Hacked again?

[Bill Miller]

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

It is Jack's errors in his alteration work that is being ridiculed, Mike. I have said many times that I only wish we could find where the Zapruder film had been altered, so believing in the possibility is not wrong IMO. As much as you and I have talked about this - I am suprised that you'd not know better.

Bill Miller

[Donald Diabo]

Back to the case...

I wish to pose questions concerning the rifle that was found on the third floor.

Thus, my question; Why would a sniper, manipulate the bolt action to load the fourth bullet, if the goal was met by the "third" bullet?

Did the sniper believe he had sufficient time to make his escape?

Or, did the sniper expect to be caught? (time is of the essence)is it not?

Where is the fourth bullet, that was ejected from the rifle shortly after it was found?

I have not seen nor read any evidence as to its whereabouts.

true, perhaps i have not stumbled upon it, yet!

So help me out.

thanks.

[Craig Lamson]

The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years

I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides;

my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and

Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case.

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter.

A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked.

Sigh, Hogan spews again....

Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool.

Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread.

Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride.

Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation.

And thats a fact.

[

Edited September 2, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Michael Hogan]

It is Jack's errors in his alteration work that is being ridiculed, Mike. I have said many times that I only wish we could find where the Zapruder film had been altered, so believing in the possibility is not wrong IMO. As much as you and I have talked about this - I am suprised that you'd not know better.

Yeah Bill.....sure. Is that why you had to go over to an Apollo thread yesterday to make a reference to Jack and the Zapruder film? Do you want me to go back and get some quotes? And since you saw fit to reference our conversations, let it be said that I told you essentially the same things that I posted in this thread.

What do you mean by the comment, "You are surprised that I would not know better?" I don't even know what you are referring to.

You didn't answer me. Do you really believe your own statement that, "no one attacks Jack....? Want me to get some quotes? How gullible do you think people are?

And yes, I don't like the fact that you mentioned conversations that we had in the past. I'm most certainly not ashamed or embarrassed about anything that was said by me, but that was between you and me, and not members of this Forum. Don't call me Bill, I'll call you.

And lastly, I don't expect you to get this Bill, but my views on Zapruder alteration have absolutely NOTHING to do with my comments about you and Jack. Go back and read them.

I'm going to step out of this thread. I merely gave my opinions and they remain just that. If you want to spend the next five years posting the same stuff over and over and over, be my guest.

[David G. Healy]

The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years

I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides;

my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and

Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case.

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter.

A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked.

Sigh, Hogan spews again....

Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool.

Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread.

Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride.

Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation.

And thats a fact.

what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold.

You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason].

Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63?

[Craig Lamson]

The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years

I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides;

my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and

Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case.

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter.

A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked.

Sigh, Hogan spews again....

Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool.

Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread.

Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride.

Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation.

And thats a fact.

what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold.

You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason].

Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63?

Oh davie, how many times....sheesh.

I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege.

Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie?

Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.

[Evan Burton]

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

If that is a genuine statement, then you'll acknowledge your error made in this thread, won't you:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7761

[Bill Miller]

Yeah Bill.....sure. Is that why you had to go over to an Apollo thread yesterday to make a reference to Jack and the Zapruder film? Do you want me to go back and get some quotes? And since you saw fit to reference our conversations, let it be said that I told you essentially the same things that I posted in this thread.

Mike, I mentioned Jack's poorly researched "JFK assassination alteration claims" which extend well beyond the Zapruder film to Moorman's photo, Betzner's photo, Willis's photo, Bond's photos, Bronson's photo and etc... In fact, I never mentioned the Zapruder film. The reason I mentioned the "JFK assassination alteration claims" is because the same mistakes Jack makes on one alteration topic ... he carries it over onto the next topic. No one is attacking Jack ... and by that I am not saying Jack is a son-of-a-bitch or that he is a deviant of some sort. Instead I am saying that Jack either merely glances at these images that he claims to be altered without carefully studying them or he is just inept at looking for details that would tell him if the image is legit or not. Below is the "EXACT" quote for all to see. I have an interest in the photographical record and how it applies to conspiracy, thus I read the Apollo stuff as well. I meant what I said and I have beaten no bones about my feelings concerning such poor research. I also have stated my feelings about those who put Jack's erred claims ahead of the truth.

From the Apollo thread you (Mike) referenced -

"Evan - you have shown just how inept Jack is at examining images for detail. The points you made are valid and beyond Jack's ability to grasp them. His recent JFK assassination alteration claims are just as poorly researched."

Bill Miller

Edited September 3, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Michael Hogan]

Mike, I mentioned Jack's poorly researched "JFK assassination alteration claims" which extend well beyond the Zapruder film to Moorman's photo, Betzner's photo, Willis's photo, Bond's photos, Bronson's photo and etc... In fact, I never mentioned the Zapruder film.

Bill, since you want to turn this discussion into word games, let it be noted that you left out the word "recent" in quoting yourself above. Why not be exact? (see below)

Below is the "EXACT" quote for all to see.....

"Evan - you have shown just how inept Jack is at examining images for detail. The points you made are valid and beyond Jack's ability to grasp them. His recent JFK assassination alteration claims are just as poorly researched."

You want to spin this into the meaning of the word "recent?" The latest two threads on this Forum that involve you and Jack are all about the Zapruder film.

I have an interest in the photographical record and how it applies to conspiracy, thus I read the Apollo stuff as well. I meant what I said and I have beaten no bones about my feelings concerning such poor research. I also have stated my feelings about those who put Jack's erred claims ahead of the truth.

Sure Bill. Of course you meant what you said. I would hazard to guess that every Forum member knows where you stand when it comes to Jack White. But if you feel it necessary to explain for the umpteenth time, go ahead.

The fact remains Bill, whether you want to address it or not, that you have doggedly repeated the same refrains over and over about Jack White on internet forums for at least five years that I know of. You can spin it, rationalize it, explain it, or see yourself as some sort of keeper of the truth. Whatever.

There comes a point in time where it goes beyond some kind of "quest for the truth" and becomes nothing more than a personal vendetta. The issue is not whether Jack is right or wrong. The issue is, as I said in my original post:

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

Five years, Bill. Five years, you've been doing this. Is it your intention to continue ridiculing Jack's research until he is too old or too frail to post anymore? Do you really think this elevates your status in the so-called research community?

I see that your failed to address any of my points or questions. Your self-made and continued battles on these internet Forums have made you pretty good at ignoring what you find uncomfortable.

So....one more time. Your statement that "no one attacks Jack" is ridiculous. You don't have to call someone a deviant or son-of-a-bitch to attack them. You attempted to explain it away by explaining what YOU do. Whether you have ever attacked him or not has no bearing on your statement that no one attacks him.

In fairness, I also read what Jack White says about you. I've stood up for you when he made the assertion about you being someone else. He is not beyond reproach.

Would it kill you to take the high road just once? Or are you still going to be talking about Moorman five years from now?

Mike Hogan

Edited September 3, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[David G. Healy]

The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years

I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides;

my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and

Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case.

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter.

A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked.

Sigh, Hogan spews again....

Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool.

Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread.

Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride.

Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation.

And thats a fact.

what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold.

You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason].

Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63?

Oh davie, how many times....sheesh.

I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege.

Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie?

Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.

pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore....

What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao!

[Bill Miller]

You want to spin this into the meaning of the word "recent?" The latest two threads on this Forum that involve you and Jack are all about the Zapruder film.

"Recent" means the past decade or so concerning Jack's alteration claims pertaining the photographical record. I view this work separate from his earlier works prior to the Badge Man study.

Sure Bill. Of course you meant what you said. I would hazard to guess that every Forum member knows where you stand when it comes to Jack White. But if you feel it necessary to explain for the umpteenth time, go ahead.

Mike, I respond for those to see that are new to this matter - not for your sake who has been hearing of this for many years. What really sticks out however is that while you complain about my rebutting Jack's alteration claims - you seem to continue to read my responses. You know which threads to avoid if you are offended by my responses, I invite you to act accordingly.

Is it your intention to continue ridiculing Jack's research until he is too old or too frail to post anymore?

You have it wrong, Mike. I am going to ridicule and expose Jack's false claims of alteration until I'm too old and frail to post anymore!

Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

The Zapruder film is NOT THE FOCUS OF MY WORK, only the LATEST. For years

I gave lectures on the entire gamut of JFK information using more than 500 slides;

my specialties until the last few years are The Backyard Photos, The MC Rifle and

Bullets, The Identity of LHO, and All the Photos of the Assassination.

Jack White has repeatedly demonstrated knowledge about events surrounding President Kennedy's murder that borders on the encyclopedic. He is one of the few researchers left that have been there from the beginning, fighting for the truth. His familiarity with others' research extends far beyond just the photographic evidence, even though that is his area of specialty. In addition, Jack has spent his life in the DFW area, which has helped give him certain unique insights into the case.

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

I agree with Robert Charles-Dunne when he said, ...."the Z-film issue is secondary and has been superceded by other evidence in the case." As usual, Robert quickly gets to the heart of a matter.

A few weeks ago, Jack was going to give his thoughts on Donald Norton. I suspect he got sidetracked.

Sigh, Hogan spews again....

Jack is a flake, that much is known for a fact, as witnessed by his total failure to understand the very basics of the subject he claims expert status...photography. This has been proven over and over and over again...his work is the work of a fool.

Jack also cannot tell the truth, again as witnessed by his last post on this thread.

Jack is highly confrontational. I play by HIS rules which he established on the JFK cult forum many years ago. I was attacked by Jack and his cohorts while pointing out in a civil manner that Jack was mistaken about his photographic claims. Since thats the way he chooses to play I am more than happy to play in the very same manner. Period. He gets no free ride.

Am I obsessed with Jack? No. He is simply a very ample and prolific target. That so many of the loon squad find his work compelling only adds to the target base. This place is what one might call a "target rich environment". I am however obsessed with facts and in case you have missed it, Jack offers very little in the way of facts. It's actually the opposite, Jack stock in trade is disinformation.

And thats a fact.

what did you do to deserve monitoring Jack White and his internet posting regarding "conspiracy" related photo's for all these years? Miller, I can understand, for him its avocation/obsession, wanting to fit in, you on the other hand have a professional reputation to uphold.

You actually think this case is going to be determined by altered or NONE altered film/photos? In the recent past over 75% of the American people polled think something is wrong in the way the JFK case was handled, including we were lied too [for whatever reason].

Where do you fit in this equation, other than a self appointed hall monitor? Do you have a vested interest in preserving [as it is today] the photo/film record of Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63?

Oh davie, how many times....sheesh.

I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege.

Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie?

Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.

pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore....

What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao!

I see you are at a loss for words again davie...mind all blocked up with silly ct things. Come on davie deal with the Armstrong shadow. You have all of the information, including the answer. Be a man and not a mindless robot for White and crew. You do have a mind...right? Don't you know that shilling for them has destroyed what little of a reputation you had left? I hope dealing falsehoods was worth it for you.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Dawn Meredith]

Oh davie, how many times....sheesh.

I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege.

Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie?

Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.

pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore....

What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao!

I see you are at a loss for words again davie...mind all blocked up with silly ct things. Come on davie deal with the Armstrong shadow. You have all of the information, including the answer. Be a man and not a mindless robot for White and crew. You do have a mind...right? Don't you know that shilling for them has destroyed what little of a reputation you had left? I hope dealing falsehoods was worth it for you.

Craig, Bill, David

Why are you guys so damn mean to each other? And what does all of this have to do with being hacked?

Dawn

Leave Jack the hell alone ok. You've offered your opinions about 7,000 times now. Enough already. We don't care. We like and respect Jack.

I take no position on the Z film. If it was altered it still leaves in the headshot....the proof of conspiracy that got this case rolling early on. Attorney Vince Salandria was, I believe, the first to point out the backward motion, using stills from the Z film. I concur with RCD that this issue is secondary. Beyond secondary.

The issues are why was JFK killed and how can we get the media to tell the truth.

Now that Nellie is gone, taking many secrets with her to the grave, this seems a good time to try to get some media people with a quest for truth.

[Craig Lamson]

Oh davie, how many times....sheesh.

I do it FOR ENTERTAINMANT! Its as simple as that. You fools are better than the sitcoms! And it actually improves my photography knowlege.

Now, how about dealing with the pesky Armstrong shadow? What are you afraid of davie? If you could prove me wrong I know you would do it in a heartbeat. Problem is you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is prove White and that nutjob Costella wrong and thats just not something you want to do is it davie?

Your failure to deal with this shows just how dishonest you are.

pour yourself another glass of wine Craigster -- you're obsessive-compulsive when it comes to Jack White and his theories.... When Bill Miller farts, you yell it wasn't me.... Who the hell do you think your kidding..... when the GANG squeaks you're looking for something to oil..... Pass the foamcore....

What was that NASA control number again.....? roflmao!

I see you are at a loss for words again davie...mind all blocked up with silly ct things. Come on davie deal with the Armstrong shadow. You have all of the information, including the answer. Be a man and not a mindless robot for White and crew. You do have a mind...right? Don't you know that shilling for them has destroyed what little of a reputation you had left? I hope dealing falsehoods was worth it for you.

Craig, Bill, David

Why are you guys so damn mean to each other? And what does all of this have to do with being hacked?

Dawn

Leave Jack the hell alone ok. You've offered your opinions about 7,000 times now. Enough already. We don't care. We like and respect Jack.

I take no position on the Z film. If it was altered it still leaves in the headshot....the proof of conspiracy that got this case rolling early on. Attorney Vince Salandria was, I believe, the first to point out the backward motion, using stills from the Z film. I concur with RCD that this issue is secondary. Beyond secondary.

The issues are why was JFK killed and how can we get the media to tell the truth.

Now that Nellie is gone, taking many secrets with her to the grave, this seems a good time to try to get some media people with a quest for truth.

Take a hike Dawn...if you like and respect someone as dishonest as Jack you are worthless.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

There comes a point in time where it goes beyond some kind of "quest for the truth" and becomes nothing more than a personal vendetta. The issue is not whether Jack is right or wrong. The issue is, as I said in my original post:

The fact that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson and others have spent at least the last five years on various forums ridiculing Jack for his alteration beliefs speaks more to their obsessions than Jack's, in my opinion. Bill rationalizes his efforts by casting them as a some sort of "truth-seeking" endeavor, however five repetitive years somehow speak to other motivations. Bill is a capable photo researcher, but he dilutes his effectiveness with questionable tactics and strategy in many cases. Again, that's just my opinion.

Five years, Bill. Five years, you've been doing this. Is it your intention to continue ridiculing Jack's research until he is too old or too frail to post anymore? Do you really think this elevates your status in the so-called research community?

Spot on, Michael! I first witnessed this endlessly repetitive floorshow nearly ten years ago on another forum, and little has changed other than some of the players. Jack is sometimes accused of being cranky toward his critics. Little wonder. How many decades of abuse and invective is one required to tolerate before one's crankiness is understandable?

The detractors will rush to assure us that they attack the man's work, and not the man. Such assertions are belied by the frequent use of terms such as "senile," "disturbed," "demented," or worse. Aside from coarsening the level of debate to a point where the faint of heart no longer wish to bear witness, these false assertions insult the intelligence of those bystanders to whom they are directed, as though we cannot distinguish between what they say and what they claim to say. [some are more guilty than others.]

One also notes that no single one of Jack's detractors is particularly competent, or it wouldn't require a half dozen of them to trail and mock his every post or thread in tag-team fashion.

In their more polite moments, most of Jack's critics will allow that he did some good work "back in the day," be it on the backyard photos or the Badgeman discovery, or what have you. As it should be. Whether Jack is ultimately right or wrong about this or that contention, he's long since earned his footnote in history for his dogged pursuit of resolution in the area of photo evidence. One wonders what footnotes will be earned by those who have contributed little more than scorn. What great discoveries have they made? What contributions toward helping settle this case?

The funny thing is, my observations come from somebody who really doesn't care whether the Z-film has been altered or not. If even so disinterested a bystander can be made to feel such antipathy toward Jack's detractors, the game plan being pursued is clearly counterproductive to the intended aim.

At a certain point, obsessively single-minded attacks on an opponent stop being about research and become pathological. This obsessive behaviour doesn't flatter those who indulge in it. The more vitriol they pour on, the less flattering it becomes, and the fewer people will read their pearls of wisdom.

Unfortunately, that's not the least flattering or disturbing possible explanation for their 24-7 zeal in trailing Jack's wake. A more ominous explanation suggests itself, and Jack could be paid no greater - or more perverse - compliment.