Len Colby Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 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 don't know if it is so much that Jack's critics pick on him as much as he repetedly thrusts he shoddy analysis upon this (and other I believe) forum(s), He has started so many threads it takes 6 pages just to list them http://tinyurl.com/ramkc . About 90% are about his analysis of such and such an image. His critics quickly point out errors in his conclusions. Normally he neither admits error nor rebutts the debunkings. You'd think if he knew or thought he was right he'd reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 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. No, Bill. What really sticks out is that while you complain about Jack's alteration claims - you seem to continue to read his posts. You know which threads to avoid if you are offended by his claims. I invite YOU to act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 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. Let me ask you a question, Dawn. Here is a hypothetical scenario for you to address ... in one of your trials you have the other side producing a filmed statement of a witness that supports their position. But during your investigation you found that the filmed interview was edited by the opposition to mislead the jury at the expense of your client's freedom. Do you object to the court and ask for sanctions against the opposing side for attempting to decieve the court or do you just say, 'Its OK, Judge ... we like them so lets pretend it didn't happen'? You people seem to not be able to separate Jack from his alteration work, nor do you seem to be able to grasp the damage that it has caused and will continue to cause in the future as unsuspecting readers hear that garbage. Let me share something Groden has said seeing how you trust him so much ... Groden: "The record must remain straight " " " " " " This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all " " " " " " Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case." So Dawn, you either get it or you don't .... things will not change as long as Jack continues to push what Robert called "irresponsible crap that has misled so many people". Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 No, Bill. What really sticks out is that while you complain about Jack's alteration claims - you seem to continue to read his posts. You know which threads to avoid if you are offended by his claims. I invite YOU to act accordingly. Mike, I have always respected your insight on the JFK assassination and agreed with nearly all of it, but in this case you are saying to leave the cancer alone and allow it to spread unchallenged. I find your way of handing this problem by ignoring it to be irresponsible and I cannot allow JFK to not have a voice in this matter. If I had a web page where I could just provide a link to the rebuttals of Jack's claims, then I would be happy with that, but that is not the case at this time. Lancer had such a link at one point and all that work was lost and has never been replaced. In some instances I have sat silent concerning some foolish claim Jack has posted only to have Jack (himself) provoke a response by telling any unsuspected readers that my silence is proof that is claim is valid. What happens when some new researcher reads that response and because to many individuals who are not as knowledgable about the case as you or I will easily be mislead by what appears to be a good alteration claim on the surface - then they too will be spreading that cancer in the name of truth. Garrison was said to have used these words, "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall" ... I agree with them totally. If it is your position to just ignore Jack and not challenge is claims, then you and I will have to agree to disagree. I am really sick and tired of hearing about 'poor Jack' when I think about a poor President who had his head blown apart all over a city street for no other reason than because some people disgreed with his views. That was an attack in my opinion! Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) You people seem to not be able to separate Jack from his alteration work, nor do you seem to be able to grasp the damage that it has caused and will continue to cause in the future as unsuspecting readers hear that garbage. Let me share something Groden has said seeing how you trust him so much ... On the contrary. "We people" are able to separate Jack from his alteration work. It's as if you never read what Robert Charles- Dunne or I or others have posted; you are so immersed in your lifetime plan to counter Jack's claims. What is this damage that we are unable to grasp? Why don't you elaborate on that instead of just claiming it like it was a fact? Who are these "unsuspecting readers" that you refer to? Since you see so fit to offer others advice at every opportunity you get, here's some for you. Why not write a book, or a manuscript, or develop a website on your obsessions? That's what a lot of researchers have done. Have you ever even stopped to consider that the real "damage" to an "unsuspecting reader" might come from seeing you claim to be a researcher; albeit one possessed with a compulsive axe to grind with Jack White? Then they quickly decide that if this is what constitutes research and researchers, they don't want any part of it. What about that damage? Because of your propensity to avoid the perfectly valid points that people make about your obsessions, let me repeat: 1. What is the nature of this damage that people are unable to grasp? 2. What is the profile of an "unsuspecting reader?" and how will your devoting a lifetime to "enlightening them" really affect this case? You just don't get it Bill. You make it seem as if Jack White and his claims of film alteration constitute the entire universe of the case. I happen to know you know a lot more about President Kennedy's murder than just that. But from your posts, no one would ever suspect it. Bill, I had just finished working on this when I saw your latest response. I am going to leave this post as it as it is. But I will respond to what you just said. I am going to get it all off my chest, then I will leave you and Jack (and others) to continue your battles. Edited September 3, 2006 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) 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. Let me ask you a question, Dawn. Here is a hypothetical scenario for you to address ... in one of your trials you have the other side producing a filmed statement of a witness that supports their position. But during your investigation you found that the filmed interview was edited by the opposition to mislead the jury at the expense of your client's freedom. Do you object to the court and ask for sanctions against the opposing side for attempting to decieve the court or do you just say, 'Its OK, Judge ... we like them so lets pretend it didn't happen'? You people seem to not be able to separate Jack from his alteration work, nor do you seem to be able to grasp the damage that it has caused and will continue to cause in the future as unsuspecting readers hear that garbage. Let me share something Groden has said seeing how you trust him so much ... Groden: "The record must remain straight " " " " " " This Zapruder film alteration foolishness has done so much harm, that it can not be measured. It is now spilling over into other areas of the photographic evidence in the Kennedy case. I am extremely frustrated by it all " " " " " " Jack knows how disappointed I am about the damage that has been done by the irresponsible crap that has misled so many people in this case." So Dawn, you either get it or you don't .... things will not change as long as Jack continues to push what Robert called "irresponsible crap that has misled so many people". Bill Miller your herowhorship is showing.... have your hero Robert Groden drop by for a post ot two -- I'm sure we can take up a donation, say $20 bucks to make his effort worthwhile... got a few questions for him regarding Mo Weitzman.... my-oh-my, looks like your obsession caught up to you, FINALLY...... Edited September 3, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) 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. my-gosh... spoken like a true dry-goods photog..... pass the foam-core -- your making a ass out of yourself Edited September 3, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) Have you ever even stopped to consider that the real "damage" to an "unsuspecting reader" might come from seeing you claim to be a researcher; albeit one possessed with a compulsive axe to grind with Jack White? Then they quickly decide that if this is what constitutes research and researchers, they don't want any part of it. What about that damage? Mike, I have posted on this before, so why are you pretending not to heard it? If I were the opposition and wanted to derail a proper investigation based on new evidence towards a conspiracy, I would bring up the alteration claims so to make CT's as a whole look like complete lunatics. Is this fair - absolutely not, but it has been a successful modus-operandi that has worked against us in the past. If there was a conspiracy, then lets show our cards based on responsible research so to be given a voice that can be taken seriously. Jack has a responsibilty as someone who is well known in this field to do everything possible to be accurate. You may not remember this, but I still have some of my original print outs from the threads when this alteration thing first came to light for me on the JFK Research forum ... it may have been you that furnished me with them. The title of my initial responses said 'Jack, I think you may be mistaken' or words to that effect. The tone was light and respectful, but then it was I who was attacked by Jack. Jack gets the blunt of the reprecussions for alteration these days for he is responsible for 98% of all of it. I have been just as vocal against others who have made the same mistakes and I don't just say they are wrong - I show why they are wrong. Let me also remind you of something else ... the alteration threads get more reads than most of the threads on a single page put together. When I visit the plaza each year around the anniversary, I get more querstions pertaining to the alteration claims than anything else. Then I hear people like yourself complain about these threads, but yet you also read them on an obvious regular basis. That's similar to those individuals who complain about the silly stories in the National Enquirer and yet they buy and read each copy that hits the newsstands. The day that my major concern is for Jack White and not attempting to keep the record straight as to what happened to JFK - then that will be the day I walk away from it all. If you wish to complain about something and how it effects the readers of these forums, then address thread after thread of these types of responses ... "my-gosh... spoken like a true dry-goods photog..... pass the foam-core -- your making a ass out of yourself" Bill Miller your herowhorship is showing.... have your hero Robert Groden drop by for a post ot two -- I'm sure we can take up a donation, say $20 bucks to make his effort worthwhile... got a few questions for him regarding Mo Weitzman.... my-oh-my, looks like your obsession caught up to you, FINALLY...... Not "heroworship", David - RESPECT even when I disagree with something he has said. Here is Robert's email address ... RobertG1@airmail.net ... ask him to respond to your concerns and feel free to post them. If you disagree with him, then by all means state your position in rebuttal. I look forward to reading your first attempt at actual research. Bill Miller Edited September 3, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 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. my-gosh... spoken like a true dry-goods photog..... pass the foam-core -- your making a ass out of yourself Ass? No davie that would be you. First I suggest to research the term "drygoods" Your misuse of the word as it applies to my work is very telling..asslike infact...... Second, please for once try defending Jacks ignorant works rather than trying to defend a dishonest man. I've been lmao watching the losers on this fruom defending a MAN who is perhaps one of the most dishonest researchers on the planet. What a wonderful group of people..."dedicated" to finding the truth about JFK yet willing to support a massively dishonest and ignorant peson! What a bunch of hypocrites! No wonder the thinking world considers you all loons. But hey davie how about for ONCE you actually DEFEND the work of White (and Costella too) and tell us how right they both are about the Armstrong shadow.... Oh wait I forgot, you are a chickenxxxx as well as an ass.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) 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. from an online analysis by Timothy Campbell - "An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true xxxxx can not be changed by mere words." The real question is: do some of them do it because it is their "job" so to speak? If you observe a forum for an adequate length of time, you figure out pretty quickly who the trouble makers are. They are the ones who initiate the insults, and when their targets respond in kind, they claim the moral high ground, claiming total innocence and a noble desire to uncover the truth. Their modus operandi is so predictable and similar from forum to forum, it's as if it is the result of some kind of psy ops training. One wonders. Edited September 3, 2006 by Brian Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 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. from an online analysis by Timothy Campbell - "An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true xxxxx can not be changed by mere words." The real question is: do some of them do it because it is their "job" so to speak? If you observe a forum for an adequate length of time, you figure out pretty quickly who the trouble makers are. They are the ones who initiate the insults, and when their targets respond in kind, they claim the moral high ground, claiming total innocence and a noble desire to uncover the truth. Their modus operandi is so predictable and similar from forum to forum, it's as if it is the result of some kind of psy ops training. One wonders. THE TRUTH BITES EH BRIAN? You should learn to deal with truth rather than wallow in some silly paranoid fantasy...and you are living a fantasy, as shown by your remarks. If calling me a xxxxx makes you feel better, then by all means do so. However the TRUTH is that I am highly qualifed to comment on the shabby state of photo interpretation as practiced by many members of this forum including one Jack White. That anyone finds his work OR him as a person to be of merit speaks volumes about the state of intellectual honesty of many members of this forum. That is fact. Learn to deal with it. Watching the ct's on this forum reminds me of this statement: "You cannot use reason to resolve a persons position if they didn't use reason to arrive at it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 3, 2006 Author Share Posted September 3, 2006 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. Thanks, Robert. Very perceptive analysis as usual from the forum's best thinker. The pathological obsessive persons you mention are not smart enought to understand the law of diminishing returns. The more repetitive they get, the less meaning their words have to everyone. Why would anyone even bother to read their postings...since they are all the same? None of them even does ANY research, but they feel free to criticize the work of others. I usually don't read anything they say, except when someone else comments on it. Yet they continually challenge me to reply to their postings which mostly go unread. When they continually call me senile and demented, why should I pay attention to anything they say? But they are "playing to the crowd" anyway; they are attempting to confuse the uninformed. Yes, I do enjoy the perverse compliment of their attacks; it means I am on the right track. As Penn Jones use to say...YOU KNOW YOU MUST BE RIGHT WHEN THE BASTARDS TAKE THE TROUBLE TO ATTACK YOU. Thanks again for your analysis! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Mike, I have always respected your insight on the JFK assassination and agreed with nearly all of it, but in this case you are saying to leave the cancer alone and allow it to spread unchallenged. Can you show where I said that? I find your way of handling this problem by ignoring it to be irresponsible and I cannot allow JFK to not have a voice in this matter. I certainly never suggested you ignore it entirely. If you will go back to my original post, I simply said that your tactics and strategy leave something to be desired. If you really want to "allow JFK a voice in this matter" as you put it, there might be more effective ways to accomplish that. If I had a web page where I could just provide a link to the rebuttals of Jack's claims, then I would be happy with that. For pete's sake, Bill. With your ability to save and manipulate images that should be child's play. At the very least, you could use a blog. Directing people there on basic issues would certainly be a more eloquent way of honoring President Kenenedy's memory that what you are currently doing. Not to mention much more effective than all these individual replies. Some of the time you save might allow you more time to do some new research on other matters. I find it hard to believe that someone would not allow you to piggyback their website. But, if so, there's still a blog. The tone was light and respectful, but then it was I who was attacked by Jack. Jack gets the blunt of the repercussions for alteration these days for he is responsible for 98% of all of it. I have no doubt you really believe that. Just like you believe "no one attacks Jack." What happens when some new researcher reads that response and.... will easily be mislead by what appears to be a good alteration claim on the surface - then they too will be spreading that cancer in the name of truth. Then that researcher will probably have no effect on the eventual outcome of this case. A new researcher is going to read Weisberg, Meagher, Lane and Thompson. For balance he or she is going to read Belin, Ford, and Posner. Then he or she will read Fonzi, Russell, Wrone, Trask, McKnight, Summers, Marrs....Well, you get the idea. (Apologies to dozens of important works I didn't include) Then the new researcher will spend many hours on the internet to learn more. Someday, they might even visit Dealey Plaza if they haven't already. Of course, they will learn a lot by visiting this Forum. But if they are going to form their opinions based soley upon what they read here about alteration, they probably didn't have much of a future anyway. Garrison was said to have used these words, "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall" ... I agree with them totally. Bill, do you think that sets you apart from anyone else on this Forum that has spent a major portion of their life studying or researching this case? If it is your position to just ignore Jack and not challenge is claims, then you and I will have to agree to disagree. Referring back to the first paragraph, I never said that was my position. Tactics & Strategy, Bill. Tactics & strategy. If you are indeed interested in being exact, why don't you quote me? I am really sick and tired of hearing about 'poor Jack.....' Yes Bill, I'm sure you are. Perhaps if every time he posted a claim, you could wait a day or two and give others a chance to voice their opinions, things might be different. But when year after year, you exhibit a reflexive, knee jerk reaction and feel a need to post the same thing you said last week, last month, and last year, always immediately, people just might get the wrong idea. Why not have a little patience and not appear always in such a hurry? Jack has plenty of critics besides you. And he also has supporters. Maybe a lot of that has to do with the way he has comported himself for forty years. How many supporters do you suppose Craig Lamson or David Healey have? While you do not make it a habit to stoop to their level, sometimes you get close. I find it such an empty argument that it's Jack that brings this on himself. If his claims are as empty and ridiculous and absurd as you claim, how are they going to fool anyone in the long run? You don't give other people much credit, do you? .....when I think about a poor President who had his head blown apart all over a city street for no other reason than because some people disgreed with his views. Anyone that has ever seen the Zapruder film was filled with horror, shock, and anger. Some more than others. The fact that our President was murdered in broad daylight in a city street doesn't give you any special dispensation when it comes to searching for the truth. I'm speaking only for myself, but when I see matters like blood spatter and scalp flaps discussed so dispassionately as if it were a high school biology class, and in a constant climate of personal insults, it demeans the memory of John Kennedy and what he stood for. Mike Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 3, 2006 Author Share Posted September 3, 2006 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. from an online analysis by Timothy Campbell - "An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true xxxxx can not be changed by mere words." The real question is: do some of them do it because it is their "job" so to speak? If you observe a forum for an adequate length of time, you figure out pretty quickly who the trouble makers are. They are the ones who initiate the insults, and when their targets respond in kind, they claim the moral high ground, claiming total innocence and a noble desire to uncover the truth. Their modus operandi is so predictable and similar from forum to forum, it's as if it is the result of some kind of psy ops training. One wonders. Thanks, Brian for the definitions of the forum's TROLLS. We are infected by five or six who fit the descriptions exactly. Unless they are demented, they are "doing a job" for someone, for nobody in their right mind would spend 24/7/365 following one person around all internet venues just to heap insults on him. These pests were so vicious on the JFKar forum that they were banished for bad behavior. One of the banishees even hacked that forum and closed it down for several days. These and others have tracked me around for about ten years now, even back to the old alt.jfk forum to heap their insults. As Fletcher Prouty told me..."they attack you because they fear your photoanalysis, which is clear, concise and easily understood by average people". None of them does actual research, they are just somebody's attack dogs. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 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. from an online analysis by Timothy Campbell - "An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true xxxxx can not be changed by mere words." The real question is: do some of them do it because it is their "job" so to speak? If you observe a forum for an adequate length of time, you figure out pretty quickly who the trouble makers are. They are the ones who initiate the insults, and when their targets respond in kind, they claim the moral high ground, claiming total innocence and a noble desire to uncover the truth. Their modus operandi is so predictable and similar from forum to forum, it's as if it is the result of some kind of psy ops training. One wonders. Thanks, Brian for the definitions of the forum's TROLLS. We are infected by five or six who fit the descriptions exactly. Unless they are demented, they are "doing a job" for someone, for nobody in their right mind would spend 24/7/365 following one person around all internet venues just to heap insults on him. These pests were so vicious on the JFKar forum that they were banished for bad behavior. One of the banishees even hacked that forum and closed it down for several days. These and others have tracked me around for about ten years now, even back to the old alt.jfk forum to heap their insults. As Fletcher Prouty told me..."they attack you because they fear your photoanalysis, which is clear, concise and easily understood by average people". None of them does actual research, they are just somebody's attack dogs. Jack ROFLMAO! 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