Discussion:
60s technology no match for today's
Add Reply
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-09 16:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.

But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!

People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).

In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.

Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.

For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed

Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-08-10 15:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
To me the problem is not fake news. It's not that what they tell us is
untrue, it's what they leave out that creates the false impressions. Fox
is as guilty of this as MSNBC and CNN. The just leave out different
parts.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
If the problem is as I stated that it is the things that are left out
which create the false impressions, it would stand to reason that by
listening to both Fox and MSNBC and combining what they tell me I would
get the whole story. The only problem with that is if I listen to MSNBC
for more than 30 seconds, my blood pressure rises to dangerous levels.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
I think that has always been the case. The term yellow journalism goes
back to the 1890s and was used to describe the practices of the Hearst
chain of newspapers. Hearst wasn't the inventor of yellow journalism. He's
just the one the term was first applied to.
Post by d***@gmail.com
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
I just wish I could find a trusted news source.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
Maybe they could to fool the naked eye but probably not a forensic
examination.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-11 05:59:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
To me the problem is not fake news. It's not that what they tell us is
untrue, it's what they leave out that creates the false impressions. Fox
is as guilty of this as MSNBC and CNN. The just leave out different
parts.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
If the problem is as I stated that it is the things that are left out
which create the false impressions, it would stand to reason that by
listening to both Fox and MSNBC and combining what they tell me I would
get the whole story. The only problem with that is if I listen to MSNBC
for more than 30 seconds, my blood pressure rises to dangerous levels.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
I think that has always been the case. The term yellow journalism goes
back to the 1890s and was used to describe the practices of the Hearst
chain of newspapers. Hearst wasn't the inventor of yellow journalism. He's
just the one the term was first applied to.
Post by d***@gmail.com
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
I just wish I could find a trusted news source.
Large Canine:

When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.

... which is precisely the reason why they are hated so much by Trump
voters.

I am sure you have seen the typical education (of lack thereof) among
supporters of the Tramp.

David Emerling strikes me as a proud graduate of Trump U.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

=========================

Scientists Hate the GOP for a Reason

“One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the
move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the
Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics
for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts
scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary
theory to what does and doesn’t prevent pregnancy.

“Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55
percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, 68 Nobel-winning
scientists co-signed a strong endorsement of Obama, saying that the
President ...

“has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based
decision making.”
bigdog
2018-08-11 22:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
To me the problem is not fake news. It's not that what they tell us is
untrue, it's what they leave out that creates the false impressions. Fox
is as guilty of this as MSNBC and CNN. The just leave out different
parts.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
If the problem is as I stated that it is the things that are left out
which create the false impressions, it would stand to reason that by
listening to both Fox and MSNBC and combining what they tell me I would
get the whole story. The only problem with that is if I listen to MSNBC
for more than 30 seconds, my blood pressure rises to dangerous levels.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
I think that has always been the case. The term yellow journalism goes
back to the 1890s and was used to describe the practices of the Hearst
chain of newspapers. Hearst wasn't the inventor of yellow journalism. He's
just the one the term was first applied to.
Post by d***@gmail.com
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
I just wish I could find a trusted news source.
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Just one question. Are you freaking serious. Most of universities have
become bastions of liberalism whose mission is to indoctrinate, not
educate their students. They are some of the last places I would turn to
for a trusted source of information.
Post by Piotr Mancini
... which is precisely the reason why they are hated so much by Trump
voters.
Not being a Trump voter, I wouldn't know.
Post by Piotr Mancini
I am sure you have seen the typical education (of lack thereof) among
supporters of the Tramp.
Sounds like typical liberal elitism. There are plenty of low information
voters on both ends of the political spectrum and plenty of highly
educated Trump supporters.
Post by Piotr Mancini
David Emerling strikes me as a proud graduate of Trump U.
You must not have been reading the things he has been writing about Trump.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 19:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
To me the problem is not fake news. It's not that what they tell us is
untrue, it's what they leave out that creates the false impressions. Fox
is as guilty of this as MSNBC and CNN. The just leave out different
parts.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
If the problem is as I stated that it is the things that are left out
which create the false impressions, it would stand to reason that by
listening to both Fox and MSNBC and combining what they tell me I would
get the whole story. The only problem with that is if I listen to MSNBC
for more than 30 seconds, my blood pressure rises to dangerous levels.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
I think that has always been the case. The term yellow journalism goes
back to the 1890s and was used to describe the practices of the Hearst
chain of newspapers. Hearst wasn't the inventor of yellow journalism. He's
just the one the term was first applied to.
Post by d***@gmail.com
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
I just wish I could find a trusted news source.
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Just one question. Are you freaking serious. Most of universities have
become bastions of liberalism whose mission is to indoctrinate, not
educate their students. They are some of the last places I would turn to
for a trusted source of information.
Gee, I wonder how you figured that out all by yourself?
GUess you never saw any charts showing that the more educated you are
the moral Liberal you are. Guess that explains YOU.
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
... which is precisely the reason why they are hated so much by Trump
voters.
Not being a Trump voter, I wouldn't know.
OK, you are only a Trump supporter. You didn't vote for him.
You voted for the Nazi on the ballot.
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
I am sure you have seen the typical education (of lack thereof) among
supporters of the Tramp.
Sounds like typical liberal elitism. There are plenty of low information
Polls. And Trump said he was very proud of his low information voters.
Post by bigdog
voters on both ends of the political spectrum and plenty of highly
educated Trump supporters.
False equivalency. The percentage of Trump votes goes down with higher
education.
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
David Emerling strikes me as a proud graduate of Trump U.
You must not have been reading the things he has been writing about Trump.
mainframetech
2018-08-14 01:02:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
To me the problem is not fake news. It's not that what they tell us is
untrue, it's what they leave out that creates the false impressions. Fox
is as guilty of this as MSNBC and CNN. The just leave out different
parts.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
If the problem is as I stated that it is the things that are left out
which create the false impressions, it would stand to reason that by
listening to both Fox and MSNBC and combining what they tell me I would
get the whole story. The only problem with that is if I listen to MSNBC
for more than 30 seconds, my blood pressure rises to dangerous levels.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
I think that has always been the case. The term yellow journalism goes
back to the 1890s and was used to describe the practices of the Hearst
chain of newspapers. Hearst wasn't the inventor of yellow journalism. He's
just the one the term was first applied to.
Post by d***@gmail.com
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
I just wish I could find a trusted news source.
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Just one question. Are you freaking serious. Most of universities have
become bastions of liberalism whose mission is to indoctrinate, not
educate their students. They are some of the last places I would turn to
for a trusted source of information.
Post by Piotr Mancini
... which is precisely the reason why they are hated so much by Trump
voters.
Not being a Trump voter, I wouldn't know.
Post by Piotr Mancini
I am sure you have seen the typical education (of lack thereof) among
supporters of the Tramp.
Sounds like typical liberal elitism. There are plenty of low information
voters on both ends of the political spectrum and plenty of highly
educated Trump supporters.
Elitism? Sounds like Trump and his merry band of billionaire criminals
he put in his cabinet. And he was going to deal with the elites! He used
them to fill his new swamp! The latest 2 of them to get into the
headlines are Zinke (Interior secretary) and Wilbur Ross, accused of
stealing millions!

Zinke was caught doing the same illegal thing that Scott Pruitt was
doing, which is to hide who he was meeting with, which is mainly done to
keep the public from finding out that they are meeting with those that had
issues that came before those departments and needed a helping hand. Or
graft it's sometimes called.

Chris
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-15 18:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Just one question. Are you freaking serious. Most of universities have
become bastions of liberalism whose mission is to indoctrinate, not
educate their students. They are some of the last places I would turn to
for a trusted source of information.
Large Canine:

Aren't you aware that every time you folks make statements as:

- Universities are communist indoctrinators!
- The Media is the Enemy of The People
- Hollywood is a POS
- Attacking ACLU
- Disparaging the Chamber of Commerce (Long live capitalism! Viva!)

You are insulting your very own side?

Do I really have the elaborate?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: My automatic debating program proposes this:

======================
The Deplorables (Alt. Right, whatever) hate:

- Academia (best universities in the world: the better the school, the
more Liberal)

- MSM (most respected media in the world: NYT, WaPo, CNN -creator of
cable news)

- Hollywood (one of the few industries that brings a lot of money to the
US economy, thanks to them we finally had a Black president)

- Private sector, Chamber of Commerce, Global Trade, competition. (they
call it/fear it: the "New World Order", want to destroy the UN).

In short, the Trump supporters hate all that makes America great.
bigdog
2018-08-16 02:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Just one question. Are you freaking serious. Most of universities have
become bastions of liberalism whose mission is to indoctrinate, not
educate their students. They are some of the last places I would turn to
for a trusted source of information.
- Universities are communist indoctrinators!
- The Media is the Enemy of The People
- Hollywood is a POS
- Attacking ACLU
- Disparaging the Chamber of Commerce (Long live capitalism! Viva!)
You are insulting your very own side?
Do I really have the elaborate?
I didn't make any of the above statements so you are attacking your own
straw men.
Post by Piotr Mancini
======================
- Academia (best universities in the world: the better the school, the
more Liberal)
Now that's funny. I hope you didn't spend too much on that automatic
debating program.
Post by Piotr Mancini
- MSM (most respected media in the world: NYT, WaPo, CNN -creator of
cable news)
Respected by whom? The lefties? No debate there.
Post by Piotr Mancini
- Hollywood (one of the few industries that brings a lot of money to the
US economy, thanks to them we finally had a Black president)
Too bad it was that black president.
Post by Piotr Mancini
- Private sector, Chamber of Commerce, Global Trade, competition. (they
call it/fear it: the "New World Order", want to destroy the UN).
The UN is about as useless as tits on a bull.
Post by Piotr Mancini
In short, the Trump supporters hate all that makes America great.
America is great but not because of the things you listed.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-12 19:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Universities have proven themselves to be great resources for many
scientific breakthroughs, mostly because learned scientists have their
work sponsored by the university (in hope of great recognition), but they
have no history of crime solving that I'm aware of. I'm going to go out on
a limb and say that there is not a single university that reviles the
resources of the FBI with regards to forensic analysis of almost ANYTHING.
And, when the investigative authorities need outside assistance because of
a unique issue that is outside their expertise, they usually obtain it. A
good example of that is the acoustic analysis of the Dallas dictabelt.
Neither the FBI or the Department of Justice was equipped to do that kind
of detailed and high-tech acoustical analysis. So, they got help! But they
didn't go to a university.

If there's one thing conspiracy theorists love - that's keeping the
discussion alive. It's what they LIVE for! Their biggest fear is that
nobody wants to discuss it anymore. They don't care if there is a long,
protracted and heated argument on the matter (they live for that shit!) -
they just want their quaky believes to have an audience and be somewhat
relevant.

The Warren Commission wasn't enough. The Clark Panel was not enough to
feed their fever. The Rockefeller Commission didn't quench their thirst.
The HSCA left them wanting more. The ARRB was unsatisfying. And the
current release of documents is simply triggering their lust for more and
more of their JFK drug. A university investigation would feed into their
frenzied desire for more - but I'll bet it would end in the same way.
Unless MIT concludes that there was an unquestionable conspiracy in the
Kennedy assassination, the conspiracy crowd will simply be looking for
their next drug.
Post by Piotr Mancini
... which is precisely the reason why they are hated so much by Trump
voters.
There is certainly a segment of Trump supporters - mostly the angry,
working-class white Americans - who view anybody with an education past
high school as an "elite" who is out to disparage them. As Trump
repeatedly reminded them, "They're laughing at you!"
Post by Piotr Mancini
I am sure you have seen the typical education (of lack thereof) among
supporters of the Tramp.
David Emerling strikes me as a proud graduate of Trump U.
Man, you could not be more wrong. I think Trump is an embarrassment to
this nation. I know what smart people sound like. And I know what ignorant
people sound like. Trump is an ignorant person who watches more TV than
reads and researches. He's a buffoon.

I wish somebody would digitize a "word cloud" of all the words Donald
Trump has used since he announced his candidacy. Every word that comes out
of his mouth gets included in the cloud; everything as mundane as the word
"the", to more complex words like "immigration". The cloud would be very
small. Many of the same words would be repeated time and time again. The
man has a very limited vocabulary. He also uses words in weird ways. Who
says that a tax cut is "beautiful"?

If you compared his "word cloud" to almost any other politician, I'll bet
it would be microscopic in comparison. Trump's appeal is that he's a
simple (minded) person who appeals to simple (minded) people. In short, he
talks the way they talk - the language of people who are riveted to
reality TV shows and are entertained by chaos and outlandishness. The
crazier he gets, the funnier they think it is.

So, you've got me pegged completely wrong in that regard.

Yet, I served in the military (considered conservative) and live in a
dead-red state (Tennessee). I'm even in an occupation where most of those
with whom I work have highly conservative (usually military) backgrounds.
I've voted for Republicans in the past. Mostly, I'd consider myself an
Independent - willing to vote for whomever I think is best, regardless of
party affiliation - but Trump is a pill I just can't swallow. I can't
imagine anybody thinking that his policies are so fantastic that they'd be
willing to endure the toxic nature of his presidency.

Have people forgotten that MEXICO is supposed to pay for this wall? Now he
wants US to pay for it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-13 14:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Universities have proven themselves to be great resources for many
scientific breakthroughs, mostly because learned scientists have their
work sponsored by the university (in hope of great recognition), but they
have no history of crime solving that I'm aware of.
Actually, every single crime ever solved, using scientific methods was in
essence, solved by universities. The same can be said of the Internet,
conquest of space, GPS, weather forecast, human genome (DNA), polio cure
(all of them Federal programs, BTW).

Human civilization relies on science and where does science live? Where is
her natural home, where is she nurtured and grows?

That's right, in universities.

Here's three examples of partial parts of a puzzle:

Lee's Backyard Photos
https://goo.gl/cGA1F8
Courtesy of Dartmouth

3D Model of Dealey Plaza

Laser: Courtesy of MIT

Study of Cranium

Courtesy of Boston University

Eventually, all those parts are assembled, some are tossed, some are
accepted and the full solution is out in all its glory. Only is an OPEN,
trial-by-fire, confrontational environment is full knowledge possible.

You people are into information *hiding*, JFK Numbers, into information
*disclosure* and *sharing* for the common good.

David: you are going out of your way in your attempt to prevent MIT,
Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, etc. working toward the definite solution of
the JFK Numbers.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-13 15:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Universities have proven themselves to be great resources for many
scientific breakthroughs, mostly because learned scientists have their
work sponsored by the university (in hope of great recognition), but they
have no history of crime solving that I'm aware of.
David: After all has been said and done: tuition, tenure, publish or
perish, sponsors, recognition, quotas, legacy admission, yada, yada.. Do
you know which is the ultimate goal of universities?

That would be *Veritas* or The Truth.

https://goo.gl/adu3xF

As in "Agreed upon by everybody". Do you know the origin of the word
"University"? It comes from "Universal" as in "everything".

"The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth: Nothing more we'll
demand, nothing less we'll accept"

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

See my seminal post below.

=====================
Allow me to repost the following one more time. Nobody from the LN crowd,
in several forums has even ventured an alternate explanation to mine.

How come studies signed by MIT (institutionally, not by a professor or
research group), Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. are conspicuously
absent?

Am I the only one that has noticed that glaring vacuum?

How come the equivalent of a "Manhattan Project" (at a minor scale) has
not been deployed?

Call me naive, but I am willing to bet my right arm that MIT will not lie.
Their results are not for sale, at any price. I have evidence of that.

======================

The response of the universities was not blameless. Far from it! They
should be ashamed of themselves, as they were complicit with their
silence. The most famous, the epitome, is Harvard, which proudly carries
the motto “Veritas”. Yeah, right… Veritas my rear
bottom! [Can I say "my ass"?]

Let’s attempt to find an excuse on their behalf. There has to be a
reasonable explanation for their inaction, right?. This is probably how a
standoff position was reached:

Universities: “This is not our party, we have not been invited.
Prof. Robert Blakey decided which companies and people were to be hired."
(some would call it “bought and paid”).

(In the HSCA FPP - Forensic Pathology Panel --Blakey had no option but to
leave one dissenting voice, doctor Cyril Wecht, join the otherwise
exclusive club. Thank God that his professional and human integrity is not
for sale).

To sum things up: Those were détente times, so for over half a
century our top institutions of education and research reached this one
with the government:

“Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

The coverup agents to university deans:

“Okay, let’s be reasonable here. You know very well that
we can stop the flow of grants and apply many other kinds of pressure. We
can make life very uncomfortable for you and your professors, but we
won’t force you to certify our results (*). We won’t ask.
As consideration for our generosity, you will not tell.”

The big question is whether that state of immobility -which remains- makes
sense today, in 2016.

============================

If anybody wants to venture a better explanation for MIT, Stanford,
Berkeley, Harvard, etc. NEVER being involved, I am sure that the
readership would love to hear your explanation.

-Ramon

(*) The risible Jet Effect being the best exponent.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23022-four-reconstructions-of-the-crime/
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-14 19:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Universities have proven themselves to be great resources for many
scientific breakthroughs, mostly because learned scientists have their
work sponsored by the university (in hope of great recognition), but they
have no history of crime solving that I'm aware of.
David: After all has been said and done: tuition, tenure, publish or
perish, sponsors, recognition, quotas, legacy admission, yada, yada.. Do
you know which is the ultimate goal of universities?
That would be *Veritas* or The Truth.
https://goo.gl/adu3xF
As in "Agreed upon by everybody". Do you know the origin of the word
"University"? It comes from "Universal" as in "everything".
"The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth: Nothing more we'll
demand, nothing less we'll accept"
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
See my seminal post below.
=====================
Allow me to repost the following one more time. Nobody from the LN crowd,
in several forums has even ventured an alternate explanation to mine.
How come studies signed by MIT (institutionally, not by a professor or
research group), Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. are conspicuously
absent?
Am I the only one that has noticed that glaring vacuum?
How come the equivalent of a "Manhattan Project" (at a minor scale) has
not been deployed?
Call me naive, but I am willing to bet my right arm that MIT will not lie.
Their results are not for sale, at any price. I have evidence of that.
======================
The response of the universities was not blameless. Far from it! They
should be ashamed of themselves, as they were complicit with their
silence. The most famous, the epitome, is Harvard, which proudly carries
the motto “Veritas”. Yeah, right… Veritas my rear
bottom! [Can I say "my ass"?]
Let’s attempt to find an excuse on their behalf. There has to be a
reasonable explanation for their inaction, right?. This is probably how a
Universities: “This is not our party, we have not been invited.
Prof. Robert Blakey decided which companies and people were to be hired."
(some would call it “bought and paid”).
(In the HSCA FPP - Forensic Pathology Panel --Blakey had no option but to
leave one dissenting voice, doctor Cyril Wecht, join the otherwise
exclusive club. Thank God that his professional and human integrity is not
for sale).
To sum things up: Those were détente times, so for over half a
century our top institutions of education and research reached this one
“Don’t ask, don’t tell”.
“Okay, let’s be reasonable here. You know very well that
we can stop the flow of grants and apply many other kinds of pressure. We
can make life very uncomfortable for you and your professors, but we
won’t force you to certify our results (*). We won’t ask.
As consideration for our generosity, you will not tell.”
The big question is whether that state of immobility -which remains- makes
sense today, in 2016.
============================
If anybody wants to venture a better explanation for MIT, Stanford,
Berkeley, Harvard, etc. NEVER being involved, I am sure that the
readership would love to hear your explanation.
Government money.
Post by Piotr Mancini
-Ramon
(*) The risible Jet Effect being the best exponent.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23022-four-reconstructions-of-the-crime/
BT George
2018-08-14 02:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Universities have proven themselves to be great resources for many
scientific breakthroughs, mostly because learned scientists have their
work sponsored by the university (in hope of great recognition), but they
have no history of crime solving that I'm aware of. I'm going to go out on
a limb and say that there is not a single university that reviles the
resources of the FBI with regards to forensic analysis of almost ANYTHING.
And, when the investigative authorities need outside assistance because of
a unique issue that is outside their expertise, they usually obtain it. A
good example of that is the acoustic analysis of the Dallas dictabelt.
Neither the FBI or the Department of Justice was equipped to do that kind
of detailed and high-tech acoustical analysis. So, they got help! But they
didn't go to a university.
If there's one thing conspiracy theorists love - that's keeping the
discussion alive. It's what they LIVE for! Their biggest fear is that
nobody wants to discuss it anymore. They don't care if there is a long,
protracted and heated argument on the matter (they live for that shit!) -
they just want their quaky believes to have an audience and be somewhat
relevant.
The Warren Commission wasn't enough. The Clark Panel was not enough to
feed their fever. The Rockefeller Commission didn't quench their thirst.
The HSCA left them wanting more. The ARRB was unsatisfying. And the
current release of documents is simply triggering their lust for more and
more of their JFK drug. A university investigation would feed into their
frenzied desire for more - but I'll bet it would end in the same way.
Unless MIT concludes that there was an unquestionable conspiracy in the
Kennedy assassination, the conspiracy crowd will simply be looking for
their next drug.
Post by Piotr Mancini
... which is precisely the reason why they are hated so much by Trump
voters.
There is certainly a segment of Trump supporters - mostly the angry,
working-class white Americans - who view anybody with an education past
high school as an "elite" who is out to disparage them. As Trump
repeatedly reminded them, "They're laughing at you!"
Post by Piotr Mancini
I am sure you have seen the typical education (of lack thereof) among
supporters of the Tramp.
David Emerling strikes me as a proud graduate of Trump U.
Man, you could not be more wrong. I think Trump is an embarrassment to
this nation. I know what smart people sound like. And I know what ignorant
people sound like. Trump is an ignorant person who watches more TV than
reads and researches. He's a buffoon.
I wish somebody would digitize a "word cloud" of all the words Donald
Trump has used since he announced his candidacy. Every word that comes out
of his mouth gets included in the cloud; everything as mundane as the word
"the", to more complex words like "immigration". The cloud would be very
small. Many of the same words would be repeated time and time again. The
man has a very limited vocabulary. He also uses words in weird ways. Who
says that a tax cut is "beautiful"?
If you compared his "word cloud" to almost any other politician, I'll bet
it would be microscopic in comparison. Trump's appeal is that he's a
simple (minded) person who appeals to simple (minded) people. In short, he
talks the way they talk - the language of people who are riveted to
reality TV shows and are entertained by chaos and outlandishness. The
crazier he gets, the funnier they think it is.
Largely, but not entirely true. (FYI, I am *not* a Trump supporter, and
based on your description below we probably arrived at our decision not to
support him for similar reasons.) I know a good many educated and
professional Trump supporters. Either because they agree with most
aspects of his policies or because they think the political and elite
class needed a kick in the groin which Trump repeatedly (in their eyes)
delivers.

Like you, I was unimpressed by his intellect, antics, or character and
simply could not vote for him, though I also (for policy and poor
character reasons) could not vote for Hillary either. Alas, many persons
I otherwise see eye-to-eye on did not find him a bridge too far.
Post by d***@gmail.com
So, you've got me pegged completely wrong in that regard.
Yet, I served in the military (considered conservative) and live in a
dead-red state (Tennessee). I'm even in an occupation where most of those
with whom I work have highly conservative (usually military) backgrounds.
I've voted for Republicans in the past. Mostly, I'd consider myself an
Independent - willing to vote for whomever I think is best, regardless of
party affiliation - but Trump is a pill I just can't swallow. I can't
imagine anybody thinking that his policies are so fantastic that they'd be
willing to endure the toxic nature of his presidency.
Have people forgotten that MEXICO is supposed to pay for this wall? Now he
wants US to pay for it.
This is the greatest dissapointment I have found in many like minded
persons who disagreed with me and chose to support Trump. After years of
complaining about the left-leaning media outlets and Democratic Party
sycophants giving Clinton and Obama a veritable free pass no matter what
he said or did, too many of them now run around being apologists for Trump
regardless of whatever fact-free or contradictory/hypocritical things
emerge from his mouth. As he said, he could shoot someone in the middle of
the street and many of his followers would end up saying, "Well they
deserved it!"

Brock (BT) George
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-08-15 02:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
When it comes to The Truth, the only possible reference is our
universities. That is trivially easy to prove.
Universities have proven themselves to be great resources for many
scientific breakthroughs, mostly because learned scientists have their
work sponsored by the university (in hope of great recognition), but they
have no history of crime solving that I'm aware of. I'm going to go out on
a limb and say that there is not a single university that reviles the
resources of the FBI with regards to forensic analysis of almost ANYTHING.
And, when the investigative authorities need outside assistance because of
a unique issue that is outside their expertise, they usually obtain it. A
good example of that is the acoustic analysis of the Dallas dictabelt.
Neither the FBI or the Department of Justice was equipped to do that kind
of detailed and high-tech acoustical analysis. So, they got help! But they
didn't go to a university.
If there's one thing conspiracy theorists love - that's keeping the
discussion alive. It's what they LIVE for! Their biggest fear is that
nobody wants to discuss it anymore. They don't care if there is a long,
protracted and heated argument on the matter (they live for that shit!) -
they just want their quaky believes to have an audience and be somewhat
relevant.
The Warren Commission wasn't enough. The Clark Panel was not enough to
feed their fever. The Rockefeller Commission didn't quench their thirst.
The HSCA left them wanting more. The ARRB was unsatisfying. And the
current release of documents is simply triggering their lust for more and
more of their JFK drug. A university investigation would feed into their
frenzied desire for more - but I'll bet it would end in the same way.
Unless MIT concludes that there was an unquestionable conspiracy in the
Kennedy assassination, the conspiracy crowd will simply be looking for
their next drug.
Post by Piotr Mancini
... which is precisely the reason why they are hated so much by Trump
voters.
There is certainly a segment of Trump supporters - mostly the angry,
working-class white Americans - who view anybody with an education past
high school as an "elite" who is out to disparage them. As Trump
repeatedly reminded them, "They're laughing at you!"
Post by Piotr Mancini
I am sure you have seen the typical education (of lack thereof) among
supporters of the Tramp.
David Emerling strikes me as a proud graduate of Trump U.
Man, you could not be more wrong. I think Trump is an embarrassment to
this nation. I know what smart people sound like. And I know what ignorant
people sound like. Trump is an ignorant person who watches more TV than
reads and researches. He's a buffoon.
I wish somebody would digitize a "word cloud" of all the words Donald
Trump has used since he announced his candidacy. Every word that comes out
of his mouth gets included in the cloud; everything as mundane as the word
"the", to more complex words like "immigration". The cloud would be very
small. Many of the same words would be repeated time and time again. The
man has a very limited vocabulary. He also uses words in weird ways. Who
says that a tax cut is "beautiful"?
If you compared his "word cloud" to almost any other politician, I'll bet
it would be microscopic in comparison. Trump's appeal is that he's a
simple (minded) person who appeals to simple (minded) people. In short, he
talks the way they talk - the language of people who are riveted to
reality TV shows and are entertained by chaos and outlandishness. The
crazier he gets, the funnier they think it is.
Largely, but not entirely true. (FYI, I am *not* a Trump supporter, and
based on your description below we probably arrived at our decision not to
support him for similar reasons.) I know a good many educated and
professional Trump supporters. Either because they agree with most
aspects of his policies or because they think the political and elite
class needed a kick in the groin which Trump repeatedly (in their eyes)
delivers.
Like you, I was unimpressed by his intellect, antics, or character and
simply could not vote for him, though I also (for policy and poor
character reasons) could not vote for Hillary either. Alas, many persons
I otherwise see eye-to-eye on did not find him a bridge too far.
Post by d***@gmail.com
So, you've got me pegged completely wrong in that regard.
Yet, I served in the military (considered conservative) and live in a
dead-red state (Tennessee). I'm even in an occupation where most of those
with whom I work have highly conservative (usually military) backgrounds.
I've voted for Republicans in the past. Mostly, I'd consider myself an
Independent - willing to vote for whomever I think is best, regardless of
party affiliation - but Trump is a pill I just can't swallow. I can't
imagine anybody thinking that his policies are so fantastic that they'd be
willing to endure the toxic nature of his presidency.
Have people forgotten that MEXICO is supposed to pay for this wall? Now he
wants US to pay for it.
This is the greatest dissapointment I have found in many like minded
persons who disagreed with me and chose to support Trump. After years of
complaining about the left-leaning media outlets and Democratic Party
sycophants giving Clinton and Obama a veritable free pass no matter what
he said or did, too many of them now run around being apologists for Trump
regardless of whatever fact-free or contradictory/hypocritical things
emerge from his mouth. As he said, he could shoot someone in the middle of
the street and many of his followers would end up saying, "Well they
deserved it!"
Brock (BT) George
Yes, the Trump supporters at any price ("What? Do you want the left to
win?!!") were the same people complaining about the Obama cult.

If anyone sounds like a cultist it's the Trump people. He even admitted
it. Trump says and does things that the Trump supporters would never allow
if anyone else did it.
Travis Banger
2018-08-11 06:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
To me the problem is not fake news. It's not that what they tell us is
untrue, it's what they leave out that creates the false impressions.
Fox is as guilty of this as MSNBC and CNN. The just leave out different
parts.
One more time (write it down): Universities, universities, universities.

The better the school, the more Liberal.

You are hereby dared/invited to find and post anything equivalent to the
following evidence, but something where CNN is the target:

(Jeff Morley)

(Jay Rosen)

We will be patiently waiting.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: As you have probably noticed, I am always looking for a way to plug
the hard, productive work done by JFK Numbers, so I have a quiz for the
audience:

Did you hear the audio presented by Jeff Morley? The one that Marie Fonzi
provided, from Gaeton's old tape recorder?

Question: Who was the person who gave Marie and the cameramen from CNN
Miami that went to her home (I insisted, but she declined to be
interviewed) precise instructions about the recording needed, over the
telephone? Who was the one who learned audio processing techniques and
improved substantially the quality of such audio? Yes, that would be our
fearless technical leader JFK Numbers.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-10 15:19:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Dear David:

As you can see, I do not give up easily AND contrary to folks on your side
(my esteemed counterparts of the LN persuasion), I am always willing to
answer ANY question, no matter how personal, difficult, etc. Anything is
fair game. It is part of my solemn pledge to my ultimate superior, to whom
I serve with pleasure: The People.

- Should your admired Dale Myers release the contents of his hard disk,
or take them to his grave? Why? Why Not?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23022-four-reconstructions-of-the-crime/

- If there is a petition to have MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Oxford et al.
to work on solving the JFK Numbers, would you support it? Perhaps
advertise it in your popular site?

- Do you still claim that universities should not be bothered being
engaged in the JFK murder case because "it is not their role" (your
words).

- Are you aware of what the ultimate objective of universities is? (Hint:
The motto of the epitome, the archetype -Harvard- is "Veritas")

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Mark
2018-08-13 06:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by d***@gmail.com
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
As you can see, I do not give up easily AND contrary to folks on your side
(my esteemed counterparts of the LN persuasion), I am always willing to
answer ANY question, no matter how personal, difficult, etc. Anything is
fair game. It is part of my solemn pledge to my ultimate superior, to whom
I serve with pleasure: The People.
". . . I do not give up easily . . ." Someone want to start etching
Ramon's name onto the Robert Harris silver trophy. The People would
applaud.

Mark
mainframetech
2018-08-11 04:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
explain some of the details:




Also, one of the CIA eye witnesses that saw the original film:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

Skip ahead to see the witness.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 20:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
You seem confused about the issue. Alterationists claim that alterations
WERE done and not noticed by the FBI, CIA, NPIC, WC, Zapruder and everyone
who handled it. Which copy? The original or all 3 copies? They all match
in content. They would have to alter all 4 copies identically. And some
people did notice instantly that the one copy they were looking at was
damaged. Frames were removed, but those frames were OK in the other
copies.

And as I pointed out in my article they had no way to understand and
duplicate the ghost images. Some kooks went so far as to claim that they
would never show up in any other 8mm film and were a defect of the CIA
alteration machine. Then I showed them examples from other ordinary 8mm
film that have ghost images in the sprocket hole area.
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-12 20:33:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
These are quite entertaining. In the first link (YouTube video) above, I
particularly like how one of the indicators of fabrication is that Mary
Moorman's testified that she had stepped forward onto the street although
the Zapruder film shows her clearly standing in the grass. Instead of Mary
Moorman remembering incorrectly ... the Zapruder film has been altered!

Well, that certainly convinces me! Brilliant! That PROVES that the
Zapruder film has been altered. And, it's also very clear why the
alterationists felt it very important to move Mary Moorman. Pfft!

You guys never cease to amaze me with the ridiculous stuff you believe ...
and for the most ridiculous reasons, too.

It would be far more satisfying for me if I thought you'd be embarrassed
by my pointing this out - but I have learned a long time ago that you guys
are almost never embarrassed. You feed off criticism because you enjoy the
fact that somebody simply acknowledges that you have an opinion - even if
your opinions are ridiculous. Conspiracy theorists are not too much unlike
a child who holds his breath and turns blue - just to attract attention.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 19:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
These are quite entertaining. In the first link (YouTube video) above, I
particularly like how one of the indicators of fabrication is that Mary
Moorman's testified that she had stepped forward onto the street although
the Zapruder film shows her clearly standing in the grass. Instead of Mary
Moorman remembering incorrectly ... the Zapruder film has been altered!
Well, that certainly convinces me! Brilliant! That PROVES that the
Zapruder film has been altered. And, it's also very clear why the
alterationists felt it very important to move Mary Moorman. Pfft!
You guys never cease to amaze me with the ridiculous stuff you believe ...
and for the most ridiculous reasons, too.
Oh come on! These kook theories are old and rotten.
Don't you want some new one like a gun in Jackie's pill box hat or some
aliens or something?
Din't you remember the Driver Did It theory?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It would be far more satisfying for me if I thought you'd be embarrassed
by my pointing this out - but I have learned a long time ago that you guys
are almost never embarrassed. You feed off criticism because you enjoy the
fact that somebody simply acknowledges that you have an opinion - even if
your opinions are ridiculous. Conspiracy theorists are not too much unlike
a child who holds his breath and turns blue - just to attract attention.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Spence
2018-08-13 19:13:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Looks quoting Looks is not evidence
c***@gmail.com
2018-08-14 19:55:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
Hilarious.

Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?

First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.

Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.

Show the before and after results.

Let's see it.
bigdog
2018-08-15 15:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious.
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.
Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.
Show the before and after results.
Let's see it.
All of that seems so unnecessary in the world of the conspiracy hobbyist.
Their motto is, "If we can conceive it, we will believe it.".
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-16 17:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious.
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.
Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.
Show the before and after results.
Let's see it.
All of that seems so unnecessary in the world of the conspiracy hobbyist.
Their motto is, "If we can conceive it, we will believe it.".
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
authentic? What's the matter, I', not kooky enough for you?
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-18 00:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
authentic? What's the matter, I', not kooky enough for you?
Tony The Tiger:

Stop posting that crapola, will ya'? You are not helping the cause. See
below.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
=======================

[Ramon to Large Canine:]

"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Jason Burke
2018-08-18 20:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
authentic? What's the matter, I', not kooky enough for you?
Stop posting that crapola, will ya'? You are not helping the cause. See
below.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
=======================
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Ooooh! Chick fight!
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-20 01:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
authentic? What's the matter, I', not kooky enough for you?
Stop posting that crapola, will ya'? You are not helping the cause. See
below.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
=======================
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Ooooh! Chick fight!
As I said before, I oppose the Alterationists.
John McAdams
2018-08-18 20:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-.
So the liberals and leftists who have a history of sympathy for
communist regimes have superior "empathy?"
Post by Piotr Mancini
For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Really? So slavery was "resolved." So was the divine right of kings.
So, in the Muslim world, is there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is
his prophet.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-20 01:43:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-.
So the liberals and leftists who have a history of sympathy for
communist regimes have superior "empathy?"
Post by Piotr Mancini
For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Really? So slavery was "resolved." So was the divine right of kings.
So, in the Muslim world, is there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is
his prophet.
Do you believe in the Virgin Birth, yes or no?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-08-20 01:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19 Aug 2018 21:43:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-.
So the liberals and leftists who have a history of sympathy for
communist regimes have superior "empathy?"
Post by Piotr Mancini
For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Really? So slavery was "resolved." So was the divine right of kings.
So, in the Muslim world, is there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is
his prophet.
Do you believe in the Virgin Birth, yes or no?
Yes.

Do you? Yes or no.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-21 02:12:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 19 Aug 2018 21:43:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-.
So the liberals and leftists who have a history of sympathy for
communist regimes have superior "empathy?"
Post by Piotr Mancini
For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Really? So slavery was "resolved." So was the divine right of kings.
So, in the Muslim world, is there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is
his prophet.
Do you believe in the Virgin Birth, yes or no?
Yes.
Do you? Yes or no.
No. I believe in mistranslation.
Alma = Young Maiden not yet married.
NOT virgin.
Read Issac Asimov.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BT George
2018-08-21 02:22:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-.
So the liberals and leftists who have a history of sympathy for
communist regimes have superior "empathy?"
Post by Piotr Mancini
For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Really? So slavery was "resolved." So was the divine right of kings.
So, in the Muslim world, is there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is
his prophet.
Do you believe in the Virgin Birth, yes or no?
Non Sequitur to the point .John was making. ...How surprising for a Marsh
post!

But for WIW, I *do* believe in it. Not because there is *anything*
natural or naturally possible about the event, but because the idea of an
original creator/designer of the material universe as we know it, is
itself dependent upon the ability of such an entity to be outside of, and
causually *precedent* to material reality. ...In short, such an entity
would have the ability *by definition* to bring about anything in the
material realm it desired, since it would have brough that realm into
*existence* in the first place. Hence, whether a miraculous (i.e.,
supra-natural) event is possible will be answered by your belief on the
question of *ultimate* origins.

(My beliefs on that subject are already *quite* well known around here so
I won't elaborate.)

Of course even if one believes in the *possibility* of supra-natural
happenings, does not necessitate one believe in any *given* claim. All
the reasons for my belief in this particular one, would go WAAAY deep into
many off-topic subjects so I wont't do so. But suffice it to say that it
is rooted in a combination of two main things: (1) The far greater
evidence for the Christian claim that there was a historic Jesus, that his
grave was found empty, and that a core band of his earliest disciples
genuinely believed they had extended encounters with Him alive from the
dead, which provides a historical basis for other Christian truth claims
and (2) *numerous* personal experiences in 46 years of following Him that
I know to be true, and that I simply cannot right off as either "creative
imagination" or (a long chain) of "coincidences".

Brock (BT) George
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 21:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you didn't happen to notice that I proved that the Zapruder films is
[Ramon to Large Canine:]
"The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-.
So the liberals and leftists who have a history of sympathy for
communist regimes have superior "empathy?"
Post by Piotr Mancini
For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement."
Really? So slavery was "resolved." So was the divine right of kings.
So, in the Muslim world, is there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is
his prophet.
Do you believe in the Virgin Birth, yes or no?
Non Sequitur to the point .John was making. ...How surprising for a Marsh
post!
But for WIW, I *do* believe in it. Not because there is *anything*
natural or naturally possible about the event, but because the idea of an
original creator/designer of the material universe as we know it, is
itself dependent upon the ability of such an entity to be outside of, and
causually *precedent* to material reality. ...In short, such an entity
would have the ability *by definition* to bring about anything in the
material realm it desired, since it would have brough that realm into
*existence* in the first place. Hence, whether a miraculous (i.e.,
supra-natural) event is possible will be answered by your belief on the
question of *ultimate* origins.
(My beliefs on that subject are already *quite* well known around here so
I won't elaborate.)
Of course even if one believes in the *possibility* of supra-natural
happenings, does not necessitate one believe in any *given* claim. All
the reasons for my belief in this particular one, would go WAAAY deep into
many off-topic subjects so I wont't do so. But suffice it to say that it
is rooted in a combination of two main things: (1) The far greater
evidence for the Christian claim that there was a historic Jesus, that his
grave was found empty, and that a core band of his earliest disciples
genuinely believed they had extended encounters with Him alive from the
dead, which provides a historical basis for other Christian truth claims
and (2) *numerous* personal experiences in 46 years of following Him that
I know to be true, and that I simply cannot right off as either "creative
imagination" or (a long chain) of "coincidences".
Brock (BT) George
No need to understand science (although it CAN be fun).
It's a simple case of mistranslation. Wrong word.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-15 18:12:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
Hilarious.
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
Actually, we are working on it, Chuck.

That is "We", as in:

http://constitutionus.com/

All are being invited, the requirement is minimal.

Anybody who is interested in:
- The Truth
- The Whole Truth
- Nothing But The Truth

from the Numerical point of view, using leading edge science and state of
the art technology should participate, at the very least provide passive
support.

Anybody who is sincere and intellectually honest must support this
initiative as -by definition- is inseparable from The Truth.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

BTW: Fetzer has been ostracized by anybody who is serious, specially by
the fledgling Unified JFK Community.
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
Hilarious.
I guess you'd laugh as Rome burned, eh?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
One has to think to solve these difficult questions. A) because
recreations cost money. B) because recreations are like simulations and
such, in that they will show whatever the author wants to show and can't
be relied upon. And as to the people you named, I have particular loyalty
or appreciation for Fetzer or Stone.
Post by c***@gmail.com
First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.
Sorry, you've gone off into wonderland. When I speak of a bullet hole
THROUGH the windshield of the limo, it's from actual eyewitnesses.
Here's an example:



It was a doctor named Evalea Glanges, and she stood right next to the
bullet hole when looking at it. And she was only one of 6 eyewitnesses to
the bullet hole. Now that you've heard testimony is it still funny?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.
Show the before and after results.
Let's see it.
It would be stupid. That device would cost a fortune, and if you were
shown the result, you'd fail to believe it, so it would be a waste.

However, there's an article online that Deke found that summarizes the
work of Douglas Horne, who wrote it up. It goes into much of the detail
surrounding the Z-film after being taken by Zapruder. Including who the
witness were and how the manipulation was done. It may be too much
reading for you, but here it is just in case:

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-17 00:27:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
Hilarious.
I guess you'd laugh as Rome burned, eh?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
One has to think to solve these difficult questions. A) because
recreations cost money. B) because recreations are like simulations and
such, in that they will show whatever the author wants to show and can't
be relied upon. And as to the people you named, I have particular loyalty
or appreciation for Fetzer or Stone.
Post by c***@gmail.com
First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.
Sorry, you've gone off into wonderland. When I speak of a bullet hole
THROUGH the windshield of the limo, it's from actual eyewitnesses.
http://youtu.be/vClwuJ0yuWM
It was a doctor named Evalea Glanges, and she stood right next to the
bullet hole when looking at it. And she was only one of 6 eyewitnesses to
the bullet hole. Now that you've heard testimony is it still funny?
Yes, here was a hole in the windshield caused by a missile that struck the
windshield from the inside without going through. The outer surface of the
windshield wasn't disturbed. The fact that 3 witnesses had the impression
that the hole went completely through doesn't establish that as fact
because witnesses get things wrong or in the case of the clown in
Michigan, completely fabricate a story. Kellerman felt the outer surface
of the glass with his hand and it remained completely smooth. That
wouldn't be the case if the missile had gone completely through the
windshield no matter which direction is was moving.
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.
Show the before and after results.
Let's see it.
It would be stupid. That device would cost a fortune, and if you were
shown the result, you'd fail to believe it, so it would be a waste.
However, there's an article online that Deke found that summarizes the
work of Douglas Horne, who wrote it up. It goes into much of the detail
surrounding the Z-film after being taken by Zapruder. Including who the
witness were and how the manipulation was done. It may be too much
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
More silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring which amounts to nothing.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-18 14:31:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
Hilarious.
I guess you'd laugh as Rome burned, eh?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
One has to think to solve these difficult questions. A) because
recreations cost money. B) because recreations are like simulations and
such, in that they will show whatever the author wants to show and can't
be relied upon. And as to the people you named, I have particular loyalty
or appreciation for Fetzer or Stone.
Post by c***@gmail.com
First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.
Sorry, you've gone off into wonderland. When I speak of a bullet hole
THROUGH the windshield of the limo, it's from actual eyewitnesses.
http://youtu.be/vClwuJ0yuWM
It was a doctor named Evalea Glanges, and she stood right next to the
bullet hole when looking at it. And she was only one of 6 eyewitnesses to
the bullet hole. Now that you've heard testimony is it still funny?
Yes, here was a hole in the windshield caused by a missile that struck the
windshield from the inside without going through. The outer surface of the
FALSE. That was not a HOLE. That was a crack.
Post by bigdog
windshield wasn't disturbed. The fact that 3 witnesses had the impression
that the hole went completely through doesn't establish that as fact
because witnesses get things wrong or in the case of the clown in
Michigan, completely fabricate a story. Kellerman felt the outer surface
of the glass with his hand and it remained completely smooth. That
wouldn't be the case if the missile had gone completely through the
windshield no matter which direction is was moving.
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.
Show the before and after results.
Let's see it.
It would be stupid. That device would cost a fortune, and if you were
shown the result, you'd fail to believe it, so it would be a waste.
However, there's an article online that Deke found that summarizes the
work of Douglas Horne, who wrote it up. It goes into much of the detail
surrounding the Z-film after being taken by Zapruder. Including who the
witness were and how the manipulation was done. It may be too much
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
More silly conspiracy hobbyist figuring which amounts to nothing.
c***@gmail.com
2018-08-18 12:18:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
Hilarious.
I guess you'd laugh as Rome burned, eh?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
One has to think to solve these difficult questions. A) because
recreations cost money.
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?

I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.


B) because recreations are like simulations and
Post by mainframetech
such, in that they will show whatever the author wants to show and can't
be relied upon.
Film what you allege occurred and show it. Alter the film using 50s/60s
technology and show that, too. Post it on YouTube. Aren't you interested
in seeing whether what you allege occurred--the altering of the Z
film--can even be pulled off credibly?


And as to the people you named, I have particular loyalty
Post by mainframetech
or appreciation for Fetzer or Stone.
Post by c***@gmail.com
First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.
Sorry, you've gone off into wonderland. When I speak of a bullet hole
THROUGH the windshield of the limo, it's from actual eyewitnesses.
http://youtu.be/vClwuJ0yuWM
It was a doctor named Evalea Glanges, and she stood right next to the
bullet hole when looking at it. And she was only one of 6 eyewitnesses to
the bullet hole. Now that you've heard testimony is it still funny?
No, but it is wrong.
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.
Show the before and after results.
Let's see it.
It would be stupid. That device would cost a fortune, and if you were
shown the result, you'd fail to believe it, so it would be a waste.
I guess there is a price for "solving" the mystery of the death of
Camelot.
Post by mainframetech
However, there's an article online that Deke found that summarizes the
work of Douglas Horne, who wrote it up. It goes into much of the detail
surrounding the Z-film after being taken by Zapruder. Including who the
witness were and how the manipulation was done. It may be too much
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
Chris
Great. Apply these manipulations to real-world tests.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-19 00:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?
I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.
I nominate Chuck's post as The Best Question asked since the JFK Numbers
project made a home in this Newsgroup.

Chuck: Having stirred some sheet, you are now facing 3 options:

(1) Say "My job here is done. I humiliated those big mouth CTs", declare
victory and go home, on to other topics, where asses remain to be kicked.

(2) Continue dealing with that issue in public, demanding answers. After
all what kind of shitty/faked Humble Servant of The People would I be if I
run away at the first sight of trouble, when difficult/uncomfortable
topics arrive? I should leave that paralysis/muteness/non-responsiveness
behavior to Our Esteemed Counterparts of the LN Persuasion.

(3) You can e-mail me to ramon (at) jfknumbers.org so I can provide
detailed explanations, with e-mails, etc. Yes, revealing some of those
e-mails can get me in trouble with some of The Big Wigs. I have already
stepped in some toes, being fired from the Houston Trial of Lee Evidence
team in a very public fashion, faced opposition ... actually, let's be
frank: sabotage. They have tried to shoot me down from my impressive high
flight (Mantik's words, in congratulatory fashion) but the most I have
conceded is to have my wings voluntarily clipped (*for now*) and that is
the reason why I am working based in this Usenet Siberia (*for now*), due
respect.

Clearly, (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive.

You deserve some sort of Usenet medal for showing that, contrary to
popular belief, after all, there is intelligent life in a.a.jfk. :-)

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
c***@gmail.com
2018-08-20 20:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?
I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.
I nominate Chuck's post as The Best Question asked since the JFK Numbers
project made a home in this Newsgroup.
(1) Say "My job here is done. I humiliated those big mouth CTs", declare
victory and go home, on to other topics, where asses remain to be kicked.
(2) Continue dealing with that issue in public, demanding answers. After
all what kind of shitty/faked Humble Servant of The People would I be if I
run away at the first sight of trouble, when difficult/uncomfortable
topics arrive? I should leave that paralysis/muteness/non-responsiveness
behavior to Our Esteemed Counterparts of the LN Persuasion.
(3) You can e-mail me to ramon (at) jfknumbers.org so I can provide
detailed explanations, with e-mails, etc. Yes, revealing some of those
e-mails can get me in trouble with some of The Big Wigs. I have already
stepped in some toes, being fired from the Houston Trial of Lee Evidence
team in a very public fashion, faced opposition ... actually, let's be
frank: sabotage. They have tried to shoot me down from my impressive high
flight (Mantik's words, in congratulatory fashion) but the most I have
conceded is to have my wings voluntarily clipped (*for now*) and that is
the reason why I am working based in this Usenet Siberia (*for now*), due
respect.
Clearly, (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive.
You deserve some sort of Usenet medal for showing that, contrary to
popular belief, after all, there is intelligent life in a.a.jfk. :-)
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
I'm not looking for an email pal, but I am amazed that since I've been
posting on these discussion boards on-and-off since around 2002, I have
never heard one JFK conspiracist lay out their detailed conspiracy in a
way that accounts for the evidence better than the WC accounted for the
evidence. It's all non-stop logical fallacies, and at every turn where the
conspiracist is faced with a roadblock to their pet theory, you can bet
the conclusion is that the inconvenient evidence was planted, altered,
forged, lost, stolen, swapped out, etc.

If you have a case, let's see it and compare it to the WC case. My
experience is that CTs are simply looking for someone to constantly answer
their begged questions. No answer can satisfy them, hence it's a game and
not a quest to learn something new about the events that day.
bigdog
2018-08-21 02:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?
I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.
I nominate Chuck's post as The Best Question asked since the JFK Numbers
project made a home in this Newsgroup.
(1) Say "My job here is done. I humiliated those big mouth CTs", declare
victory and go home, on to other topics, where asses remain to be kicked.
(2) Continue dealing with that issue in public, demanding answers. After
all what kind of shitty/faked Humble Servant of The People would I be if I
run away at the first sight of trouble, when difficult/uncomfortable
topics arrive? I should leave that paralysis/muteness/non-responsiveness
behavior to Our Esteemed Counterparts of the LN Persuasion.
(3) You can e-mail me to ramon (at) jfknumbers.org so I can provide
detailed explanations, with e-mails, etc. Yes, revealing some of those
e-mails can get me in trouble with some of The Big Wigs. I have already
stepped in some toes, being fired from the Houston Trial of Lee Evidence
team in a very public fashion, faced opposition ... actually, let's be
frank: sabotage. They have tried to shoot me down from my impressive high
flight (Mantik's words, in congratulatory fashion) but the most I have
conceded is to have my wings voluntarily clipped (*for now*) and that is
the reason why I am working based in this Usenet Siberia (*for now*), due
respect.
Clearly, (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive.
You deserve some sort of Usenet medal for showing that, contrary to
popular belief, after all, there is intelligent life in a.a.jfk. :-)
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
I'm not looking for an email pal, but I am amazed that since I've been
posting on these discussion boards on-and-off since around 2002, I have
never heard one JFK conspiracist lay out their detailed conspiracy in a
way that accounts for the evidence better than the WC accounted for the
evidence. It's all non-stop logical fallacies, and at every turn where the
conspiracist is faced with a roadblock to their pet theory, you can bet
the conclusion is that the inconvenient evidence was planted, altered,
forged, lost, stolen, swapped out, etc.
If you have a case, let's see it and compare it to the WC case. My
experience is that CTs are simply looking for someone to constantly answer
their begged questions. No answer can satisfy them, hence it's a game and
not a quest to learn something new about the events that day.
I have been challenging conspiracy hobbyists to present as detailed a
scenario of the assassination as the WCR since I was on the old Prodigy
board back in the early 1990s. Few have tried and when they do, it becomes
obvious why so few have tried. The scenarios presented are like kicking
over a sandcastle. Mostly what we get for the conspiracy hobbyists are a
lot of unrelated loose threads. Put them all together and you have a pile
of loose threads. Never a cogent explanation that is compatible with the
evidence.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-22 02:59:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
I have been challenging conspiracy hobbyists to present as detailed a
scenario of the assassination as the WCR since I was on the old Prodigy
board back in the early 1990s. Few have tried and when they do, it becomes
obvious why so few have tried. The scenarios presented are like kicking
over a sandcastle. Mostly what we get for the conspiracy hobbyists are a
lot of unrelated loose threads. Put them all together and you have a pile
of loose threads. Never a cogent explanation that is compatible with the
evidence.
Its a good thing that many of us don't have a specific scenario or theory,
but we have the intelligence [obligatory Trump joke here] to consider
alternatives.

What I do have is this: the JFK Numbers challenge, so far unanswered by
anybody of relevance.

BTW: Please don't repeat in public that there are people who support the
Jet Effect. Prof. McAdams, a well educated man, will disown you.

I keep on challenging you to present:

- Empirical Evidence
- Theoretical/Mathematical Models

to justify the violent back snap being produced by a shot from behind.
Your collective reply: zippo, nada, the empty set. This is NOT to say that
your scenario is impossible! mind you, but the fact that:

- Having infinite resources at your disposal your side has provided none
of the above.

- See for instance how the Koch financed charade avoided the fatal shot
like the plague.

creates serious presumption of impossibility. At the end, Science will
decide.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

================

Some shots from my collection:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22351-john-lattimer-i-wish-to-reemphasize-that-none-of-our-test-objects-in-these-experiments-ever-jumped-or-fell-off-the-stand-away-from-the-shooter/







I have a scientific paper somewhere in which *coconuts* are used to
simulate craniums. You people not only murdered our president but insult
him by calling him a melon head. Luis Walter Alvarez could not possibly
have gone any lower. Was repudiated by all his colleagues, then and now.
Shame on him.
bigdog
2018-08-23 02:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
I have been challenging conspiracy hobbyists to present as detailed a
scenario of the assassination as the WCR since I was on the old Prodigy
board back in the early 1990s. Few have tried and when they do, it becomes
obvious why so few have tried. The scenarios presented are like kicking
over a sandcastle. Mostly what we get for the conspiracy hobbyists are a
lot of unrelated loose threads. Put them all together and you have a pile
of loose threads. Never a cogent explanation that is compatible with the
evidence.
Its a good thing that many of us don't have a specific scenario or theory,
but we have the intelligence [obligatory Trump joke here] to consider
alternatives.
What I do have is this: the JFK Numbers challenge, so far unanswered by
anybody of relevance.
Your ramblings are so vague I have no idea what your challenge is. If your
mission is to show that Oswald did not act alone or that he didn't act at
all, your challenge is to present evidence that somebody other than him
took part in the assassination. So far I have seen no credible evidence
from you are anybody else that is the case.
Post by Piotr Mancini
BTW: Please don't repeat in public that there are people who support the
Jet Effect. Prof. McAdams, a well educated man, will disown you.
I have said repeatedly that jet effect is real an repeatable
experimentally. I believe it contributed to JFK's rearward lurch but was
not the primary mover. I believe that was a neuro-muscular reaction. I
know what the wasn't the cause. It wasn't from behind driven backward by
the force of a frontal shot. Bullets don't have that kind of throw weight
and a bullet transiting through an object only transfers a portion of it's
momentum to the object. If a bullet enters an object with X amount of
energy and exits with Y amount of energy, the energy transfer is (X - Y).
Post by Piotr Mancini
- Empirical Evidence
The empirical evidence that the shots which struck JFK from behind is the
medical evidence. It is incontrovertible. Every qualified medical examiner
who has seen the medical evidence has concurred. There are no dissenters
among qualified people.
Post by Piotr Mancini
- Theoretical/Mathematical Models
Dale Myers has done an excellent job of that. There is no need for me to
reinvent the wheel.
Post by Piotr Mancini
to justify the violent back snap being produced by a shot from behind.
Your collective reply: zippo, nada, the empty set. This is NOT to say that
As I pointed out to you earlier, the only way to prove neuromuscular
reaction caused the backward lurch is to shoot live human beings in the
back of the head precisely where JFK was hit and observe their reaction.
He should be obvious even to you why that is not feasible. It is totally
unnecessary to prove the cause of JFK's backward lurch. The key question
is what direction were the bullets traveling which struck him. For that we
have incontrovertible medical evidence that the bullet struck him from
behind.

Please copy and save this response so do don't pull a Bob Harris and come
back and repeat the same inane question again as if nobody has answered
it.
Post by Piotr Mancini
- Having infinite resources at your disposal your side has provided none
of the above.
Empirical medical evidence for shots from the rear has been provided. It
is not necessary to prove the cause of JFK's rearward lurch. If you want
to postulate shots hit him from other directions, the burden is on you to
establish that. Since you have no medical evidence to support that, it is
YOU who needs to prove that the cause of JFK's rearward lurch was from
shots other than from behind.
Post by Piotr Mancini
- See for instance how the Koch financed charade avoided the fatal shot
like the plague.
What nonsense. The fatal head shot has been dealt with thoroughly.
Post by Piotr Mancini
creates serious presumption of impossibility. At the end, Science will
decide.
I have seen nothing in your approach which is the least bit scientific.
You seem to be taking the lazy man's approach of postulating shots from
other directions and challenging others to disprove what you presented no
evidence to support.
Post by Piotr Mancini
================
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22351-john-lattimer-i-wish-to-reemphasize-that-none-of-our-test-objects-in-these-experiments-ever-jumped-or-fell-off-the-stand-away-from-the-shooter/
http://youtu.be/8cS6vl1vI4g
http://youtu.be/YFIZgN_AXRw
http://youtu.be/6tqsJOIDJWc
I have a scientific paper somewhere in which *coconuts* are used to
simulate craniums. You people not only murdered our president but insult
him by calling him a melon head. Luis Walter Alvarez could not possibly
have gone any lower. Was repudiated by all his colleagues, then and now.
Shame on him.
Nobody is calling JFK a melon head. The purpose of the experiment was to
show that a solid object filled with soft insides will move in the
opposite direction of a bullet which strikes it. That can and has been
done with gelatin filled skulls, melons, coconuts, etc. It is a repeatable
phenomena. If you challenge that assertion, why don't you conduct a
similar experiment and show that the object will move in the direction of
the bullet. You won't because you can't. You know the physics is against
you.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-23 14:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
I have been challenging conspiracy hobbyists to present as detailed a
scenario of the assassination as the WCR since I was on the old Prodigy
board back in the early 1990s. Few have tried and when they do, it becomes
obvious why so few have tried. The scenarios presented are like kicking
over a sandcastle. Mostly what we get for the conspiracy hobbyists are a
lot of unrelated loose threads. Put them all together and you have a pile
of loose threads. Never a cogent explanation that is compatible with the
evidence.
Its a good thing that many of us don't have a specific scenario or theory,
but we have the intelligence [obligatory Trump joke here] to consider
alternatives.
What I do have is this: the JFK Numbers challenge, so far unanswered by
anybody of relevance.
BTW: Please don't repeat in public that there are people who support the
Jet Effect. Prof. McAdams, a well educated man, will disown you.
- Empirical Evidence
- Theoretical/Mathematical Models
to justify the violent back snap being produced by a shot from behind.
Your collective reply: zippo, nada, the empty set. This is NOT to say that
- Having infinite resources at your disposal your side has provided none
of the above.
- See for instance how the Koch financed charade avoided the fatal shot
like the plague.
creates serious presumption of impossibility. At the end, Science will
decide.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
================
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22351-john-lattimer-i-wish-to-reemphasize-that-none-of-our-test-objects-in-these-experiments-ever-jumped-or-fell-off-the-stand-away-from-the-shooter/
What he didn't tell you was that the ladder was pushed forward by the
impact of the bullet.
Post by Piotr Mancini
http://youtu.be/8cS6vl1vI4g
http://youtu.be/YFIZgN_AXRw
http://youtu.be/6tqsJOIDJWc
I have a scientific paper somewhere in which *coconuts* are used to
simulate craniums. You people not only murdered our president but insult
him by calling him a melon head. Luis Walter Alvarez could not possibly
have gone any lower. Was repudiated by all his colleagues, then and now.
Shame on him.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 21:35:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?
I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.
I nominate Chuck's post as The Best Question asked since the JFK Numbers
project made a home in this Newsgroup.
(1) Say "My job here is done. I humiliated those big mouth CTs", declare
victory and go home, on to other topics, where asses remain to be kicked.
(2) Continue dealing with that issue in public, demanding answers. After
all what kind of shitty/faked Humble Servant of The People would I be if I
run away at the first sight of trouble, when difficult/uncomfortable
topics arrive? I should leave that paralysis/muteness/non-responsiveness
behavior to Our Esteemed Counterparts of the LN Persuasion.
(3) You can e-mail me to ramon (at) jfknumbers.org so I can provide
detailed explanations, with e-mails, etc. Yes, revealing some of those
e-mails can get me in trouble with some of The Big Wigs. I have already
stepped in some toes, being fired from the Houston Trial of Lee Evidence
team in a very public fashion, faced opposition ... actually, let's be
frank: sabotage. They have tried to shoot me down from my impressive high
flight (Mantik's words, in congratulatory fashion) but the most I have
conceded is to have my wings voluntarily clipped (*for now*) and that is
the reason why I am working based in this Usenet Siberia (*for now*), due
respect.
Clearly, (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive.
You deserve some sort of Usenet medal for showing that, contrary to
popular belief, after all, there is intelligent life in a.a.jfk. :-)
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
I'm not looking for an email pal, but I am amazed that since I've been
posting on these discussion boards on-and-off since around 2002, I have
never heard one JFK conspiracist lay out their detailed conspiracy in a
way that accounts for the evidence better than the WC accounted for the
evidence. It's all non-stop logical fallacies, and at every turn where the
conspiracist is faced with a roadblock to their pet theory, you can bet
the conclusion is that the inconvenient evidence was planted, altered,
forged, lost, stolen, swapped out, etc.
If you have a case, let's see it and compare it to the WC case. My
experience is that CTs are simply looking for someone to constantly answer
their begged questions. No answer can satisfy them, hence it's a game and
not a quest to learn something new about the events that day.
I have been challenging conspiracy hobbyists to present as detailed a
scenario of the assassination as the WCR since I was on the old Prodigy
board back in the early 1990s. Few have tried and when they do, it becomes
obvious why so few have tried. The scenarios presented are like kicking
over a sandcastle. Mostly what we get for the conspiracy hobbyists are a
lot of unrelated loose threads. Put them all together and you have a pile
of loose threads. Never a cogent explanation that is compatible with the
evidence.
Yes, please copy and paste those old messages so that we can see what
you were interested in at the time. SBT? Head shot?
Your tastes may have changed over the years.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-21 14:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?
I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.
I nominate Chuck's post as The Best Question asked since the JFK Numbers
project made a home in this Newsgroup.
(1) Say "My job here is done. I humiliated those big mouth CTs", declare
victory and go home, on to other topics, where asses remain to be kicked.
(2) Continue dealing with that issue in public, demanding answers. After
all what kind of shitty/faked Humble Servant of The People would I be if I
run away at the first sight of trouble, when difficult/uncomfortable
topics arrive? I should leave that paralysis/muteness/non-responsiveness
behavior to Our Esteemed Counterparts of the LN Persuasion.
(3) You can e-mail me to ramon (at) jfknumbers.org so I can provide
detailed explanations, with e-mails, etc. Yes, revealing some of those
e-mails can get me in trouble with some of The Big Wigs. I have already
stepped in some toes, being fired from the Houston Trial of Lee Evidence
team in a very public fashion, faced opposition ... actually, let's be
frank: sabotage. They have tried to shoot me down from my impressive high
flight (Mantik's words, in congratulatory fashion) but the most I have
conceded is to have my wings voluntarily clipped (*for now*) and that is
the reason why I am working based in this Usenet Siberia (*for now*), due
respect.
Clearly, (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive.
You deserve some sort of Usenet medal for showing that, contrary to
popular belief, after all, there is intelligent life in a.a.jfk. :-)
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
I'm not looking for an email pal [...]
Reread your own post, Chuck: You were the one who asked about the funding
issue, raising money, you attempted to mock us. Well, I happen to be the
one and only person on this wide earth who can inform you about that. In a
public NG, anyway.

Not looking for pals, either. In fact, consider me the biggest jerk in
this field (this is not a popularity contest), with a few essential
attributes.

- I am very well informed, rub elbows in circles where you would never be
invited. The likes of McAdams, Posner, etc. are my co-recipients in
such threads.

- I am THE top technical person (more accurately: Science and Technology
Advisor to pretty much all JFK groups) nowadays in the JFK case. (Not
sure whether to be proud or to cry of frustration). Have tangible
results to show. At some point I had peers, but sadly, they are all
gone now. We should make them a statue and they should publicly say
their goodbyes.

- From me, you will get: The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The
Truth.

I will leave you with the famous JFK Numbers challenge, which remains
untouched. Your "courageous" peers have chosen to run away. Read it very
carefully, since it will be your doom (or mine, only God knows with
certainty).

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

"Those who are worried to offend are not interested in The Truth"

==========================

Charles: If there is a public, highly publicized petition to have MIT,
Berkeley, Stanford, Oxford et al. working on solving the JFK Numbers,
using the latest advances, leading edge science and state of the art
technology: would you co-sign it? Perhaps advertise it? Feel free to use
your own wording, a personalized petition from you and your followers.
What can you possibly lose? Your credibility and reputation -the most
valuable possession of a person or entity- would be enhanced.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-21 14:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by c***@gmail.com
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?
I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.
I nominate Chuck's post as The Best Question asked since the JFK Numbers
project made a home in this Newsgroup.
(1) Say "My job here is done. I humiliated those big mouth CTs", declare
victory and go home, on to other topics, where asses remain to be kicked.
(2) Continue dealing with that issue in public, demanding answers. After
all what kind of shitty/faked Humble Servant of The People would I be if I
run away at the first sight of trouble, when difficult/uncomfortable
topics arrive? I should leave that paralysis/muteness/non-responsiveness
behavior to Our Esteemed Counterparts of the LN Persuasion.
(3) You can e-mail me to ramon (at) jfknumbers.org so I can provide
detailed explanations, with e-mails, etc. Yes, revealing some of those
e-mails can get me in trouble with some of The Big Wigs. I have already
stepped in some toes, being fired from the Houston Trial of Lee Evidence
team in a very public fashion, faced opposition ... actually, let's be
frank: sabotage. They have tried to shoot me down from my impressive high
flight (Mantik's words, in congratulatory fashion) but the most I have
conceded is to have my wings voluntarily clipped (*for now*) and that is
the reason why I am working based in this Usenet Siberia (*for now*), due
respect.
Clearly, (2) and (3) are not mutually exclusive.
You deserve some sort of Usenet medal for showing that, contrary to
popular belief, after all, there is intelligent life in a.a.jfk. :-)
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
I'm not looking for an email pal [...]
So you ran away from No. 3. It is your prerogative.

What is your excuse for avoiding No. 2?

Topic: "Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' and you guys can't raise a few thousand bucks"

Are you still interested on the topic? On getting answers to your
important questions?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-21 14:39:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
If you have a case, let's see it and compare it to the WC case.
Sorry but...

(a) I don't have a case. Let science decide.

(b) I am laser-focused on the *numerical* aspect.

(c) Only new heretofore ignored science (by both/all sides) interest me.

What I have is the conviction that the best scientists in the world (each
in their own field), in team with The People will solve the the numerical
aspects of the crime.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAE2K90XWbLWWEwEP5tfobw/about

Please see the comments under this YouTube videoclip and follow the 2
included links.



Chuck: You would be surprised that you and I are on the same side.

How can I make that bold assertion? Easy: You are a sincere,
intellectually honest individual who is interested in The Truth, The Whole
Truth and Nothing But The Truth. Well, the truth and JFK Numbers are
inseparable, by definition.

Ergo, we are on the same side.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Jason Burke
2018-08-23 01:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by c***@gmail.com
If you have a case, let's see it and compare it to the WC case.
Sorry but...
(a) I don't have a case. Let science decide.
(b) I am laser-focused on the *numerical* aspect.
(c) Only new heretofore ignored science (by both/all sides) interest me.
What I have is the conviction that the best scientists in the world (each
in their own field), in team with The People will solve the the numerical
aspects of the crime.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAE2K90XWbLWWEwEP5tfobw/about
Please see the comments under this YouTube videoclip and follow the 2
included links.
http://youtu.be/iXbm4f1ppcI
Chuck: You would be surprised that you and I are on the same side.
How can I make that bold assertion? Easy: You are a sincere,
intellectually honest individual who is interested in The Truth, The Whole
Truth and Nothing But The Truth. Well, the truth and JFK Numbers are
inseparable, by definition.
Ergo, we are on the same side.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Did you try to invent the "wheel" at 77 Mass Ave, Ramon?
How'd that work out?
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-19 01:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A shame you spent all that text explaining by alteration couldn't be
done on the Z-film. If you have the interest in finding how wrong you can
be, go to the library and take out the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the
ARRB" by Douglas Horne. In it Horne spends over 200 hundred pages
explaining the witnesses, methods and the equipment available to the
experts for film analysis and alteration in 1963. He will explain how the
CIA lab at Rochester, NY, called the 'Hawkeye works' altered the film and
tested it carefully. Some of the information is online too, for those
that interested in how it could be done. Here's a couple videos that
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
https://vimeo.com/102327635
Skip ahead to see the witness.
Chris
Hilarious.
I guess you'd laugh as Rome burned, eh?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Just curious, Chris, but why doesn't Horne, Fetzer, Oliver Stone, etc.
actually run a recreation and share it?
One has to think to solve these difficult questions. A) because
recreations cost money.
Hilarious. Tens of millions are/have been spent on CT books and watching
Stone's 'JFK' (he also spent millions making it) and you guys can't raise
a few thousand bucks to shoot bullets at a limo and film it?
I guess solving this isn't worth much to you JFK Truthers.
B) because recreations are like simulations and
Post by mainframetech
such, in that they will show whatever the author wants to show and can't
be relied upon.
Film what you allege occurred and show it. Alter the film using 50s/60s
technology and show that, too. Post it on YouTube. Aren't you interested
in seeing whether what you allege occurred--the altering of the Z
film--can even be pulled off credibly?
And as to the people you named, I have particular loyalty
Post by mainframetech
or appreciation for Fetzer or Stone.
Post by c***@gmail.com
First, recreate what they allege happened (shots pinging off windshields
and slamming into JFK etc. from different angles and directions) and then
SHOW that film. Realistically reenact the event as much as possible.
Sorry, you've gone off into wonderland. When I speak of a bullet hole
THROUGH the windshield of the limo, it's from actual eyewitnesses.
http://youtu.be/vClwuJ0yuWM
It was a doctor named Evalea Glanges, and she stood right next to the
bullet hole when looking at it. And she was only one of 6 eyewitnesses to
the bullet hole. Now that you've heard testimony is it still funny?
No, but it is wrong.
Post by mainframetech
Post by c***@gmail.com
Next, employ the tactics and film techniques they allege were used to turn
what happened into the present day Z film you all think was altered. Use
the 1963 technology mentioned in the clip and carry it out.
Show the before and after results.
Let's see it.
It would be stupid. That device would cost a fortune, and if you were
shown the result, you'd fail to believe it, so it would be a waste.
I guess there is a price for "solving" the mystery of the death of
Camelot.
Post by mainframetech
However, there's an article online that Deke found that summarizes the
work of Douglas Horne, who wrote it up. It goes into much of the detail
surrounding the Z-film after being taken by Zapruder. Including who the
witness were and how the manipulation was done. It may be too much
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
Chris
Great. Apply these manipulations to real-world tests.
I have lots of 1963 era 8mm films. You are free to see if you can alter
it if you want. Just post your real name and real address and I'll mail
you some.
deke
2018-08-20 01:03:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have lots of 1963 era 8mm films. You are free to see if you can alter
it if you want. Just post your real name and real address and I'll mail
you some.
I'm sure some of us here would like to take you up on your offer if only
we had access to the Kodak photographic lab that certain government
agencies had at their disposal in 1963.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-21 14:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have lots of 1963 era 8mm films. You are free to see if you can alter
it if you want. Just post your real name and real address and I'll mail
you some.
I'm sure some of us here would like to take you up on your offer if only
we had access to the Kodak photographic lab that certain government
agencies had at their disposal in 1963.
You'd have to recreate what it was like then.
What labs do you have access to now? My favorite lab moved away.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-11 22:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
Tell everybody what things I claim are fake.
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. And agree
that all the other photographic evidence is authentic.
So what one little piece do I claim is not authentic and how does that
change our understanding of all the other evidence. Name it and explain it.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
THEM are the alterationists and I am the one who is always arguing
against them. You coule help too you know.
Post by d***@gmail.com
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
WTF are you babbling about? You mean the evidence that no one was
allowed to see, even the autopsy doctors?
Post by d***@gmail.com
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
Yes, they DO KNOW and that's why they do it. Professional liars.
Post by d***@gmail.com
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
MSNBC plays Trump actually saying these lies himself.
Not just them saying that he said it. Listen to the Devin Nunes tape for
yourself. Not opinion. His actual words. Like a confession.
Post by d***@gmail.com
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
So propaganda never existed before?
Then why would the CIA have a whole department dedicated to it?
Post by d***@gmail.com
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
Silly. No one can fake the ghost images in the sprocket hole area.
That was a known defect in some cameras back then as I demonstrated from
an ordinary 8 mm home movie taken back then:

Loading Image...

This is what they call research. Try it some time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-12 20:39:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
Tell everybody what things I claim are fake.
"Almost no conspiracy theory". Oh, there's not doubt that you're special,
Tony.

All the LNs are wrong. And all the CTs are also wrong with their wild
theories. But you, and you alone, have it all figured out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
I know, I know, I know. You remind me at least once a week.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/football.jpg
This is what they call research. Try it some time.
Yeah, you're quite the researcher. You're the type of researcher who would
place a tray of water into a freezer, close the door, come back hours
later to find that the water had turned to ice and conclude that the
closing of the freezer door is what makes water turn to ice. You would
also hypothesize that this process, apparently, must be done in darkness;
thinking that the closing of the door causes the freezer light to go off
and make the correlation between freezing and darkness.

You do research and still manage to extrapolate ridiculous conclusions.
That's a polite way of saying: You're wasting your time/life.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-13 14:59:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's a polite way of saying: You're wasting your time/life.
Says the man that has dedicated his life to a shrine of Dale Myers (whose
main achievement in life is to take the contents of his hard disk to his
grave), arguing for a case that -he claims- is a "Case Closed".

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 19:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
Tell everybody what things I claim are fake.
"Almost no conspiracy theory". Oh, there's not doubt that you're special,
Tony.
All the LNs are wrong. And all the CTs are also wrong with their wild
theories. But you, and you alone, have it all figured out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
I know, I know, I know. You remind me at least once a week.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/football.jpg
This is what they call research. Try it some time.
Yeah, you're quite the researcher. You're the type of researcher who would
place a tray of water into a freezer, close the door, come back hours
later to find that the water had turned to ice and conclude that the
closing of the freezer door is what makes water turn to ice. You would
also hypothesize that this process, apparently, must be done in darkness;
thinking that the closing of the door causes the freezer light to go off
and make the correlation between freezing and darkness.
The only thing you can do is make personal insults. But I did like your
strawman argument, Does the light stay on when you close the door. Do an
experiment. Get inside an old refrigerator with the handle that locks on
the outside and have someone close the door and then come back a week
later and see if it's the water that is frozen or you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You do research and still manage to extrapolate ridiculous conclusions.
That's a polite way of saying: You're wasting your time/life.
I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic, not you.
We got the HSCA and proves conspiracy. You have done nothing.You ARE
nothing.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
deke
2018-08-13 06:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
David - What older people seem to forget and younger people seem not to
realise is that the early 60s were not exactly the stone ages. Astronauts
were being sent into space on a regular basis, communication satellites
were starting to come on line and many technologies were being developed.
It would be several decades until the computer revolution and the
Internet, but if you follow Cris/Mainframetech's links as well as the one
below, you will see that the technology to alter the Zapruder film did in
fact exist back then, and today's technology is being effectively used to
detect the alteration.

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
mainframetech
2018-08-14 01:01:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
David - What older people seem to forget and younger people seem not to
realise is that the early 60s were not exactly the stone ages. Astronauts
were being sent into space on a regular basis, communication satellites
were starting to come on line and many technologies were being developed.
It would be several decades until the computer revolution and the
Internet, but if you follow Cris/Mainframetech's links as well as the one
below, you will see that the technology to alter the Zapruder film did in
fact exist back then, and today's technology is being effectively used to
detect the alteration.
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
Thank you Deke! That saves me a lot of explaining since it is a
concise summary of Douglas Horne's 4th of 5 volumes. I have been unwilling
to write up all that summary, but now I can point to it! It even covers a
bit of the technology used back in 1963!

Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-08-14 01:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
David - What older people seem to forget and younger people seem not to
realise is that the early 60s were not exactly the stone ages. Astronauts
were being sent into space on a regular basis, communication satellites
were starting to come on line and many technologies were being developed.
It would be several decades until the computer revolution and the
Internet, but if you follow Cris/Mainframetech's links as well as the one
below, you will see that the technology to alter the Zapruder film did in
fact exist back then, and today's technology is being effectively used to
detect the alteration.
http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
Where did mainframetech link to an expert who said it was possible to
alter the Z film in 1963?

Where do you disagree with David's point? He wrote:

"But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis."

You claim that modern technology is exposing the alterations.

Why did the people who saw the original film in Zapruder's office say the
film later shown - the one we see today - wasn't altered? Zapruder
testified in the Shaw trial that the film shown - and later pirated and
released - wasn't altered. Richard Stolley, who purchased the film on
behalf of Time/Life, is still alive and he says he sees no changes.
Ace Kefford
2018-08-15 02:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
Travis Banger
2018-08-15 19:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?

Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.

I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.

How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)

Are you familiar with the 3 core JFK Numbers projects? One of them got a
big boost hours ago.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/Y0YnycONhPI

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
claviger
2018-08-16 02:40:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
Amen, it's the Intellectual thing to do!
Post by Travis Banger
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
Are you familiar with the 3 core JFK Numbers projects? One of them got a
big boost hours ago.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/Y0YnycONhPI
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
bigdog
2018-08-17 00:26:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
The case was resolved 54 years ago. Sorry you missed. It the DPD had
solved it within 12 hours of the crime and the exhaustive investigation by
the WC confirmed that their conclusion was the correct one. It wasn't hard
to figure out. Oswald left plenty of evidence behind. It makes me wonder
why the conspiracy hobbyists are still having so much difficulty figuring
out an open and shut case.
Post by Travis Banger
Are you familiar with the 3 core JFK Numbers projects? One of them got a
big boost hours ago.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/Y0YnycONhPI
Oh, goody.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-18 00:59:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
The case was resolved 54 years ago. Sorry you missed.
The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement.

With 80% of America not buying what you are selling (regardless of Koch
and other monetary incentives/subsidies) the case is anything but solved.
Oh, and if/when the other 20% learns how to read and think critically,
your case will be in much worse shape.

Say ...

Are you people looking for your violent back snap empirical cases (any
bodies being sucked into the bus or baseball bat that hit them?) and
theoretical models? We numerically minded types have been patiently
waiting for years. We are doing our homework. We believe in ourselves.

Since you do not believe in yourselves how about some letter to your
masters? [can I say "massas"?] I am sure Dale Myers and the people who
made the PBS NOVA charade can come up with some physicists, numerical
types such as this guy:

https://www.imsg.com/about-us/customers/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29736430

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
bigdog
2018-08-19 00:20:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
The case was resolved 54 years ago. Sorry you missed.
The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement.
The truth is the truth whether their is a consensus belief among the
public or not. At one time there was a consensus that the earth was flat.
That didn't alter the fact the earth is and always was a sphere. JFK was
shot by LHO. There is no credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice. If a majority of the public refuses to accept that is their
problem.
Post by Piotr Mancini
With 80% of America not buying what you are selling (regardless of Koch
and other monetary incentives/subsidies) the case is anything but solved.
Oh, and if/when the other 20% learns how to read and think critically,
your case will be in much worse shape.
More recent polls show believe in conspiracy to be in the low 60% range
and it continues to decline as older Americans who look at the
assassination emotionally are replaced by younger Americans who are more
likely to look at the evidence objectively and realize there is no case
for conspiracy. I would gladly wager the percent of Americans who rarely
give the assassination any thought at all is north of 95%. Whether they
believe LHO acted alone or not, it's not something they are very
interested in any more.
Post by Piotr Mancini
Say ...
Are you people looking for your violent back snap empirical cases (any
bodies being sucked into the bus or baseball bat that hit them?) and
theoretical models? We numerically minded types have been patiently
waiting for years. We are doing our homework. We believe in ourselves.
If you want a numerical solution, why don't you 86 your conspiracy
theories.
Post by Piotr Mancini
Since you do not believe in yourselves how about some letter to your
masters? [can I say "massas"?] I am sure Dale Myers and the people who
made the PBS NOVA charade can come up with some physicists, numerical
https://www.imsg.com/about-us/customers/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29736430
We are sensible enough to determine the direction of the shots which
struck JFK through proven means used in almost all gun shot murder cases.
Forensic pathology has established that entrance and exit wounds have
unique characteristics and they leave no doubt that the bullets which
struck JFK came from behind him. We aren't silly enough to believe that
the direction a shooting victim falls is an indication of the direction of
the shot. It is a totally unreliable indicator.
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-20 00:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
The case was resolved 54 years ago. Sorry you missed.
The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement.
The truth is the truth whether their is a consensus belief among the
public or not. At one time there was a consensus that the earth was flat.
That didn't alter the fact the earth is and always was a sphere. JFK was
shot by LHO. There is no credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice. If a majority of the public refuses to accept that is their
problem.
Post by Piotr Mancini
With 80% of America not buying what you are selling (regardless of Koch
and other monetary incentives/subsidies) the case is anything but solved.
Oh, and if/when the other 20% learns how to read and think critically,
your case will be in much worse shape.
More recent polls show believe in conspiracy to be in the low 60% range
and it continues to decline as older Americans who look at the
assassination emotionally are replaced by younger Americans who are more
likely to look at the evidence objectively and realize there is no case
for conspiracy. I would gladly wager the percent of Americans who rarely
give the assassination any thought at all is north of 95%. Whether they
believe LHO acted alone or not, it's not something they are very
interested in any more.
I've had a lot of Dallas layovers lately and have had a few conversations
with Robert Groden. I asked him the following question: "What if something
extremely compelling and incontrovertible emerged that PROVED there was a
conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination? Let's say it's so compelling that
even those who have argued for decades that Oswald acted alone would have
to concede that they've been wrong. Today - what difference do you think
it would make? What do you think would be the impact?"

He just shrugged his shoulders and said, "In this day and age - I don't
think it would make any difference."

And, on that, I finally confess that there IS something Robert Groden I
agree on.

NOTE: By the way, over the years, I've had many occasions to have a
conversation with Robert Groden. It's always in Dealey Plaza on the
weekend. I usually wait for a lull when there are no tourists around him
for him to hawk his books and DVDs. (Actually, Evan Marshall does all the
carnival barking for Groden.) But I do not argue with him. It's always
civil. I don't challenge everything he says. I figure that this is his
livelihood and I do not consider it appropriate to go to war with him,
especially in front of prospective buyers of his wares. I extend him that
courtesy. In another venue, I'm sure we would have a different type of
conversation. I'm not even sure he completely understands that I disagree
with just about everything that he has ever written or said about the
assassination.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-08-20 19:56:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
The case was resolved 54 years ago. Sorry you missed.
The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement.
The truth is the truth whether their is a consensus belief among the
public or not. At one time there was a consensus that the earth was flat.
That didn't alter the fact the earth is and always was a sphere. JFK was
shot by LHO. There is no credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice. If a majority of the public refuses to accept that is their
problem.
Post by Piotr Mancini
With 80% of America not buying what you are selling (regardless of Koch
and other monetary incentives/subsidies) the case is anything but solved.
Oh, and if/when the other 20% learns how to read and think critically,
your case will be in much worse shape.
More recent polls show believe in conspiracy to be in the low 60% range
and it continues to decline as older Americans who look at the
assassination emotionally are replaced by younger Americans who are more
likely to look at the evidence objectively and realize there is no case
for conspiracy. I would gladly wager the percent of Americans who rarely
give the assassination any thought at all is north of 95%. Whether they
believe LHO acted alone or not, it's not something they are very
interested in any more.
I've had a lot of Dallas layovers lately and have had a few conversations
with Robert Groden. I asked him the following question: "What if something
extremely compelling and incontrovertible emerged that PROVED there was a
conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination? Let's say it's so compelling that
even those who have argued for decades that Oswald acted alone would have
to concede that they've been wrong. Today - what difference do you think
it would make? What do you think would be the impact?"
He just shrugged his shoulders and said, "In this day and age - I don't
think it would make any difference."
And, on that, I finally confess that there IS something Robert Groden I
agree on.
NOTE: By the way, over the years, I've had many occasions to have a
conversation with Robert Groden. It's always in Dealey Plaza on the
weekend. I usually wait for a lull when there are no tourists around him
for him to hawk his books and DVDs. (Actually, Evan Marshall does all the
carnival barking for Groden.) But I do not argue with him. It's always
civil. I don't challenge everything he says. I figure that this is his
livelihood and I do not consider it appropriate to go to war with him,
especially in front of prospective buyers of his wares. I extend him that
courtesy. In another venue, I'm sure we would have a different type of
conversation. I'm not even sure he completely understands that I disagree
with just about everything that he has ever written or said about the
assassination.
I made one trip to Dealey Plaza in 2008 and Groden was there. I wondered
who the guy was at the table with him. Now I know. You're right about him
doing all the talking, even the one-on-one conversations with potential
customers. At the end of the day, they folded up their table and split the
day's take for the self published books. I actually felt a bit sorry for
him. Here was a guy who was trying to eke out a meager living in what
seems to be the only thing he has going for him. It was like watching a
wino sell his blood.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-21 14:29:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by bigdog
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
The case was resolved 54 years ago. Sorry you missed.
The most fundamental (some say, genetic) trait of you Conservatives is
that you lack the ability to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of
others -hence your lack of empathy-. For those of us who live and believe
in CIVILIZATION something has been resolved when a sizable (never 100% but
we strive to that, unlike you, we dare to dream) segment of the population
is in agreement.
The truth is the truth whether their is a consensus belief among the
public or not. At one time there was a consensus that the earth was flat.
That didn't alter the fact the earth is and always was a sphere. JFK was
shot by LHO. There is no credible evidence he had even a single
accomplice. If a majority of the public refuses to accept that is their
problem.
Post by Piotr Mancini
With 80% of America not buying what you are selling (regardless of Koch
and other monetary incentives/subsidies) the case is anything but solved.
Oh, and if/when the other 20% learns how to read and think critically,
your case will be in much worse shape.
More recent polls show believe in conspiracy to be in the low 60% range
and it continues to decline as older Americans who look at the
assassination emotionally are replaced by younger Americans who are more
likely to look at the evidence objectively and realize there is no case
for conspiracy. I would gladly wager the percent of Americans who rarely
give the assassination any thought at all is north of 95%. Whether they
believe LHO acted alone or not, it's not something they are very
interested in any more.
I've had a lot of Dallas layovers lately and have had a few conversations
with Robert Groden. I asked him the following question: "What if something
extremely compelling and incontrovertible emerged that PROVED there was a
conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination? Let's say it's so compelling that
even those who have argued for decades that Oswald acted alone would have
to concede that they've been wrong. Today - what difference do you think
it would make? What do you think would be the impact?"
He just shrugged his shoulders and said, "In this day and age - I don't
think it would make any difference."
And, on that, I finally confess that there IS something Robert Groden I
agree on.
NOTE: By the way, over the years, I've had many occasions to have a
conversation with Robert Groden. It's always in Dealey Plaza on the
weekend. I usually wait for a lull when there are no tourists around him
for him to hawk his books and DVDs. (Actually, Evan Marshall does all the
carnival barking for Groden.) But I do not argue with him. It's always
civil. I don't challenge everything he says. I figure that this is his
livelihood and I do not consider it appropriate to go to war with him,
I've argued with him many times, but he is still my friend.
Post by d***@gmail.com
especially in front of prospective buyers of his wares. I extend him that
courtesy. In another venue, I'm sure we would have a different type of
conversation. I'm not even sure he completely understands that I disagree
with just about everything that he has ever written or said about the
assassination.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-18 14:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Ace Kefford
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
You a fellow engineer, Ace?
Ask not what JFK Numbers can do for you,
ask what you can do for JFK Numbers.
I don't even know -or care- in which side of the divide you sit, as long
as you are interested in The Truth.
How can you help to bring this case to a sudden resolution? (from the
*numerical* point of view)
The case was resolved 54 years ago. Sorry you missed. It the DPD had
solved it within 12 hours of the crime and the exhaustive investigation by
Yes. within hours they knew it was a conspiracy.
Post by bigdog
the WC confirmed that their conclusion was the correct one. It wasn't hard
There wass no exhaustive INVESTIGATION. Only an exhaustive cover-up.
Post by bigdog
to figure out. Oswald left plenty of evidence behind. It makes me wonder
why the conspiracy hobbyists are still having so much difficulty figuring
out an open and shut case.
Post by Travis Banger
Are you familiar with the 3 core JFK Numbers projects? One of them got a
big boost hours ago.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/Y0YnycONhPI
Oh, goody.
Ace Kefford
2018-08-21 01:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
No takers on my slide rule challenge! I expected as much.
bigdog
2018-08-22 02:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I'll put my slide rule up against any young punk with a hand calculator or
so-called "smart" phone. Any challengers?
No takers on my slide rule challenge! I expected as much.
I learned to use a slide rule in high school but then a couple years later
they came out with the calculator and it became a lost art. I couldn't
even begin to tell you how to use it now.
claviger
2018-08-17 20:43:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David,

As usual, a very well written thought process. In the 60s
any attempt to tamper with 8mm film would be basically
mechanical. Such as removing or replacing a frame. So
would they be able to actually erase something inside a
frame or paint over an object to black it out?

The problem an alteration expert would have is the total
number of frames must be accounted for. Does the film
automatically number each frame at the time or is that
done in the studio during production?

I've thought a lot about allegations of film tampering and
assumed almost impossible and would be obvious using
modern technology and dismissed the possibility.

Then I noticed something on the Bronson Film new on the
Robin Unger website. There are 3 identical frames in a row
in one part of the film. I double checked those frames and
could find no difference. That doesn't seem possible.

Then it occurred to me if someone wanted to remove two
of the frames they did not want the public or researchers
to see, then replace with copies of an existing frame. No
need for painting over that might be obvious one day in
the future with new technology of enhancement revealing
brush strokes, erasures, etc.

That would be a very effective way to remove a frame or
two, and who would notice? The subtlety is brilliant.

As many times as I have carefully perused the Bronson Film
I never noticed this before. The question is, how to number
the frames being duplicated? Was that possible back then
or even now?

Another detail I noticed on the Bronson Film is two ladies in
black dresses are standing next to a lamppost, one actually
leaning on it. As the Limousine and security car passed by
they vanish. Since we are dealing with 1/8 of a second how
is that possible? I mostly discounted all the film tampering
theories for many years until noticing the curiosities above
on the Bronson Film.

By the way, the Sixth Floor Museum would not allow anyone
to make a modern enhanced copy of this Bronson Film, LN
or CT. One offer was very generous to pay for all expenses
involved using experts from Washington DC. A national film
company with modern equipment doing work for the Federal
Government even offered to do this project for free because
of the historical significance.

The SFMADP turned down all these very generous offers.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-18 14:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process. In the 60s
any attempt to tamper with 8mm film would be basically
mechanical. Such as removing or replacing a frame. So
would they be able to actually erase something inside a
frame or paint over an object to black it out?
SUre. And they did in other cases. Rember how they altered the film to
make it look like Htiler dancing. The point is that they do that on a
copy and it is easy to notice.
Post by claviger
The problem an alteration expert would have is the total
number of frames must be accounted for. Does the film
Nope. Some alterationists only care about one frame or two.
Post by claviger
automatically number each frame at the time or is that
done in the studio during production?
No one numbers framesduring production. Show me any numbers on the
frames. That was done by the WC to publish them for the public. They
made PRINTS or transparencies of each frame.
Post by claviger
I've thought a lot about allegations of film tampering and
assumed almost impossible and would be obvious using
modern technology and dismissed the possibility.
Then I noticed something on the Bronson Film new on the
Robin Unger website. There are 3 identical frames in a row
in one part of the film. I double checked those frames and
could find no difference. That doesn't seem possible.
SHOW us what you mean.
Post by claviger
Then it occurred to me if someone wanted to remove two
of the frames they did not want the public or researchers
to see, then replace with copies of an existing frame. No
need for painting over that might be obvious one day in
the future with new technology of enhancement revealing
brush strokes, erasures, etc.
WHat's so special about just that one frame? What's the number of that
frame? Is that the one that shows Bigfoot in the background?
Post by claviger
That would be a very effective way to remove a frame or
two, and who would notice? The subtlety is brilliant.
Well, they DID remove a frame because the projector ate it.
Post by claviger
As many times as I have carefully perused the Bronson Film
I never noticed this before. The question is, how to number
the frames being duplicated? Was that possible back then
or even now?
They do not number the frames on the original film. Where are you
getting thie crap?
Post by claviger
Another detail I noticed on the Bronson Film is two ladies in
black dresses are standing next to a lamppost, one actually
leaning on it. As the Limousine and security car passed by
they vanish. Since we are dealing with 1/8 of a second how
OMG! Maybe they were beamed up by the aliens. I think you're on
something. What's the name of it?
Post by claviger
is that possible? I mostly discounted all the film tampering
theories for many years until noticing the curiosities above
on the Bronson Film.
You are not allowed to notice anything. You didn't notice Black Dog Man,
did you? Trying to become a conspiracy kook?
Post by claviger
By the way, the Sixth Floor Museum would not allow anyone
to make a modern enhanced copy of this Bronson Film, LN
or CT. One offer was very generous to pay for all expenses
involved using experts from Washington DC. A national film
company with modern equipment doing work for the Federal
Government even offered to do this project for free because
of the historical significance.
The SFMADP turned down all these very generous offers.
Travis Banger
2018-08-18 20:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
Just for the record:

(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.

(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
distinguished forum called:

"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".

(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.

Memphis:

(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).

(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)

(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)

Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.

[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]

But -as usual- I digress.

Clav: Do you agree in those three points with our esteemed David?

Are you also a proponent and active sponsor of keeping The People away
from *THEIR* files?

Are you also anti-science, as Emerling? Will you two cancel your
respective memberships of PBS for daring to give critical information to
The People?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
John McAdams
2018-08-18 20:50:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.

How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-19 17:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.

Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.

You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.

Does it bother me? Nah.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-08-19 17:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.
Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.
I was hoping it would make you realize how ridiculous your attacks on
Trump voters are.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-20 01:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.
Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.
I was hoping it would make you realize how ridiculous your attacks on
Trump voters are.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.
John, I have great respect for your intelligence and rationality. But, on
this issue, it's somewhat discouraging to see you so cynical.

I think it's probably too soon for you to admit you pulled the wrong lever
in the voting booth. That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."

One of the definitions of intelligence is the willingness/ability to
change one's mind when confronted with new evidence. Anything else is
dogma - the belief in things without evidence or, even worse, with
counter-evidence. Admittedly, it can be a hard pill to swallow.

I disagree, but I do understand.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-08-20 01:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.
John, I have great respect for your intelligence and rationality. But, on
this issue, it's somewhat discouraging to see you so cynical.
I think it's probably too soon for you to admit you pulled the wrong lever
in the voting booth.
That is arrogant, ad hominem, and condescending.
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
Post by d***@gmail.com
One of the definitions of intelligence is the willingness/ability to
change one's mind when confronted with new evidence. Anything else is
dogma - the belief in things without evidence or, even worse, with
counter-evidence. Admittedly, it can be a hard pill to swallow.
More arrogant and condescending rhetoric.

You are the one who ignores evidence. You won't even admit a media
bias against Trump.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I disagree, but I do understand.
No, you don't. You are so offended by Trump's style that you have
lost any sense of perspective.



.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-20 20:19:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
I didn't vote for Hillary. I threw my vote away and voted for Gary
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I knew he couldn't win. I live in
Tennessee and Trump was going to carry the state easily - by a wide
margin. And he did. So, I had the luxury of throwing my vote away.
However, if I thought for one second that Trump could lose Tennessee, I
would've voted for Hillary - not because she would necessarily be a great
president. I could also see that she was going to have a difficult time
getting anything done because she was such a polarizing figure. Too many
people HATED her. Her long time in politics played as a negative - not a
positive.

Listen, I think the dumbass American voters caused the WORST candidate in
BOTH parties rise to the top. People were complaining about their choices
(Trump or Clinton) but the PEOPLE are the ones who created the very
situation that they complained about it.

Frankly, I don't see how anybody could have been excited about the
prospect of a Clinton or Trump presidency. But Trump is just too much, in
my opinion. He's just an ignorant narcissist ... and not even in a subtle
way. People interpreted that as "shaking things up". I think it was much
more akin to "blowing things up". He brings shame onto the office. He's
the first president where parents have to tell their kids to leave the
room because the president is talking.

Do you watch his rallies and actually think, "That's my president!" - and
say it with any modicum of pride? I just can't. Even if you hated every
policy Obama ever enacted, at least he had class, spoke intelligently,
calmly, and had a dignified demeanor. Trump's policies can't be that great
that it's worth enduring him.

America is on =PAUSE= for four years. That's the way I look at it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-08-20 20:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
I didn't vote for Hillary. I threw my vote away and voted for Gary
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I knew he couldn't win. I live in
Tennessee and Trump was going to carry the state easily - by a wide
margin. And he did. So, I had the luxury of throwing my vote away.
However, if I thought for one second that Trump could lose Tennessee, I
would've voted for Hillary - not because she would necessarily be a great
president. I could also see that she was going to have a difficult time
getting anything done because she was such a polarizing figure. Too many
people HATED her. Her long time in politics played as a negative - not a
positive.
Listen, I think the dumbass American voters caused the WORST candidate in
BOTH parties rise to the top.
I think he was the *next* to worse candidate.
Post by d***@gmail.com
People were complaining about their choices
(Trump or Clinton) but the PEOPLE are the ones who created the very
situation that they complained about it.
Frankly, I don't see how anybody could have been excited about the
prospect of a Clinton or Trump presidency. But Trump is just too much, in
my opinion. He's just an ignorant narcissist ... and not even in a subtle
way. People interpreted that as "shaking things up". I think it was much
more akin to "blowing things up". He brings shame onto the office. He's
the first president where parents have to tell their kids to leave the
room because the president is talking.
Do you watch his rallies and actually think, "That's my president!" - and
say it with any modicum of pride? I just can't. Even if you hated every
policy Obama ever enacted, at least he had class, spoke intelligently,
calmly, and had a dignified demeanor.
Obama was as much a narcissist at Trump. But while Trump is a
blustery narcissist, Obama was a whiny narcissist, always whining
about the fact that people didn't see how great he was.

Remember the "bitter clingers" remark? It showed Obama to be a
snobbish elitist, who viewed a large swath of his fellow Americans
with contempt.

In that he faithfully reflected the elitist liberal culture. That
culture got a kick in the teeth in November 2106. And they deserved
it.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-08-21 02:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
I didn't vote for Hillary. I threw my vote away and voted for Gary
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I knew he couldn't win. I live in
Tennessee and Trump was going to carry the state easily - by a wide
margin. And he did. So, I had the luxury of throwing my vote away.
However, if I thought for one second that Trump could lose Tennessee, I
would've voted for Hillary - not because she would necessarily be a great
president. I could also see that she was going to have a difficult time
getting anything done because she was such a polarizing figure. Too many
people HATED her. Her long time in politics played as a negative - not a
positive.
I have voted mostly Libertarian since the 1990s. I made an exception in
2012 because I knew there was a good chance the Supreme Court was at stake
and if Obama got to name a replacement for one of the conservatives, it
would tip the court to the left, perhaps for the rest of my life. That
fear almost came to fruition but fortunately the GOP found some backbone
and refused to allow Obama to replace Scalia. SCOTUS was the primary
reason I was glad Trump won even though I hadn't voted for him. I knew
there was almost no chance my one little vote was going to decide who the
next President would be but by voting for Gary Johnson I could feel good
about my vote.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Listen, I think the dumbass American voters caused the WORST candidate in
BOTH parties rise to the top. People were complaining about their choices
(Trump or Clinton) but the PEOPLE are the ones who created the very
situation that they complained about it.
I'm always amazed at people who complain about the choices offered by the
major parties yet refuse to look at alternatives. As long as the major
parties know most people are going to vote R or D, we will continue to get
rotten choices from them. People say they don't want to throw their vote
away. To me, voting for somebody you don't believe in is throwing your
vote away. I never feel I am throwing my vote away when I vote for the
person who best represents my views.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Frankly, I don't see how anybody could have been excited about the
prospect of a Clinton or Trump presidency. But Trump is just too much, in
my opinion. He's just an ignorant narcissist ... and not even in a subtle
way. People interpreted that as "shaking things up". I think it was much
more akin to "blowing things up". He brings shame onto the office. He's
the first president where parents have to tell their kids to leave the
room because the president is talking.
Do you watch his rallies and actually think, "That's my president!" - and
say it with any modicum of pride? I just can't. Even if you hated every
policy Obama ever enacted, at least he had class, spoke intelligently,
calmly, and had a dignified demeanor. Trump's policies can't be that great
that it's worth enduring him.
Policy does matter. It matters a lot. It matters enough that despite his
obvious flaws, I prefer Trump over Hillary. Hillary would not have signed
a massive tax cut into law. Hillary would not have appointed Gorsuch or
Kavanaugh to SCOTUS. That's enough reason for me to be happy Trump won. I
can live with the embarrassing behavior because I know Gorsuch and
Kavanaugh will almost surely be on the Court long after Trump has left the
White House.
Post by d***@gmail.com
America is on =PAUSE= for four years. That's the way I look at it.
You can think MSNBC, CNN, the networks and much of the print media for
turning me into a Trump voter in 2020, assuming he is again the nominee. I
am not going to vote for Trump. I am going to vote against them. Had they
not engaged in such an over the top vendetta against him, I would probably
again be voting Libertarian in 2020.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-23 01:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
I didn't vote for Hillary. I threw my vote away and voted for Gary
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I knew he couldn't win. I live in
Tennessee and Trump was going to carry the state easily - by a wide
margin. And he did. So, I had the luxury of throwing my vote away.
However, if I thought for one second that Trump could lose Tennessee, I
would've voted for Hillary - not because she would necessarily be a great
president. I could also see that she was going to have a difficult time
getting anything done because she was such a polarizing figure. Too many
people HATED her. Her long time in politics played as a negative - not a
positive.
I have voted mostly Libertarian since the 1990s. I made an exception in
2012 because I knew there was a good chance the Supreme Court was at stake
and if Obama got to name a replacement for one of the conservatives, it
would tip the court to the left, perhaps for the rest of my life. That
fear almost came to fruition but fortunately the GOP found some backbone
and refused to allow Obama to replace Scalia. SCOTUS was the primary
reason I was glad Trump won even though I hadn't voted for him. I knew
there was almost no chance my one little vote was going to decide who the
next President would be but by voting for Gary Johnson I could feel good
about my vote.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Listen, I think the dumbass American voters caused the WORST candidate in
BOTH parties rise to the top. People were complaining about their choices
(Trump or Clinton) but the PEOPLE are the ones who created the very
situation that they complained about it.
I'm always amazed at people who complain about the choices offered by the
major parties yet refuse to look at alternatives. As long as the major
parties know most people are going to vote R or D, we will continue to get
rotten choices from them. People say they don't want to throw their vote
away. To me, voting for somebody you don't believe in is throwing your
vote away. I never feel I am throwing my vote away when I vote for the
person who best represents my views.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Frankly, I don't see how anybody could have been excited about the
prospect of a Clinton or Trump presidency. But Trump is just too much, in
my opinion. He's just an ignorant narcissist ... and not even in a subtle
way. People interpreted that as "shaking things up". I think it was much
more akin to "blowing things up". He brings shame onto the office. He's
the first president where parents have to tell their kids to leave the
room because the president is talking.
Do you watch his rallies and actually think, "That's my president!" - and
say it with any modicum of pride? I just can't. Even if you hated every
policy Obama ever enacted, at least he had class, spoke intelligently,
calmly, and had a dignified demeanor. Trump's policies can't be that great
that it's worth enduring him.
Policy does matter. It matters a lot. It matters enough that despite his
obvious flaws, I prefer Trump over Hillary. Hillary would not have signed
a massive tax cut into law. Hillary would not have appointed Gorsuch or
Kavanaugh to SCOTUS. That's enough reason for me to be happy Trump won. I
can live with the embarrassing behavior because I know Gorsuch and
Kavanaugh will almost surely be on the Court long after Trump has left the
White House.
Post by d***@gmail.com
America is on =PAUSE= for four years. That's the way I look at it.
You can think MSNBC, CNN, the networks and much of the print media for
I THINK we can THANK them for turning the low-information voteers into
Trump fans. They are proud to be uneducated and racist.
Post by bigdog
turning me into a Trump voter in 2020, assuming he is again the nominee. I
am not going to vote for Trump. I am going to vote against them. Had they
not engaged in such an over the top vendetta against him, I would probably
again be voting Libertarian in 2020.
You love to throw away your vote. Why not write in Adolf Hitler?
BT George
2018-08-21 14:41:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
I didn't vote for Hillary. I threw my vote away and voted for Gary
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I knew he couldn't win. I live in
Tennessee and Trump was going to carry the state easily - by a wide
margin. And he did. So, I had the luxury of throwing my vote away.
However, if I thought for one second that Trump could lose Tennessee, I
would've voted for Hillary - not because she would necessarily be a great
president. I could also see that she was going to have a difficult time
getting anything done because she was such a polarizing figure. Too many
people HATED her. Her long time in politics played as a negative - not a
positive.
Listen, I think the dumbass American voters caused the WORST candidate in
BOTH parties rise to the top. People were complaining about their choices
(Trump or Clinton) but the PEOPLE are the ones who created the very
situation that they complained about it.
Frankly, I don't see how anybody could have been excited about the
prospect of a Clinton or Trump presidency. But Trump is just too much, in
my opinion. He's just an ignorant narcissist ... and not even in a subtle
way. People interpreted that as "shaking things up". I think it was much
more akin to "blowing things up". He brings shame onto the office. He's
the first president where parents have to tell their kids to leave the
room because the president is talking.
Do you watch his rallies and actually think, "That's my president!" - and
say it with any modicum of pride? I just can't. Even if you hated every
policy Obama ever enacted, at least he had class, spoke intelligently,
calmly, and had a dignified demeanor. Trump's policies can't be that great
that it's worth enduring him.
America is on =PAUSE= for four years. That's the way I look at it.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Wow, our track and mind-meld on this are incredibly close. The only real
difference is that I would have *probably* voted for Trump if I didn't
have the luxury of living in a deep Red State. (As a Christian of the
Evangelical stipe Hillary---aside from her own clear character
issues---was just a bridge too far on too many key social issues of
importance to my side.)

...But rest assured. Thereafter, I would have gone outside and thought
*heavily* about whether I should blow my brains out for having made such a
decision of such questionable provenance.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 02:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
I didn't vote for Hillary. I threw my vote away and voted for Gary
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I knew he couldn't win. I live in
Tennessee and Trump was going to carry the state easily - by a wide
margin. And he did. So, I had the luxury of throwing my vote away.
Nothing wrong with voting for the Nazi as long as you know he has no
chance of winning. Many years ago a lot of us Democrats switched to the
Republican Party just to vote in the Republican primary against someone
we didn't like.
Post by d***@gmail.com
However, if I thought for one second that Trump could lose Tennessee, I
would've voted for Hillary - not because she would necessarily be a great
president. I could also see that she was going to have a difficult time
getting anything done because she was such a polarizing figure. Too many
people HATED her. Her long time in politics played as a negative - not a
positive.
You mean like Obama and the Tea Party opposition?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Listen, I think the dumbass American voters caused the WORST candidate in
BOTH parties rise to the top. People were complaining about their choices
(Trump or Clinton) but the PEOPLE are the ones who created the very
situation that they complained about it.
Frankly, I don't see how anybody could have been excited about the
prospect of a Clinton or Trump presidency. But Trump is just too much, in
my opinion. He's just an ignorant narcissist ... and not even in a subtle
way. People interpreted that as "shaking things up". I think it was much
more akin to "blowing things up". He brings shame onto the office. He's
the first president where parents have to tell their kids to leave the
room because the president is talking.
Do you watch his rallies and actually think, "That's my president!" - and
say it with any modicum of pride? I just can't. Even if you hated every
Hey. you used a big word. Stop that. ;])
Post by d***@gmail.com
policy Obama ever enacted, at least he had class, spoke intelligently,
calmly, and had a dignified demeanor. Trump's policies can't be that great
that it's worth enduring him.
America is on =PAUSE= for four years. That's the way I look at it.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BT George
2018-08-21 02:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.
John, I have great respect for your intelligence and rationality. But, on
this issue, it's somewhat discouraging to see you so cynical.
I think it's probably too soon for you to admit you pulled the wrong lever
in the voting booth.
That is arrogant, ad hominem, and condescending.
As you know, you and I are *miles* closer on most policy and
philosophical/religious issues than either of us is with David. Of
course, we parted ways on being able to support Trump so perhaps it is a
matter of a differnt perspective. But while I can see you finding David's
conclusion arrogant or condecending, I have to admit I really didn't see
it as ad hominem.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
And you are willing to admit you were wrong to vote for Hillary?
I thank God---literally---that I don't have to live with that burden
either.

That Trump won despite millions of conservatives like me who couldn't
support him in good conscience is miraculous; and a measure of just how
*poor* a candidate Hillary was. (Alas, she would have made no better
President than she was a candidate.)
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
One of the definitions of intelligence is the willingness/ability to
change one's mind when confronted with new evidence. Anything else is
dogma - the belief in things without evidence or, even worse, with
counter-evidence. Admittedly, it can be a hard pill to swallow.
More arrogant and condescending rhetoric.
You are the one who ignores evidence. You won't even admit a media
bias against Trump.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I disagree, but I do understand.
No, you don't. You are so offended by Trump's style that you have
lost any sense of perspective.
Well if David cannot see a clear Left/Mainstream anti-Trump media bias
from the get go, I have to agree with your comment here. My only problem
is that whereas a broken clock is usually only right twice a day, Trumps
antics, thoughtless remarks, and lack of advance planning for implementing
even many correct policies have made them right far more than twice a day.
...A fact that few Trump supporters seem willing to admit.
bigdog
2018-08-21 01:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.
Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.
I was hoping it would make you realize how ridiculous your attacks on
Trump voters are.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.
John, I have great respect for your intelligence and rationality. But, on
this issue, it's somewhat discouraging to see you so cynical.
I think it's probably too soon for you to admit you pulled the wrong lever
in the voting booth. That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
My county went back to paper ballots in the most recent election cycle but
that's beside the point. I cast my vote for Gary Johnson and it wasn't a
mistake and I don't regret it. I also don't regret that Trump won Hillary
lost. In 2020, I intend to send a big FU to MSNBC, CNN, the network news
organization, the NYT, Washington Compost and all the rest. That's too
much to put on one line of the ballot so they just abbreviate it DONALD J.
TRUMP. You can thank your friends in the liberal media for that decision.
I won't be voting for Trump. I will be voting against the liberal media.
I'd love to jam another Trump term up their noses. I'm guessing I won't be
alone in that sentiment.
Post by d***@gmail.com
One of the definitions of intelligence is the willingness/ability to
change one's mind when confronted with new evidence. Anything else is
dogma - the belief in things without evidence or, even worse, with
counter-evidence. Admittedly, it can be a hard pill to swallow.
I disagree, but I do understand.
I probably will change my mind in 2020. Instead of voting for the
Libertarian candidate which I usually do, I will vote against the media.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The liberal media are my enemies. I
find them to be repulsive.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-21 14:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.
Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.
I was hoping it would make you realize how ridiculous your attacks on
Trump voters are.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.
John, I have great respect for your intelligence and rationality. But, on
this issue, it's somewhat discouraging to see you so cynical.
I think it's probably too soon for you to admit you pulled the wrong lever
in the voting booth. That's probably the case for many Americans. We're
not quick to admit we made a mistake just like Tony Marsh has spent so
many years yelling "Conspiracy!" that he simply cannot bring himself
admit, "Well, I guess I was wrong."
I don't want to spoil your fun, but a lot of racists said that voting
for Hillary would be like voting for Obama's third term.
Post by d***@gmail.com
One of the definitions of intelligence is the willingness/ability to
change one's mind when confronted with new evidence. Anything else is
dogma - the belief in things without evidence or, even worse, with
counter-evidence. Admittedly, it can be a hard pill to swallow.
I disagree, but I do understand.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-20 01:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'??tre of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.
Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.
I was hoping it would make you realize how ridiculous your attacks on
Trump voters are.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.
So, I'm an elitist, as in the top 1% of wealth?

Silly, I'm down at the poverty level like most Americans now. Or did you
mean education level just because I have a Bachelor's Degree? But it's
only in Music, not Science.

I told you before that I believe in Freedom of Speech and I even defend
your hate speed, because the public needs to be warned about all the hate
out there.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-22 21:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
I was hoping it would make you realize how ridiculous your attacks on
Trump voters are.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Of course it's a left/right issue. Liberals are elitists who think
people who disagree with them are rubes, racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. and want to shut them up.
I believe you just insulted Colin Powell, esteemed professor.

My automated debating program suggests the response below. We know for a
fact that you are not in Group No. 3.

BTW: I provided *NINETEEN* cases from leaders of *your party*. Did not use
one word from my fellow Liberals. Should I repost them?

-Ramon
The Elitist Liberal (as our *Founders*)

==========================
There are THREE kinds of Republicans/Conservatives:

(1) One group is busy spreading hatred
(2) Another group is busy denying that the first group exists
(3) The 3rd. group is Colin Powell

Don't believe me? Check by yourself: Just scroll up & down. Go to ANY
Internet forum.

==========================
Mitch Todd
2018-08-22 02:47:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.
Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Which leads to the obvious question: If you're so smart, why
is Trump in the White House while you're waving a tiny fist
on the internet??? Mind you, I'm not exactly Mr T's #1 fan.
I didn't vote for him. I get gobsmacked by some of the things
he does. But he seems to have a certain instinctive cunning
about how to create and leverage celebrity. And those skills
became important now that News and Politics are just another
form of Celebrity Deathmatch.
bigdog
2018-08-23 02:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
[chuckle] Yeah, it is kind of funny, reading him rail on about my
alt-right, racist leanings, isn't it? He obviously has not read many of my
posts.
Yet, it doesn't make me feel bad because I always consider the source of
any criticism. Even YOU recognized how ridiculous and off target it was so
it needs no comment from me.
You see this as a right-vs-left issue whereas I see it as
intelligent-vs-idiotic issue.
Which leads to the obvious question: If you're so smart, why
is Trump in the White House while you're waving a tiny fist
on the internet??? Mind you, I'm not exactly Mr T's #1 fan.
I didn't vote for him. I get gobsmacked by some of the things
he does. But he seems to have a certain instinctive cunning
about how to create and leverage celebrity. And those skills
became important now that News and Politics are just another
form of Celebrity Deathmatch.
Excellent observation. Your views of Trump seem to be closely aligned with
mine. I didn't vote for him either but I have been so turned off by he
vendetta that most of the media have waged against him since the night he
was elected I find myself in the position of defending him against this
over the top, biased coverage of his presidency. These people in the media
are pushing me into his camp and from talking to others I've learned I am
not the only one. I think media's constant attacks on him are having just
the opposite effect than what they hoped. The people who already hated
Trump are going to continue to hate him. Those like me who were more on
the fence are so turned off by the constant attacks that we are moving
into his corner. I have already said I intend to vote for Trump in 2020 if
he is the nominee just to spite the media. It is more a vote against them
than it is for Trump.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-20 01:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
The politically correct left eats its own.
Your side throws babies into ovens.
Post by John McAdams
How does it feel, David, to be the target of the same sort of regional
and identity politics that you have directed at Trump supporters?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-08-20 00:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
I don't ever remember having a strong opinion on this. What I HAVE said is
that Dale Myers has made it very clear as to HOW he made his computer
animation and describes it in quite a bit of technical detail on his
website. I doubt there are many people who even have the technological
acumen to decipher it.
Post by Travis Banger
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
The relative position of Kennedy and Connally could be established with
wire-framing directly from the Zapruder film. In fact, Myers could've done
what he did without the limousine being in the recreation altogether. In
fact, the only occupants in Myers' limousine are Kennedy and Connally. No
Jackie. No Nellie. No Secret Service agents. Irrelevant!
Post by Travis Banger
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
I don't have a problem with a particular department of a university doing
research on some Kennedy assassination related detail. All I've ever said
is that it's not really their thing. They're not crime investigators. If
there is some technical detail - like acoustics - there is usually a
scientific firm that specifically handles the matter in question. Now, if
that scientific team happens to be associated with a university ... fine.
I could care less. I don't think there's anything magical about it being
associated with a university. You seem to think so.
I was born and raised in St. Louis - left when I was 18 yrs old to attend
college in Maryland - went through flight school in Florida and Texas.
Finished my naval career in Jacksonville, FL. Then my wife and I moved to
Memphis because it was a good compromise to be close to our families (in
St. Louis) and be close to where I worked (at the time) with Northwest
Airlines (now Delta Airlines). I don't even have a southern accent and
I've never been to Graceland. I have no interest. :)
Post by Travis Banger
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
Ah, yes, I remember it well.
Post by Travis Banger
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
I'll take your word for it.
Post by Travis Banger
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
I think I may have been 11 yrs old at the time - living in St. Louis.
Post by Travis Banger
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
If you're saying that Tennessee is a REDneck state - you'll get no
argument from me.
Post by Travis Banger
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
You realize, of course, nothing you've said makes much sense. But, do go
on ...
Post by Travis Banger
But -as usual- I digress.
Clav: Do you agree in those three points with our esteemed David?
Are you also a proponent and active sponsor of keeping The People away
from *THEIR* files?
Are you also anti-science, as Emerling?
Well, I majored in Aerospace Engineering at the United States Naval
Academy. Is that science? I also am not religious. I do not think the
Earth is 6,000 years old and I don't think a guy named Noah built an arc.

Boy, you read me like a book. Great investigative work! Pfft!

David Emerling
actually, Germantown, TN ... but I didn't think you'd know where that is.
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-20 20:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Travis Banger
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
I don't ever remember having a strong opinion on this. What I HAVE said is
that Dale Myers has made it very clear as to HOW he made his computer
animation
Actually a company was hired by ABC News to *certify* Myers' numbers.
Don't have the name handy, ask him. That firm looked at the numbers and
said

"These numbers and models look fin..., actually where is the check?"

and they LOCKED up the number in a safe, forever.

There's when I and the educated people interested in The Truth, in the
immortal words of Jerry Maguire, ask:
WHERE ARE THE FILES?
SHOW ME THE FILES!!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23022-four-reconstructions-of-the-crime/
Post by d***@gmail.com
and describes it in quite a bit of technical detail on his
website. I doubt there are many people who even have the technological
acumen to decipher it.
At MIT? Stanford? Berkeley? The top schools of 3D design in the countr...
Make that in the world? Is he the most qualified or perhaps only person in
this planet capable of having the technical acumen to decipher a set of
distances?

They are just a bunch of distances and angles, known as vectors. That is
HIGH SCHOOL MATERIAL, geometry, trigonometry, not even calculus.

Since it would be unprecedented to give his precious files to a loud
mouthed Internet dweeb such as Yours Truly, why doesn't he donate them to
a university, school of 3D design of *his choice*? Even better, to the
National Archives?

[See below my project that will include signatures by your fellow LN (all
the Notable Doctors, of all persuasions [there are 3 groups]) and will
culminate with a donation a another 3D model to the Archives (aka The
People)]

Furthermore...

Since you are a fellow Liberal, how do you feel about your exact response
that was given about the Trump Taxes?

"I doubt there are many people who even have the technical/accounting
acumen to decipher them"
- Donald Trump, Jr.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/p1O9gjwZpZc
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 02:27:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Piotr Mancini
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Travis Banger
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
I don't ever remember having a strong opinion on this. What I HAVE said is
that Dale Myers has made it very clear as to HOW he made his computer
animation
Actually a company was hired by ABC News to *certify* Myers' numbers.
Don't have the name handy, ask him. That firm looked at the numbers and
said
"These numbers and models look fin..., actually where is the check?"
and they LOCKED up the number in a safe, forever.
There's when I and the educated people interested in The Truth, in the
WHERE ARE THE FILES?
SHOW ME THE FILES!!
Many of the files are in the AARC (qv).
Post by Piotr Mancini
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23022-four-reconstructions-of-the-crime/
Post by d***@gmail.com
and describes it in quite a bit of technical detail on his
website. I doubt there are many people who even have the technological
acumen to decipher it.
At MIT? Stanford? Berkeley? The top schools of 3D design in the countr...
Make that in the world? Is he the most qualified or perhaps only person in
this planet capable of having the technical acumen to decipher a set of
distances?
They are just a bunch of distances and angles, known as vectors. That is
HIGH SCHOOL MATERIAL, geometry, trigonometry, not even calculus.
Since it would be unprecedented to give his precious files to a loud
mouthed Internet dweeb such as Yours Truly, why doesn't he donate them to
a university, school of 3D design of *his choice*? Even better, to the
National Archives?
[See below my project that will include signatures by your fellow LN (all
the Notable Doctors, of all persuasions [there are 3 groups]) and will
culminate with a donation a another 3D model to the Archives (aka The
People)]
Furthermore...
Since you are a fellow Liberal, how do you feel about your exact response
that was given about the Trump Taxes?
"I doubt there are many people who even have the technical/accounting
acumen to decipher them"
- Donald Trump, Jr.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/p1O9gjwZpZc
Piotr Mancini
2018-08-20 20:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
I don't ever remember having a strong opinion on this.
You and I had several conversations in your YouTube Channel. Your argument
was [until a few days ago] that it is not the role of universities to
scrutinize numbers, while McAdams has said:

"This is America, damn it! Every man here has a right to make an honest
buck. Let Ramon bring his commie ideas such as:

Those Measurements Belong to The People

back to his freakin' communist Chavezuela!

[Or words to that effect]
Post by d***@gmail.com
What I HAVE said is
that Dale Myers has made it very clear as to HOW he made his computer
animation and describes it in quite a bit of technical detail on his
website. I doubt there are many people who even have the technological
acumen to decipher it.
Oh! I just discovered this historical post:

http://jfkfacts.org/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/#comment-832737

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-21 14:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Travis Banger
Post by claviger
David,
As usual, a very well written thought process.
(1) For years, David Emerling has adamantly opposed to Dale Myers
releasing the contents of his hard disk drive, even with outdated
measurements, and therefore David is into *file hiding*, which is anathema
to the fundamental principles of JFK Numbers.
I don't ever remember having a strong opinion on this. What I HAVE said is
that Dale Myers has made it very clear as to HOW he made his computer
animation and describes it in quite a bit of technical detail on his
website. I doubt there are many people who even have the technological
acumen to decipher it.
Post by Travis Banger
(2) Since he is intellectually consistent, we can almost guarantee that
David is in complete disagreement to the undergoing project, born in this
"Let's Find Those Damn Limo Blueprints. Yes, we can! Si se puede!".
The relative position of Kennedy and Connally could be established with
wire-framing directly from the Zapruder film. In fact, Myers could've done
what he did without the limousine being in the recreation altogether. In
fact, the only occupants in Myers' limousine are Kennedy and Connally. No
Jackie. No Nellie. No Secret Service agents. Irrelevant!
Post by Travis Banger
(3) David Emerling refuses to accept that universities have any role to
play in any investigation... Silly me, I always thought that investigation
and the search for the truth was la raison d'être of universities,
their ultimate reason for being. I guess things are different in
Tennessee, one of the Slave States of America. Or, at least in David
Emerling's neck of the woods.
I don't have a problem with a particular department of a university doing
research on some Kennedy assassination related detail. All I've ever said
is that it's not really their thing. They're not crime investigators. If
there is some technical detail - like acoustics - there is usually a
scientific firm that specifically handles the matter in question. Now, if
that scientific team happens to be associated with a university ... fine.
I could care less. I don't think there's anything magical about it being
associated with a university. You seem to think so.
I was born and raised in St. Louis - left when I was 18 yrs old to attend
college in Maryland - went through flight school in Florida and Texas.
Finished my naval career in Jacksonville, FL. Then my wife and I moved to
Memphis because it was a good compromise to be close to our families (in
St. Louis) and be close to where I worked (at the time) with Northwest
Airlines (now Delta Airlines). I don't even have a southern accent and
I've never been to Graceland. I have no interest. :)
Post by Travis Banger
(a) City were the first KKK meeting was held (1867).
Ah, yes, I remember it well.
Post by Travis Banger
(b) City where the first Tea Party convention was held (remember Palin
writing on her hands?, 2010)
I'll take your word for it.
Post by Travis Banger
(c) City where Martin Luther King was murdered (1968)
I think I may have been 11 yrs old at the time - living in St. Louis.
Post by Travis Banger
Additionally, if you divide the number of Hate Groups by the population,
you will find that Tennessee, a loyal GOP enclave, has the highest
concentration of hatred in the country. The City of Hatred was of course,
Dallas.
If you're saying that Tennessee is a REDneck state - you'll get no
argument from me.
Post by Travis Banger
[and they dare to claim the JFK murder is not a partisan issue!]
You realize, of course, nothing you've said makes much sense. But, do go
on ...
Post by Travis Banger
But -as usual- I digress.
Clav: Do you agree in those three points with our esteemed David?
Are you also a proponent and active sponsor of keeping The People away
from *THEIR* files?
Are you also anti-science, as Emerling?
Well, I majored in Aerospace Engineering at the United States Naval
Academy. Is that science? I also am not religious. I do not think the
Earth is 6,000 years old and I don't think a guy named Noah built an arc.
Why not? You don't have to believe every little part of the story, but
maybe someone did build a boat, maybe an Ark.
I saw a story about some evangelicals who were building a replica Ark
down South. You should go see it. I think it's only $25 per person.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Boy, you read me like a book. Great investigative work! Pfft!
David Emerling
actually, Germantown, TN ... but I didn't think you'd know where that is.
I think I have relatives there.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-22 21:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is almost no conspiracy theory, no matter what flavor, that does not
assert that something is faked with regards to the Kennedy assassination.
It's either the backyard photos, the autopsy photos & x-rays, Oswald's
prints being planted postmortem and even the Zapruder film, itself. To
them, it has been either fabricated or altered.
But it just wasn't possible to have done any of this photographic/video
wizardry back in the early 60s that could escape the sophisticated
detection methods of today's forensic analysis. It would be difficult
enough to produce such things that would elude the naked eye - let alone
the sophisticated, computer-assisted forensics!
People like to talk a lot about "Fake News". Most people use that term
improperly. Mostly, they use it as a pejorative label for things that they
disagree with. Fake News requires the producers of that news to KNOW that
it's fake. They are knowingly forwarding false information, usually in
furtherance of some agenda - usually a political agenda. But there's a
difference between being biased (a plausible and different interpretation
of information, i.e. the MSNBC vs FoxNews interpretation of agreed upon
events), being flat wrong (a misinterpretation of facts), being ignorant
(not knowing all the facts) and knowingly making up false narratives (Fake
News!).
In my opinion, in this day and age, we simply have to be more intelligent
digesters of news. Whenever I read or see something that strikes me as
outlandish, I usually check it. "Surely," I think to myself, "something
this big is a headline news item in all the most reputable news sources."
Is it? If not - why not? What is the salient fact? I'll Google it and read
a variety of sources that discuss it, keeping in mind WHERE I'm reading
it.
Technologically, we're rapidly approaching an era where lazy minds CAN be
fooled and WILL be fooled.
For instance, look at this Public Service Announcement by Barrack Obama.
Pretty convincing! Yet, when I see this, I immediately say to myself,
"Barrack Obama doesn't strike me as the type of person who would say 'dip
shit' in a Public Service Announcement. Nor do I remember of this being
reported anywhere because it strikes me as something that would get a lot
of attention. Yet, undoubtedly, this could fool many people who would take
it at face value.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed
Perhaps, today, they COULD alter the Zapruder film. But not in the 60s.
I could have altered the Zapruder film in 1963. But the point is that it
would be quite obvious.

The stupid thing is that the alterationists claim that the technology used
by the CIA back in 1963 was SOOOO crude that it allows us to see the
alterations. And yet they can't duplicate these alleged alterations with
the technology we have now.

They don't even know how to splice 8mm film. My aunt did that for a living
in 1963.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Loading...