Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Bill,Thank you for those words which after all are merely your opinion. I respect your well mannered and measured words but do not refer to me again either obliquely or directly as being an 'idiot'. EBC "there are either people who come to this forums with the intention of making CT's look like complete idiots by taking poor images and playing the 'see what I see game' or there really are complete idiots who post on this forum." I will leave your post as a testimonial to which category you fall under. Your post is obtuse, contrived and convoluted - purposely designed to be ambiguous, insulting and offensive. EBC Edited February 2, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 You post is obtuse, contrived and convoluted - purposely designed to be ambiguous, insulting and offensive. EBC The same can be said about your research practices and the results that come from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) You post is obtuse, contrived and convoluted - purposely designed to be ambiguous, insulting and offensive. EBC The same can be said about your research practices and the results that come from them. We are talking here about your obnoxious behaviour and not about my 'research practices' and the 'results' that 'come' from them EBC Edited January 31, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 We are talking here about your obnoxious behaviour and not about my 'research practices' and the 'results' that 'come' from them EBC It seems to me that one has stemmed from the other. So let us ask ourselves this question: If we are allegedlty searching for the truth here, then which of us does the most damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) It seems to me that one has stemmed from the other. So let us ask ourselves this question: If we are allegedlty searching for the truth here, then which of us does the most damage? ....... then which of us does the most damage? If we are both allegedly searching for the truth then the answer to the question: "Which of us does the most damage?" can only be neither of us since the truth cannot be damaged by anyone. The truth will out regardless. Undamaged and glorious. It seems to me that one has stemmed from the other Why should this be? The path to the truth can be tortuous. Some may want to get to the truth quicker and faster. The truth is,however, elusive and may hide itself in the twists and turns of the road. Let us not despise those who take detours or meander down unbeaten tracks. EBC Edited January 31, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) The path to the truth can be tortuous. Some may want to get to the truth quicker and faster.The truth is,however, elusive and may hide itself in the twists and turns of the road. Let us not despise those who take detours or meander down unbeaten tracks. EBC We will have to agree to disagree for the truth in my opinion cannot be found by bypassing the better images in order to play "Where's Waldo" in the poorer ones. That is exactly how white shirted muggers that never existed are born. Bill Edited January 31, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) We will have to agree to disagree for the truth in my opinion cannot be found by bypassing the better images in order to play "Where's Waldo" in the poorer ones. That is exactly how white shirted muggers that never existed are born. Bill We will have to agree to disagree. Bill, Of course! Haven't I already made this clear!? I hereby agree to disagree with you and trust that you agree to disagree with me. I only hope you can extend the same courtesy to other forum members. Thank you. Finis EBC Edited February 1, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Bill,Of course! Haven't I already made this clear!? I hereby agree to disagree with you and trust that you agree to disagree with me. I only hope you can extend the same courtesy to other forum members. Thank you. EBC EBC, Feel free to sit all the other better assassination images aside that would be more reliable and play "Where's Waldo" in the poor severely blurred B&W films and photos. I have pointed out the flaws in taking such an approach, but you are entitled to do as you like just as the rest of the research community is entitled to think you are off your rocker. Personally, I have not seen anything like it. To take the approach that some of you do is like choosing to use a dirty window to look through so to make your observations rather than using a clean one. Don't take the criticism personally for I would look just as deservingly silly if I took that approach as well. Bill Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Bill,Of course! Haven't I already made this clear!? I hereby agree to disagree with you and trust that you agree to disagree with me. I only hope you can extend the same courtesy to other forum members. Thank you. EBC EBC, Feel free to sit all the other better assassination images aside that would be more reliable and play "Where's Waldo" in the poor severely blurred B&W films and photos. I have pointed out the flaws in taking such an approach, but you are entitled to do as you like just as the rest of the research community is entitled to think you are off your rocker. Personally, I have not seen anything like it. To take the approach that some of you do is like choosing to use a dirty window to look through so to make your observations rather than using a clean one. Don't take the criticism personally for I would look just as deservingly silly if I took that approach as well. Bill Bill Bill, I fear your inherent bile is now resurfacing. You're being supercilious again,Bill! It seems our recent exchange has been totally lost on you. Thank you for the 'you are off your rocker'comment. Highly amusing! I haven't heard or read that phrase in years probably because nobody uses it or talks like that any more. On the other hand maybe you hear it every day. Thank you again, Bill and for the last time......... Keep on interpereting Photos,everybody! Finis EBC Edited February 1, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Keep on interpereting Photos,everybody! EBC You are another one who seems to have a desire to post silly things in an attempt to make CT's look foolish. Feel free to show me this person in the Betzner, Willis, or Moorman photos, not to mention the Nix and Bronson images. I look forward to seeing a reasonable and precise reply for a change instead of a continuing desire to use degraded images in an attempt to make something out of nothing. Edited February 1, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Bill,Thank you for those words which after all are merely your opinion. I respect your well mannered and measured words but do not refer to me again either obliquely or directly as being an 'idiot'. EBC "there are either people who come to this forums with the intention of making CT's look like complete idiots by taking poor images and playing the 'see what I see game' or there really are complete idiots who post on this forum." I will leave your post as a testimonial to which category you fall under. You post is obtuse, contrived and convoluted - purposely designed to be ambiguous, insulting and offensive. EBC This post is clear, simple and to the point, designed for clear understanding of its accurate message. Congratulations. Jack PS. You will never get the last word with "Miller". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 This post is clear, simple and to the point, designed for clear understandingof its accurate message. Congratulations. Jack OK, Jack - how about you offering a clear and precise response for a change. The alleged figure has been said to be on the pedestal (presumably with its arm on Sitzman's hip) when viewed from the Betzner or Wiegman line of sight and in post #176 the figure is alleged to be seen just south of the notch in the wall. Is it your position that this alleged figure is running all over hell in these images or could it be that you guys are confusing the background as a figure and the different angles at which these films and photos have been taken to the knoll have caused the background to shift which you have failed to pick up on so far??? Please be precise and stay on point if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Photo from Jack. B Edited February 1, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Photo from Jack.B Person 1. A poorly "enhanced" crop of a low resolution internet image that shows a jumbled up mess of JPG artifacts. This image is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Photo from Jack.B Person 1. A poorly "enhanced" crop of a low resolution internet image that shows a jumbled up mess of JPG artifacts. This image is useless. Jack was asked for a precise and informative response and all he offered in return was that severely degraded ridiculous image. I will present the issue once again ... OK, Jack - how about you offering a clear and precise response for a change. The alleged figure has been said to be on the pedestal (presumably with its arm on Sitzman's hip) when viewed from the Betzner or Wiegman line of sight and in post #176 the figure is alleged to be seen just south of the notch in the wall. Is it your position that this alleged figure is running all over hell in these images or could it be that you guys are confusing the background as a figure and the different angles at which these films and photos have been taken to the knoll have caused the background to shift which you have failed to pick up on so far??? Please be precise and stay on point if you can. The alternative is pretty simple. Either the background has shifted between photographer locations which has caused the alleged figure to go from the pedestal to the notch in the concrete wall .... or it is a real person who is dancing around the knoll like Fred Astaire in an old movie with Ginger Rogers. Now you guys can start posting how you see Fred's dance partner. 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