Where have all the SBT/WCR supporters gone?

[Charles Black]

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while.

I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you!

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions???

Bill Miller

no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please....

Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again?

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture...

In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker.

WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules.

uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter?

Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we?

Mr. Lamson

I am impressed. I wonder why you are so adamant regarding my posts ! Could it be that I say things that irritate you?

Are you really going to tell the teacher?

Healy is absolutely correct. My picture was not a requirement, tho what I said about posting it is fact.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Charles Black

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

LOL, I've been aware of Charlie for a long while.

I do however notice, you can't tackle a few thread related simple questions, can't support your SBT/lone nutter way's...? shame on you!

An immediate decision had to be made to excise these frames. Frame excision, tho very crude, had to be performed. This excision, although it removed the damning evidence, produced an unwanted effect.

It produced a VERY unnatural reaction to a bullet strikng anywere on a human body.

A decision had to be made:

1) Destroy the film

2) Allow the gunman and conspiracy to be seen and acknowleged

3) Excise the frames necessary to remove proof of conspiracy.

Number three was chosen. It was believed by the decision makers, that even tho this excision produced a very unrealistic reaction to a bullet strike, that not very many lay people would recognize it as such. This proved to be correct !

Charlie, your theory seems to be as made up as the SBT was. How would altering the Zfilm keep one from seeing the gunman when the camera was trained on the immediate area of the limo??? I might also add that professional experts have viewed the film and their experience and expertise state that the actions seen on the film is real and what they would expect to see, thus what expertise can you offer to refute their conclusions???

Bill Miller

no comment on the questions posted above? Are they beyond you? Stretch a bit, show us some JFK research abilities, specifics please....

Davie...I don't care a bit about the SBT nor the WC report nor do I give a rat butts about who did or did not fire the shots that killed JFK. Why should I be answering your silly questions again?

Mr. Black, where is your picture and bio? I'm sure Healy willl be asking you the very same thing with his next post.

Mr Lamson

My equipment at the present time will not allow me to post a photo. This is my 85th post on this forum and I have no idea that any additional Bio. is

required. Since I have not been active here for over a year, I do not understand your response.

Why are you so eager to ask ?

Charlie Black

Lets see now, you can post to this forum yet you cannot post a picture...

In any case a picture and a bio are a requirement for posting on this forum. I suggest you read the rules and then post both your picture and your bio. I would sure hate to take this to Simkin or Walker.

WHy am I eger to ask? Why not? You are breaking forum rules.

uh-uh-UH notty boy....not a forum rule when we were asked to join.....the above questions got you tongue-tied? Trying to change the subject matter?

Really? Lets ask Mr. Simkin shall we?

Mr. Lamson

I am impressed. I wonder why you are so adamant regarding my posts ! Could it be that I say things that irritate you?

Are you really going to tell the teacher?

Healy is absolutely correct. My picture was not a requirement, tho what I said about posting it is fact.

No Mr. Black your posting on the alteration of the Zapruder film did not irritate me in the slightest. I did however find it highly amusing. Thanks for the laughs.

[Charles Black]

Craig

For the laughs, you are quite welcome.

I would imagine that some of my forthcoming posts will really put you in hysterics.

Charlie Black

[Michael Crane]

Isn`t it AMAZING that I myself,and probably the majority of members on this forum,are not surprised that any of the questions that were asked at the beginning of this thread,still remain un-answered?Needless to say... I am very dis-appointed (but I will get over it)

[John Simkin]

Isn`t it AMAZING that I myself,and probably the majority of members on this forum,are not surprised that any of the questions that were asked at the beginning of this thread,still remain un-answered?Needless to say... I am very dis-appointed (but I will get over it)

Yes, they only seem interested in making personal attacks on Conspiracy Theorists. I have started a new thread on this issue:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8202

I recommend other researchers add questions that lone nutters should try and answer.

[Craig Lamson]

Isn`t it AMAZING that I myself,and probably the majority of members on this forum,are not surprised that any of the questions that were asked at the beginning of this thread,still remain un-answered?Needless to say... I am very dis-appointed (but I will get over it)

Yes, they only seem interested in making personal attacks on Conspiracy Theorists. I have started a new thread on this issue:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8202

I recommend other researchers add questions that lone nutters should try and answer.

Who is "They"? Slattery seems to be a LN. I'm not nor is Bill. When does one become they?

You have yet to answer the question as to why Mr. Black has no pic nor bio posted. Are you ever going to answer?

[Charles Black]

Craig

If you consider yourself a "man" why are you hiding in the relative security of a forum and not addressing ME PERSONALLY about your problem. At the same time that you complain about me, you should request also that all members photos be notarized, and authenticity dated, as to when the photos were taken. Then we would not have pictures on the forum that are thirty years old and in all practicality "worthless."

I apologize to the remainder of the forum for my outburst, but Craig Lamson has requested that John Simkin remove me from the forum because of my failure to have a photo posted. When I became a member of this forum, a photo was not required. I do not have a scanner and could not post a photo even if I cared to.....which I now don't care to do!

So if nothing more is heard from me, it is because Craig Lamson demanded my dismissal.

Charlie Black mig-15@webtv.net

[Craig Lamson]

Craig

If you consider yourself a "man" why are you hiding in the relative security of a forum and not addressing ME PERSONALLY about your problem. At the same time that you complain about me, you should request also that all members photos be notarized, and authenticity dated, as to when the photos were taken. Then we would not have pictures on the forum that are thirty years old and in all practicality "worthless."

I apologize to the remainder of the forum for my outburst, but Craig Lamson has requested that John Simkin remove me from the forum because of my failure to have a photo posted. When I became a member of this forum, a photo was not required. I do not have a scanner and could not post a photo even if I cared to.....which I now don't care to do!

So if nothing more is heard from me, it is because Craig Lamson demanded my dismissal.

Charlie Black mig-15@webtv.net

Wow. Can you read? Please show me WHERE I asked for your removal from this forum.

1. I DID ask you personally, in this very thread.

2. I asked for Mr. Simkins reply because HE makes the rules. HIS rule states that a member SHOULD post a picture and MUST post a bio. Simkin has threatened a number of members with removal for not having a picture and bio. I am simply wonderting WHY you are somhow different.

3. The bio"s (which are a requirement for membership per Simkins rules) provide the members a valuable service...they allow us a little insight ito the credential os the posters.

4. I actually agree that the photo rule is stupid, and in fac t Simkin can't even enforce the rule as he has written it. That said, its how he does business here and if he can demand some to post a picture or face removal, he should demand it of all.

5. MY original question about your pricture and bio were posted MAINLY for David Healy. Seems Healy likes to play "where's your picture" with members all the time. Interesting to see him weasel away this time.

6. Finally I really dont care what you look like or what your background is. Your stupid outburst speaks volumes. You sir are a moron.

[Jack White]

Craig

If you consider yourself a "man" why are you hiding in the relative security of a forum and not addressing ME PERSONALLY about your problem. At the same time that you complain about me, you should request also that all members photos be notarized, and authenticity dated, as to when the photos were taken. Then we would not have pictures on the forum that are thirty years old and in all practicality "worthless."

I apologize to the remainder of the forum for my outburst, but Craig Lamson has requested that John Simkin remove me from the forum because of my failure to have a photo posted. When I became a member of this forum, a photo was not required. I do not have a scanner and could not post a photo even if I cared to.....which I now don't care to do!

So if nothing more is heard from me, it is because Craig Lamson demanded my dismissal.

Charlie Black mig-15@webtv.net

Lamson is NOT A JFK RESEARCHER, only a pretender. He first appeared on forums to attempt to debunk my APOLLO FAKED MOON PHOTOS. He was then recruited by The Gang to harass all my postings on any subject, since he is expert at invective and insults. My question is how does an expert commercial photographer have the spare time to xxxxx forums like this on subjects in which he has no interest, motive or incentive. Most pro photographers I know put in full days with busy photo work. His business must be very bad. Probably calls clients bad names.

Jack

[Charles Black]

Craig's response to me, quote "you sir are a moron"

is accepted by me and acknowleged as a compliment of the highest order. I will proudly often mention this as an affirmation of my credentials !

My warmest and deepest thanks Craig.

Charlie Black

[John Simkin]

Wow. Can you read? Please show me WHERE I asked for your removal from this forum.

1. I DID ask you personally, in this very thread.

2. I asked for Mr. Simkins reply because HE makes the rules. HIS rule states that a member SHOULD post a picture and MUST post a bio. Simkin has threatened a number of members with removal for not having a picture and bio. I am simply wonderting WHY you are somhow different.

3. The bio"s (which are a requirement for membership per Simkins rules) provide the members a valuable service...they allow us a little insight ito the credential os the posters.

4. I actually agree that the photo rule is stupid, and in fac t Simkin can't even enforce the rule as he has written it. That said, its how he does business here and if he can demand some to post a picture or face removal, he should demand it of all.

5. MY original question about your pricture and bio were posted MAINLY for David Healy. Seems Healy likes to play "where's your picture" with members all the time. Interesting to see him weasel away this time.

6. Finally I really dont care what you look like or what your background is. Your stupid outburst speaks volumes. You sir are a moron.

The reason for the photograph rule is that it is an attempt to humanize communications. It was hoped that this would improve people’s behaviour. In Craig’s case this has clearly failed.

This thread was started in order to persuade LNs to engage in intellectual argument. People like Craig and Brendan are only interested in insulting members who believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. When this thread started to disintegrate into personal insults I started another thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8202

However, it is clear that Craig and Brendan are not interested in intellectual argument and have ignored attempts to enter into debate.

It is hard not to conclude from this that the main purpose of Craig and Brendan being on this forum is to stir up trouble.

Lamson is NOT A JFK RESEARCHER, only a pretender. He first appeared on forums to attempt to debunk my APOLLO FAKED MOON PHOTOS. He was then recruited by The Gang to harass all my postings on any subject, since he is expert at invective and insults. My question is how does an expert commercial photographer have the spare time to xxxxx forums like this on subjects in which he has no interest, motive or incentive. Most pro photographers I know put in full days with busy photo work. His business must be very bad. Probably calls clients bad names.

Several months ago when Craig was trying to defend Bush's corrupt activities he said that one of his main sources of income was from shares in Halliburton.

[Shanet Clark]

Charles Black is a renowned and respected authority, one of the thoughtful moderators

of the member's educational international forum.

Efforts to besmirch this founding members probity and fairness are bound to fail.

I call upon the members to insist upon more propriety and less infantile slander.

Mr. Simkins is doing an excellent job in the face of difficult obstructions and

suspicious distractions............the threads he starts are excellent as are the

SPARTACUS files

shanet

october o6

[Craig Lamson]

Wow. Can you read? Please show me WHERE I asked for your removal from this forum.

1. I DID ask you personally, in this very thread.

2. I asked for Mr. Simkins reply because HE makes the rules. HIS rule states that a member SHOULD post a picture and MUST post a bio. Simkin has threatened a number of members with removal for not having a picture and bio. I am simply wonderting WHY you are somhow different.

3. The bio"s (which are a requirement for membership per Simkins rules) provide the members a valuable service...they allow us a little insight ito the credential os the posters.

4. I actually agree that the photo rule is stupid, and in fac t Simkin can't even enforce the rule as he has written it. That said, its how he does business here and if he can demand some to post a picture or face removal, he should demand it of all.

5. MY original question about your pricture and bio were posted MAINLY for David Healy. Seems Healy likes to play "where's your picture" with members all the time. Interesting to see him weasel away this time.

6. Finally I really dont care what you look like or what your background is. Your stupid outburst speaks volumes. You sir are a moron.

The reason for the photograph rule is that it is an attempt to humanize communications. It was hoped that this would improve people’s behaviour. In Craig’s case this has clearly failed.

This thread was started in order to persuade LNs to engage in intellectual argument. People like Craig and Brendan are only interested in insulting members who believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. When this thread started to disintegrate into personal insults I started another thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8202

However, it is clear that Craig and Brendan are not interested in intellectual argument and have ignored attempts to enter into debate.

It is hard not to conclude from this that the main purpose of Craig and Brendan being on this forum is to stir up trouble.

Lamson is NOT A JFK RESEARCHER, only a pretender. He first appeared on forums to attempt to debunk my APOLLO FAKED MOON PHOTOS. He was then recruited by The Gang to harass all my postings on any subject, since he is expert at invective and insults. My question is how does an expert commercial photographer have the spare time to xxxxx forums like this on subjects in which he has no interest, motive or incentive. Most pro photographers I know put in full days with busy photo work. His business must be very bad. Probably calls clients bad names.

Several months ago when Craig was trying to defend Bush's corrupt activities he said that one of his main sources of income was from shares in Halliburton.

Ok lets see John, First once again you have FAILED to answer a simple question? Why? What exactly do you have to hide? Mr. Black has no photo, nor does he have a BIO. Both are part of the membership rules you posted for this forum. You have failed to tell the entire forum why Mr. Black is exempt? In the past you have threatened merbers without a photo with removal unless a photo and or bio were posted. Again why is Mr. Black not required to post them, and why are YOU skirting the question.

The irony here is wonderful. John Simkin, socialist, creating a protected class of people.

Then you wrote this little ditty:

"Several months ago when Craig was trying to defend Bush's corrupt activities he said that one of his main sources of income was from shares in Halliburton."

I said nothing of the sort. I noted that I held stock in Halliburton, as do many citizens of the US. I also said I have made a profit from my investment. NOWHERE did I indicate what portion of my total imcome came from my shares of Haliburton stock.

What we have is yet another example of a 'historian" re-writing history to suit some silly fantasy playing out in his mind. Simkins writing in no way reflect the reality of the actual exchange, which , if one is interested can be found in this very forum.

Finally I'm NOT interested in silly intellectual arguments. My goal is simple. Point out the TRUTH about the various photographic claims made on this forum. Either you can handle the truth and then fit that truth into whatever worldview you hold, (which would be the intellectually honest thing to do) or you cant.

It's pretty clear that a large part of the posting members of this forum fall into group two, the "I can't handle the truth" group.

It appears the facts and the truth upsets these intellectually dishonest people. Too bad.

Edited October 15, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Simkin]

Ok lets see John, First once again you have FAILED to answer a simple question? Why? What exactly do you have to hide? Mr. Black has no photo, nor does he have a BIO. Both are part of the membership rules you posted for this forum. You have failed to tell the entire forum why Mr. Black is exempt? In the past you have threatened merbers without a photo with removal unless a photo and or bio were posted. Again why is Mr. Black not required to post them, and why are YOU skirting the question.

The irony here is wonderful. John Simkin, socialist, creating a protected class of people.

Charlie has been asked to provide a biography and a photograph. He does not own a scanner and he is sending me the photograph by post. He assures me the biography will be with me in the next few days.

[David G. Healy]

Wow. Can you read? Please show me WHERE I asked for your removal from this forum.

1. I DID ask you personally, in this very thread.

2. I asked for Mr. Simkins reply because HE makes the rules. HIS rule states that a member SHOULD post a picture and MUST post a bio. Simkin has threatened a number of members with removal for not having a picture and bio. I am simply wonderting WHY you are somhow different.

3. The bio"s (which are a requirement for membership per Simkins rules) provide the members a valuable service...they allow us a little insight ito the credential os the posters.

4. I actually agree that the photo rule is stupid, and in fac t Simkin can't even enforce the rule as he has written it. That said, its how he does business here and if he can demand some to post a picture or face removal, he should demand it of all.

5. MY original question about your pricture and bio were posted MAINLY for David Healy. Seems Healy likes to play "where's your picture" with members all the time. Interesting to see him weasel away this time.

6. Finally I really dont care what you look like or what your background is. Your stupid outburst speaks volumes. You sir are a moron.

The reason for the photograph rule is that it is an attempt to humanize communications. It was hoped that this would improve people’s behaviour. In Craig’s case this has clearly failed.

This thread was started in order to persuade LNs to engage in intellectual argument. People like Craig and Brendan are only interested in insulting members who believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. When this thread started to disintegrate into personal insults I started another thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8202

However, it is clear that Craig and Brendan are not interested in intellectual argument and have ignored attempts to enter into debate.

It is hard not to conclude from this that the main purpose of Craig and Brendan being on this forum is to stir up trouble.

Lamson is NOT A JFK RESEARCHER, only a pretender. He first appeared on forums to attempt to debunk my APOLLO FAKED MOON PHOTOS. He was then recruited by The Gang to harass all my postings on any subject, since he is expert at invective and insults. My question is how does an expert commercial photographer have the spare time to xxxxx forums like this on subjects in which he has no interest, motive or incentive. Most pro photographers I know put in full days with busy photo work. His business must be very bad. Probably calls clients bad names.

Several months ago when Craig was trying to defend Bush's corrupt activities he said that one of his main sources of income was from shares in Halliburton.

Ok lets see John, First once again you have FAILED to answer a simple question? Why? What exactly do you have to hide? Mr. Black has no photo, nor does he have a BIO. Both are part of the membership rules you posted for this forum. You have failed to tell the entire forum why Mr. Black is exempt? In the past you have threatened merbers without a photo with removal unless a photo and or bio were posted. Again why is Mr. Black not required to post them, and why are YOU skirting the question.

The irony here is wonderful. John Simkin, socialist, creating a protected class of people.

Then you wrote this little ditty:

"Several months ago when Craig was trying to defend Bush's corrupt activities he said that one of his main sources of income was from shares in Halliburton."

I said nothing of the sort. I noted that I held stock in Halliburton, as do many citizens of the US. I also said I have made a profit from my investment. NOWHERE did I indicate what portion of my total imcome came from my shares of Haliburton stock.

What we have is yet another example of a 'historian" re-writing history to suit some silly fantasy playing out in his mind. Simkins writing in no way reflect the reality of the actual exchange, which , if one is interested can be found in this very forum.

Finally I'm NOT interested in silly intellectual arguments. My goal is simple. Point out the TRUTH about the various photographic claims made on this forum. Either you can handle the truth and then fit that truth into whatever worldview you hold, (which would be the intellectually honest thing to do) or you cant.

It's pretty clear that a large part of the posting members of this forum fall into group two, the "I can't handle the truth" group.

It appears the facts and the truth upsets these intellectually dishonest people. Too bad.

dgh: Latterday - war profiteer? Haliburton? Hell, photogs aren't THAT smart - lest wise "newsies" aren't. You know, those that bring, deliver the unvarnished truth.

The tards won't debate JFK assassination related evidence so they strike up the band with, "my mother made me post a picture here, where's yours?" ---lol, you've advanced the Lone Neuter cause about minus, -10 yards. KUTYGW!

Not much doubt to what your presence on this forum means....

Edited October 15, 2006 by David G. Healy