at the same time. Allow me to share just a few of some of those messages ... Bill, I just want one thing to be clear. Nowhere in this thread did I say anything negative about the quality or value of your research. One the contrary, in my initial comment, I said you were a capable photo researcher. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to respond to me with testimonials. By all means post all of their names. It will be interesting to see who is egging "Miller" on, and what they are saying. Let's get all the White haters out of the closet. Jack Edited September 5, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 (edited) By all means post all of their names. It will be interestingto see who is egging "Miller" on, and what they are saying. Let's get all the White haters out of the closet. Jack Right, Jack ... so you can label them? Now it is you who is the provocatuer. Bill Miller Bill, I just want one thing to be clear. Nowhere in this thread did I say anything negative about the quality or value of your research. One the contrary, in my initial comment, I said you were a capable photo researcher. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to respond to me with testimonials. It's OK, Mike ... I never thought otherwise. I only wished to show that there is another part of this forum membership who does not want me to back down on this assassination and post assassination Dealey Plaza alteration foolishiness. Bill Miller Edited September 5, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 (edited) I get emails from people on this forum who I never heard of before who read these threads who have asked that I never back down, so it appears that I am not going to be able to please them and you at the same time. Allow me to share just a few of some of those messages ... Bill, I just want one thing to be clear. Nowhere in this thread did I say anything negative about the quality or value of your research. One the contrary, in my initial comment, I said you were a capable photo researcher. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to respond to me with testimonials. tell us PLEASE, what a "photo researcher" happens to be? The ONLY one I know of is Jack White. Not one person on this forum has the experience nor the knowledge of DP and JFK related film/photos... Perhaps your definition of 'photo reseacher' will enlighten many some here ********************** 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] It's OK, Mike ... I never thought otherwise. I only wished to show that there is another part of this forum membership who does not want me to back down on this assassination and post assassination Dealey Plaza alteration foolishiness. Bill Miller I spell 'another part of the forum' as; GARY MACK, that the way you spell it? Fight??? In 5 years, you've done nothing but rubber stamp the WCR evidence, that's FIGHT.....? LMAO! Edited September 5, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 (edited) tell us PLEASE, what a "photo researcher" happens to be? The ONLY one I know of is Jack White. Not one person on this forum has the experience nor the knowledge of DP and JFK related film/photos... Perhaps your definition of 'photo reseacher' will enlighten many some here I do not see how you would know who has what experience when you seem to have all your time wrapped up in trolling. The individual you are attempting to praise for having this great knowledge of the photographical record is the same guy who calls one photo or film altered only to call another image "genuine" which shows not only the same moment in time, but also the same exact things as the alleged altered images. That would also be the same person who cannot understand why a train car can be seen in one photo and not in the other despite the two photographers angles to the colonnade being different. It would also be the same person who says that Moorman's photo has been altered by having Zapruder and Sitzman added to the pedestal while not knowing that same camera original showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination while never being out of Moorman's possession. So what I am saying is that there apparently seems to be a few people who have as much knowledge of the photographical record (if not more) than Jack has. But on the other hand ... some people can pretend otherwise if it supports their objective --------- Baghdad Bob Healy Bill Miller Edited September 5, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 'Bill Miller' dronned on: tell us PLEASE, what a "photo researcher" happens to be? The ONLY one I know of is Jack White. Not one person on this forum has the experience nor the knowledge of DP and JFK related film/photos... Perhaps your definition of 'photo reseacher' will enlighten many some here I do not see how you would know who has what experience when you seem to have all your time wrapped up in trolling. The individual you are attempting to praise for having this great knowledge of the photographical record is the same guy who calls one photo or film altered only to call another image "genuine" which shows not only the same moment in time, but also the same exact things as the alleged altered images. That would also be the same person who cannot understand why a train car can be seen in one photo and not in the other despite the two photographers angles to the colonnade being different. It would also be the same person who says that Moorman's photo has been altered by having Zapruder and Sitzman added to the pedestal while not knowing that same camera original showing Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal was filmed for TV not 30 minutes after the assassination while never being out of Moorman's possession. So what I am saying is that there apparently seems to be a few people who have as much knowledge of the photographical record (if not more) than Jack has. But on the other hand ... some people can pretend otherwise if it supports their objective --------- Baghdad Bob Healy Bill Miller ******************* I've yet to see another photo researcher ID'd here. Of course researchers make mistakes.... take Bob Groden "photo expert" during the OJ trial -- the Bruno Maglli shoes comes to mind.... Amazing, you can physically ID Zapruder/Sitzman on that pedestal? Not one person, that I know of, based on viewing EVERY known film/photo taken in the plaza that afternoon can physically ID whose standing on that pedestal. How do YOU do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Amazing, you can physically ID Zapruder/Sitzman on that pedestal? Not one person, that I know of, based on viewing EVERY known film/photo taken in the plaza that afternoon can physically ID whose standing on that pedestal. How do YOU do that? I took Jean Hill's word for it for as I have posted several times in the past - Jean said to me that she saw Zapruder and the woman standing on the pedestal. To validate what Jean said to me I further considered that Zapruder's film ended up with the Zapruder home movies exposed onto the same roll of film, that Zapruder had the film in his safe immediately after the assassination, that no one else has claimed to have been on that pedestal filming the assassination except Zapruder, that Sitzman claims that she and her boss was on the pedestal during the assassination, that no one has ever said they saw Zapruder or Sitzman anywhere else during the assassination, that Beatrice Hester and Sitzman who was interviewed after the assassination and had said their boss filmed the assassination, and that Trask new book shows a good print of Zapruder inside the shelter with the Hester's immediately after the shooting tells me Zapruder was on that pedestal. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Amazing, you can physically ID Zapruder/Sitzman on that pedestal? Not one person, that I know of, based on viewing EVERY known film/photo taken in the plaza that afternoon can physically ID whose standing on that pedestal. How do YOU do that? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't feel like spending the time to go over the old threads, didn't jack claim that no one was on the pedastal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Amazing, you can physically ID Zapruder/Sitzman on that pedestal? Not one person, that I know of, based on viewing EVERY known film/photo taken in the plaza that afternoon can physically ID whose standing on that pedestal. How do YOU do that? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't feel like spending the time to go over the old threads, didn't jack claim that no one was on the pedastal? I do believe in the vast photo archives one can find the Zapruder DP pedestal EMPTY at certain times on Nov 22nd right up to present day. So yeah, Jack's claim is RIGHT! Great starting point. Problem is, no one can ID those caught in pedestal film/photos on Nov 22nd? You saying YOU can? Your mind is like a steel trap there Len, great catch..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I do believe in the vast photo archives one can find the Zapruder DP pedestal EMPTY at certain times on Nov 22nd right up to present day. So yeah, Jack's claim is RIGHT! Great starting point. Problem is, no one can ID those caught in pedestal film/photos on Nov 22nd? You saying YOU can? David, maybe you should learn more about the things Jack says before trying to pretend to know more than what you do. Jack's claim is that the pedestal was empty DURING the assassination .... not POST assassination. There is no vast photo archives showing an empty pedestal during the assassination. Jack's only evidence in support of his claim is Wiegman's film which is so blurry that Zapruder and Sitzman blur into the background, thus only appear to be invisible. Bill Miller Sitzman immediately after the shooting talking to a reporter about her boss just filming the assassination. How motion blur causes images to blend into the background on B&W images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Amazing, you can physically ID Zapruder/Sitzman on that pedestal? Not one person, that I know of, based on viewing EVERY known film/photo taken in the plaza that afternoon can physically ID whose standing on that pedestal. How do YOU do that? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't feel like spending the time to go over the old threads, didn't jack claim that no one was on the pedastal? I do believe in the vast photo archives one can find the Zapruder DP pedestal EMPTY at certain times on Nov 22nd right up to present day. So yeah, Jack's claim is RIGHT! Great starting point. Problem is, no one can ID those caught in pedestal film/photos on Nov 22nd? You saying YOU can? Your mind is like a steel trap there Len, great catch..... Even if Sitman and Zapruder can't be positively ID in the Moorman Polaroid the fact that it shows two people on the pedastal undermines his contention that no one was there. The fact that it was shown on TV 30 minutes later precludes it having been altered. Can you prove that the images showing a empty pedastal were taken at the time S & Z were supposedly there? 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