Don Thomas Should have been There At The Birth of his Theory. - I was
Greg Jaynes
Don Thomas Should have been There At The Birth of his Theory. - I was
From - The Bike with the Mike
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike
"Myers’ new analysis reemphasizes that Jaynes was wrong, inasmuch as
in Myers analysis H-20 is the equivalent of Z-138. Yet, Myers cites
Jaynes as among the “credible analysts” whose work contradicts those
of Mack and myself. "
------------------------------------------------
I think Mr. Thomas is dissin me here mocking the idea that I would be a
credible analyst with work contradicting his and Macks.
I don't know this guy but he's the one partnered up with "Mack". So, I
think any discussion of credibility should start there. What work is
Thomas referring to? I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with Badge
Man. I'm sure he does not agree with Dunkles claims of finding gunshots on
ch1 that BBN did not even cite. So, I'll assume he is referring to the
location of H.B. McLain in association with the Dorman, Hughes, Zapruder
and Darnell films.
It was glorious. He should have been there when his theory was born.
But where does he get off dissin me? He probably thinks my page on
McLain being out of position is amatuerish. It is kind of crude.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/
Back in those days I was updating my website every Thursday with new
pictures, cutlines and blurbs. This while working full time. So, I usually
took two or three minutes to decide what to feature, an hour to go take
some pics. I lived about two miles from Dealey plaza so this was plenty of
time. Then about 20 minutes to put it all together and upload it. The page
that McAdams archived was a weekly, one of manyI did over a two year
period.
So, if I don't have Mr. Thomas's respect because it wasn't up to
publishing standards then I should have tried harder. But it is what it
is. To me, it was a sporting thing and not necessarily a journalistic one.
But here we are twelve years later and that little 20 min.shot has gotten
a lot of mileage.
I also know how Dunkle works.
I was off boating for several years and didn't pay much attention to what
all was going on here. While I was away, Thomas appeared presenting a
later revision of Larry Dunkels acoustics theory.
Y'all probably thought that Thomas came up with it. But I already heard
most of it before I ever heard of Thomas. In fact, I should get the credit
for it because I was the one on the phone with Dunkle explaining to him
that McLain was out of position. When I referenced the two Mercury Comets
and McLain arriving at the same time in the Dorman film, it was an obvious
epiphany for Dunkle. The first instant it ever occurred to him to claim it
wasn't McLain in the Dorman film was while he was on the phone to me. He
said, "Well, then it can't be McLain in the Dorman film." It just rolled
out of his mouth like a last gap option. And all the rest of this
Dunkle/Mack/Thomas scenario was built backward from that point. Though I
do think the first putative shot vs the z-film angle is interesting.
Both Steve Barber and Todd Vaughan pointed this out to me long before any
of this came up with Dunkel and long long before Don Thomas showed up.
They were explaining to me by referencing the window on Earle Cabels car
in the Dorman film. Todd also pointed out to me that you can see McLain
out of position in the Hughes film. Todd also sent me copies of some of
the work of Sim Heninger. That window angle didn't mean too much to me
though I understood it. But McLain showing up with the Mercury Comets was
glaring.
At the end of the day, all the double talk about negative evidence and who
was where in the Darnell film is just more of the typical Larry
Dunkle/Gary Mack don't believe what you see, Believe what I tell you bs. I
watched it get patched together in the most illogical way.
My weekly web page from Nov. 20, 1997 still clearly shows that McLain was
out of position. Believe your eyes.
Ok, there is still a problem though. If my page is correct, then Dale
Myers Epipolar whatever is not. If he is right, then my page is worthless.
At this point I'm standing by what I can clearly see in the photography
and what H.B. McLain says. Though, I admit at this point, I wouldn't know
where to start attacking Dale's project. But then I haven't really looked
in to it.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
John Fiorentino
I wouldn't worry very much about Thomas, whose brain is obviously bug
infested (pun intended)............ ;-)
Dale has an attitude problem, and a case of the infamous Posner, "I'm the
first to present this syndrome."
Mack is a weasel.
Steve Barber was the definitive catalyst to get at the truth of the
matter. I also credit Bowles with a very common sense approach. But Steve
is THE man.
The FACT is these morons from BBN, W&A, Thomas, etc. may just as well be
"analyzing" a recording of the Mickey Mouse March............it all would
have just as much credibility.......and that of course is ZERO.
John F.
"Greg Jaynes" <jay...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:a5b49dd4-b585-4765...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Don Thomas Should have been There At The Birth of his Theory. - I was
From - The Bike with the Mike
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike
"Myers? new analysis reemphasizes that Jaynes was wrong, inasmuch as
in Myers analysis H-20 is the equivalent of Z-138. Yet, Myers cites
Jaynes as among the ?credible analysts? whose work contradicts those
Greg Jaynes
wrote:
> Greg:
>
> I wouldn't worry very much about Thomas, whose brain is obviously bug
> infested (pun intended)............ ;-)
> Dale has an attitude problem, and a case of the infamous Posner, "I'm the
> first to present this syndrome."
Dale has in depth understanding of whatever he writes about.
Posner could not hold his own in a debate with a knowledgable
conspiracy buff like Jim DiEugenio. He gets way more credit
than he rates.
> Mack is a weasel.
> Steve Barber was the definitive catalyst to get at the truth of the
> matter. I also credit Bowles with a very common sense approach. But Steve
> is THE man.
Right on.
> The FACT is these morons from BBN, W&A, Thomas, etc. may just as well be
> "analyzing" a recording of the Mickey Mouse March............it all would
> have just as much credibility.......and that of course is ZERO.
Wait... It's not right to say this about BBN or Dr. Barger or even W/
A.
They made a study and reported their results. I don't see anything
wrong
with that. It's just that their conclusions of probability are negated
by
other facts.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Anthony Marsh
> Don Thomas Should have been There At The Birth of his Theory. - I was
>
>
> From - The Bike with the Mike
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike
>
> in Myers analysis H-20 is the equivalent of Z-138. Yet, Myers cites
> of Mack and myself. "
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> I think Mr. Thomas is dissin me here mocking the idea that I would be a
> credible analyst with work contradicting his and Macks.
>
> I don't know this guy but he's the one partnered up with "Mack". So, I
He is not "partnered up" with Gary Mack. Why are you resorting to the
old guilt by association card? You could also claim that I am "partnered
up" with Gary Mack because we have discussed the case or that I am
"partnered up" with YOU. I certainly spent a lot of time with Bob Cutler
but I believe very few of his theories. The same is true for Steve Barber.
It's called open research.
Is Todd Vaughan partnered up with Harry Livingstone?
> think any discussion of credibility should start there. What work is
> Thomas referring to? I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with Badge
> Man. I'm sure he does not agree with Dunkles claims of finding gunshots on
That's silly. There is no reason at all to mention Badge Man. That is a
red herring. If one accepts the acoustical evidence that rules out Badge
Man and places the shooter where Tink saw the man's head above the fence.
> ch1 that BBN did not even cite. So, I'll assume he is referring to the
> location of H.B. McLain in association with the Dorman, Hughes, Zapruder
> and Darnell films.
>
> It was glorious. He should have been there when his theory was born.
>
> But where does he get off dissin me? He probably thinks my page on
> McLain being out of position is amatuerish. It is kind of crude.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/
>
> Back in those days I was updating my website every Thursday with new
> pictures, cutlines and blurbs. This while working full time. So, I usually
> took two or three minutes to decide what to feature, an hour to go take
> some pics. I lived about two miles from Dealey plaza so this was plenty of
> time. Then about 20 minutes to put it all together and upload it. The page
> that McAdams archived was a weekly, one of manyI did over a two year
> period.
>
Such is the elusive nature of the Internet. Here today, gone tomorrow,
but archived forever somewhere.
> So, if I don't have Mr. Thomas's respect because it wasn't up to
> publishing standards then I should have tried harder. But it is what it
> is. To me, it was a sporting thing and not necessarily a journalistic one.
> But here we are twelve years later and that little 20 min.shot has gotten
> a lot of mileage.
>
> I also know how Dunkle works.
>
> I was off boating for several years and didn't pay much attention to what
> all was going on here. While I was away, Thomas appeared presenting a
> later revision of Larry Dunkels acoustics theory.
>
Did you put Dunkle online?
> Y'all probably thought that Thomas came up with it. But I already heard
> most of it before I ever heard of Thomas. In fact, I should get the credit
If you want to give out credit, my work predated Thomas's.
> for it because I was the one on the phone with Dunkle explaining to him
> that McLain was out of position. When I referenced the two Mercury Comets
> and McLain arriving at the same time in the Dorman film, it was an obvious
> epiphany for Dunkle. The first instant it ever occurred to him to claim it
Which cycle do you think was McLain's and which frame? Show us.
> wasn't McLain in the Dorman film was while he was on the phone to me. He
> said, "Well, then it can't be McLain in the Dorman film." It just rolled
> out of his mouth like a last gap option. And all the rest of this
> Dunkle/Mack/Thomas scenario was built backward from that point. Though I
> do think the first putative shot vs the z-film angle is interesting.
>
Did any other of the cycles have all those papers stuffed into the
windscreen or was McLain the only one with that habit? Why does Gary
Mack continue to withhold the Dorman film? Cui bono?
> Both Steve Barber and Todd Vaughan pointed this out to me long before any
> of this came up with Dunkel and long long before Don Thomas showed up.
>
> They were explaining to me by referencing the window on Earle Cabels car
> in the Dorman film. Todd also pointed out to me that you can see McLain
> out of position in the Hughes film. Todd also sent me copies of some of
That's silly. How can McLain be out of position when the cycles are free
to move relative to the cars?
> the work of Sim Heninger. That window angle didn't mean too much to me
> though I understood it. But McLain showing up with the Mercury Comets was
> glaring.
>
Please demonstrate this here online with the frames you are talking about.
> At the end of the day, all the double talk about negative evidence and who
> was where in the Darnell film is just more of the typical Larry
> Dunkle/Gary Mack don't believe what you see, Believe what I tell you bs. I
> watched it get patched together in the most illogical way.
>
> My weekly web page from Nov. 20, 1997 still clearly shows that McLain was
> out of position. Believe your eyes.
>
McLain did not have to stay right next to the camera cars. He could
speed up or slow down along the motorcade route. Dale Myers says that we
can see the camera cars in the Zapruder film, but he does not show
McLain staying next to the camera cars in the Zapruder film. So
obviously McLain did not stay in the same relative lineup.
> Ok, there is still a problem though. If my page is correct, then Dale
> Myers Epipolar whatever is not. If he is right, then my page is worthless.
> At this point I'm standing by what I can clearly see in the photography
> and what H.B. McLain says. Though, I admit at this point, I wouldn't know
> where to start attacking Dale's project. But then I haven't really looked
> in to it.
>
Why should you ever rely on what a witness says?
If you want to join in attacking Myers start by reading everything I
have said about it. Make fun of his silly mistake in moving Connally to
the left by 6 inches.
> Respectfully,
> Greg Jaynes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Fiorentino
with that is there just aren't many "innocent" reasons one could posit for
them coming to those conclusions in the first place.
If you're spoken with Barger like I have, you would probably have a better
understanding of what I mean.
Specifically to Barger, I believe he was mislead, and "found" what he was
looking for, even though it wasn't really there.
W&A is a different matter entirely, and Thomas isn't even worth
discussing.
And Mack of course, being a weasel, One might say, simply he's a very good
one.
John F.
"Greg Jaynes" <jay...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:29c79e3c-1846-4aa8...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
davidemerling
> Dale has in depth understanding of whatever he writes about.
> Posner could not hold his own in a debate with a knowledgable
> conspiracy buff like Jim DiEugenio. He gets way more credit
> than he rates.
DiEugenio would lose a debate even if he was unopposed because he
virtually believes in EVERY conspiracy issue EVER raised from EVERY theory
EVER postulated. He has issues with EVERY organization, EVERY
investigation and EVERY committee. He thinks the CIA, FBI, DPD, SS, and
Bethesda doctors all played a role in either the assassination or the
cover-up.
DiEugenio's position falls of its own weight.
On any isolated point - if not juxtaposed with all his other points - he
ALMOST comes off reasonable. But once he gets going and talks and talks
and talks - you just have to shake your head. DiEugenio's arguments fail
the most basic of all standards - COMMON SENSE. It's very easy to get him
foaming at the mouth.
Here's how you win a debate with DiEugenio:
"Jim, tell us what you think about the Warren Commission investigation"
He'll ramble on and on. It will all be about a cover-up.
"Jim, tell us what you think of the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover."
On and on and on. It will all be conspiracy oriented.
"Jim, tell us about the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas
District Attorney's officer."
Go get a cup a coffee and light up a cigarette, because you're going
to be treated to a diatribe of corruption from some of the most
unlikely sources.
"Jim, do you think the CIA had anything to do with the assassination?"
Strap yourself in!
"Jim, do you think there is ANY physical evidence indicating Oswald
was the shooter that is valid?"
You're going to hear fantastic stories of fakery, planting of
evidence, and forgery.
Just keep him talking. His style only resonates with the hopelessly
deluded diehard conspiracy theorists. The nonsense that spews forth from
his lips is MUSIC to their ears just as the songs of the Sirens lured
ancient sailors into the rocks. Anybody with an ounce of commons sense can
readily see that its complete nonsense, even if you don't know a thing
about the Kennedy assassination.
The sad thing with DiEugenio is, even when he actually makes a fairly
legitimate point, it gets lost in a sea of illegitimacy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Greg Jaynes
> On Oct 20, 12:18 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>
David, I was not cheering DiEugenio.
It was hyperbole. I just think Posner
is an empty suit.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 20, 12:18 pm, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dale has in depth understanding of whatever he writes about.
>> Posner could not hold his own in a debate with a knowledgable
>> conspiracy buff like Jim DiEugenio. He gets way more credit
>> than he rates.
>
> DiEugenio would lose a debate even if he was unopposed because he
> virtually believes in EVERY conspiracy issue EVER raised from EVERY theory
> EVER postulated. He has issues with EVERY organization, EVERY
> investigation and EVERY committee. He thinks the CIA, FBI, DPD, SS, and
> Bethesda doctors all played a role in either the assassination or the
> cover-up.
>
> DiEugenio's position falls of its own weight.
>
So you say that he could not win any debate because your position is
automatically correct and his position is automatically wrong? I forget
what they call that trick in classical Latin rhetoric. Better known by the
common name - Fascism.
> On any isolated point - if not juxtaposed with all his other points - he
> ALMOST comes off reasonable. But once he gets going and talks and talks
> and talks - you just have to shake your head. DiEugenio's arguments fail
> the most basic of all standards - COMMON SENSE. It's very easy to get him
> foaming at the mouth.
>
> Here's how you win a debate with DiEugenio:
>
> "Jim, tell us what you think about the Warren Commission investigation"
>
> He'll ramble on and on. It will all be about a cover-up.
>
> "Jim, tell us what you think of the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover."
>
> On and on and on. It will all be conspiracy oriented.
>
Wow, you figured out that DiEugenio is a conspiracy believer? All by
yourself? Amazing.
> "Jim, tell us about the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas
> District Attorney's officer."
>
> Go get a cup a coffee and light up a cigarette, because you're going
> to be treated to a diatribe of corruption from some of the most
> unlikely sources.
>
> "Jim, do you think the CIA had anything to do with the assassination?"
>
> Strap yourself in!
>
> "Jim, do you think there is ANY physical evidence indicating Oswald
> was the shooter that is valid?"
>
> You're going to hear fantastic stories of fakery, planting of
> evidence, and forgery.
>
> Just keep him talking. His style only resonates with the hopelessly
> deluded diehard conspiracy theorists. The nonsense that spews forth from
> his lips is MUSIC to their ears just as the songs of the Sirens lured
> ancient sailors into the rocks. Anybody with an ounce of commons sense can
> readily see that its complete nonsense, even if you don't know a thing
> about the Kennedy assassination.
>
> The sad thing with DiEugenio is, even when he actually makes a fairly
> legitimate point, it gets lost in a sea of illegitimacy.
>
You couldn't even debate a fellow WC defender!
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
> Maybe I was a little hard on the boys......BBN, etc. The problem I have
> with that is there just aren't many "innocent" reasons one could posit
> for them coming to those conclusions in the first place.
>
Again you know nothing about the background. BBN did not want to find the
shots on the tape. But if they had just tried to pass it off by saying
they could HEAR no shots on the tape, enterprising conspiracy researchers
would have found other scientist who would find the shots thus proving
that they were in on the cover-up.
> If you're spoken with Barger like I have, you would probably have a
> better understanding of what I mean.
>
> Specifically to Barger, I believe he was mislead, and "found" what he
> was looking for, even though it wasn't really there.
>
Again, he did not even want to find the shots.
> W&A is a different matter entirely, and Thomas isn't even worth discussing.
>
You are so biased that you can't even think straight.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffd992f3-7997-4c16...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 20, 12:05 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>> Greg:
>>
>
>> I wouldn't worry very much about Thomas, whose brain is obviously bug
>> infested (pun intended)............ ;-)
>
>
>> Dale has an attitude problem, and a case of the infamous Posner, "I'm the
>> first to present this syndrome."
>
>
> Dale has in depth understanding of whatever he writes about.
Wrong. Dale has false assumptions and faulty methods.
Greg Jaynes
> Greg Jaynes wrote:
>dissin me here mocking the idea that I would be a
> > credible analyst with work contradicting his and Macks.
>
> > I don't know this guy but he's the one partnered up with "Mack". So, I
>
> He is not "partnered up" with Gary Mack. Why are you resorting to the
> old guilt by association card?
Yo Dude. He's the one referring to his and "Macks" work.
You could also claim that I am "partnered
> up" with Gary Mack because we have discussed the case or that I am
> "partnered up" with YOU. I certainly spent a lot of time with Bob Cutler
> but I believe very few of his theories. The same is true for Steve Barber.
> It's called open research.
> Is Todd Vaughan partnered up with Harry Livingstone?
No. Harry is partnered up with Groden.
Just don't tell him I said so.
> > think any discussion of credibility should start there. What work is
> > Thomas referring to? I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with Badge
> > Man. I'm sure he does not agree with Dunkles claims of finding gunshots on
>
> That's silly. There is no reason at all to mention Badge Man. That is a
> red herring. If one accepts the acoustical evidence that rules out Badge
> Man and places the shooter where Tink saw the man's head above the fence.
I was simply exploring the parameters of their embrace.
I didn't accuse Thomas of being in on Badge Man.
But his and "Mack's" work does not include the other
gunshots Dunkel identified on the ch1 recording. That
is not a red herring. After all, I was discussing
credibility. Dunkle knows he has none left. That's
why he needs a front man like Thomas to push his
latest revision.
Don't understand this question.
> > Y'all probably thought that Thomas came up with it. But I already heard
> > most of it before I ever heard of Thomas. In fact, I should get the credit
>
> If you want to give out credit, my work predated Thomas's.
But your work hasn't been blessed by the gatekeeper. Remember
the Target Car? Dunkel admitted to screening out the less
acceptable theories. Him, of all people.
> > for it because I was the one on the phone with Dunkle explaining to him
> > that McLain was out of position. When I referenced the two Mercury Comets
> > and McLain arriving at the same time in the Dorman film, it was an obvious
> > epiphany for Dunkle. The first instant it ever occurred to him to claim it
>
> Which cycle do you think was McLain's and which frame? Show us.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image8.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image9.jpg
> > wasn't McLain in the Dorman film was while he was on the phone to me. He
> > said, "Well, then it can't be McLain in the Dorman film." It just rolled
> > out of his mouth like a last gap option. And all the rest of this
> > Dunkle/Mack/Thomas scenario was built backward from that point. Though I
> > do think the first putative shot vs the z-film angle is interesting.
>
> Did any other of the cycles have all those papers stuffed into the
> windscreen or was McLain the only one with that habit? Why does Gary
> Mack continue to withhold the Dorman film? Cui bono?
I don't think it's actually his to give out but be
assurred he wouldn't let you have it if he could.
> > Both Steve Barber and Todd Vaughan pointed this out to me long before any
> > of this came up with Dunkel and long long before Don Thomas showed up.
>
> > They were explaining to me by referencing the window on Earle Cabels car
> > in the Dorman film. Todd also pointed out to me that you can see McLain
> > out of position in the Hughes film. Todd also sent me copies of some of
>
> That's silly. How can McLain be out of position when the cycles are free
> to move relative to the cars?
>
> > the work of Sim Heninger. That window angle didn't mean too much to me
> > though I understood it. But McLain showing up with the Mercury Comets was
> > glaring.
>
> Please demonstrate this here online with the frames you are talking about.
>
> > At the end of the day, all the double talk about negative evidence and who
> > was where in the Darnell film is just more of the typical Larry
> > Dunkle/Gary Mack don't believe what you see, Believe what I tell you bs. I
> > watched it get patched together in the most illogical way.
>
> > My weekly web page from Nov. 20, 1997 still clearly shows that McLain was
> > out of position. Believe your eyes.
>
> McLain did not have to stay right next to the camera cars. He could
> speed up or slow down along the motorcade route. Dale Myers says that we
> can see the camera cars in the Zapruder film, but he does not show
> McLain staying next to the camera cars in the Zapruder film. So
> obviously McLain did not stay in the same relative lineup.
You have a good point here. It's curious.
> > Ok, there is still a problem though. If my page is correct, then Dale
> > Myers Epipolar whatever is not. If he is right, then my page is worthless.
> > At this point I'm standing by what I can clearly see in the photography
> > and what H.B. McLain says. Though, I admit at this point, I wouldn't know
> > where to start attacking Dale's project. But then I haven't really looked
> > in to it.
>
> Why should you ever rely on what a witness says?
It's not totally unreasonable.
> If you want to join in attacking Myers start by reading everything I
> have said about it. Make fun of his silly mistake in moving Connally to
> the left by 6 inches.
In no way do I want to attack Myers. You think I'm stupid?
First thing you know Todd Vaughan would show up to chime in.
Then where would I be? Hmmmm? Getting my ass kicked in front
of God and everybody. That's where. Nobody beats Todd Vaughan
on the facts. I'm not talking about the sensless name calling
over on the nuthouse. I would think you knew that better than
anyone.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
John Fiorentino
"You are so biased that you can't even think straight."
Coming from you Tony, I find that a compliment.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ade455b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
davidemerling
> Wrong. Dale has false assumptions and faulty methods.
I'm not saying you're wrong - I would just be interested in hearing
ONE of the false assumptions around which his work is based. And tell
us how that false assumption formed any conclusions he may have drawn.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Greg Jaynes
> Coming from one who RUNS from Debate himself.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
www.paltalk.com seems like a pretty cool thing.
I don't see how it would be better than typing
text in a forum but maybe I just haven't seen
it in action. I'll check it out.
My first thought in Dealing with you though Tom
would to be wary of traps. You are smart and
tricky. That might be fun for you but serves
no real purpose.
I think sometimes
you misinterpret something but insist on
proceding as if it were correct when it may
not be. For example I followed somewhat the
exchanges you had with Todd. I don't remember
exactly what it was maybe something Lee Bowers
said. I do remember you were wrong and Todd
was right but you wouldn't give it up.
I don't see how it can be worth the effort
unless there are certain ground rules for
evidence and procedures. Maybe that's why
you aren't getting any takers. It's the old
thing about playing the other fellows game.
Do you think Sun Tzu would walk into a
thing like that?
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Greg Jaynes
After checking it out some more, I think its a very
cool thing. My computer only has 500 mb of ram though
and the site said you need 1 gig.
But please explain more what it is that you do on
a regular basis. And what is that you want to do.
Debate? Discuss? Common projects? etc;
Basically, what do you have in mind?
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
tomnln
On Oct 20, 10:29 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Coming from one who RUNS from Debate himself.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
www.paltalk.com seems like a pretty cool thing.
I don't see how it would be better than typing
text in a forum but maybe I just haven't seen
it in action. I'll check it out.
My first thought in Dealing with you though Tom
would to be wary of traps. You are smart and
tricky. That might be fun for you but serves
no real purpose.
------------------------------------
My "TRICK" is quoting YOUR official evidence/testimony ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
--------------------------------------
I think sometimes
you misinterpret something but insist on
proceding as if it were correct when it may
not be. For example I followed somewhat the
exchanges you had with Todd. I don't remember
exactly what it was maybe something Lee Bowers
said. I do remember you were wrong and Todd
was right but you wouldn't give it up.
----------------------------------------
toad made a FOOL of himself by Denying what Bowers said.
I merely posted the official rocords of what Bowers actually said ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
----------------------------------------
I don't see how it can be worth the effort
unless there are certain ground rules for
evidence and procedures. Maybe that's why
you aren't getting any takers. It's the old
thing about playing the other fellows game.
Do you think Sun Tzu would walk into a
thing like that?
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
------------------------------------------
As for your "ground Rules";
1. Rules of Evidence.
2. Adversary procedure.
Say anything you want, Just be prepared to support it with official
evidence/testimony.
The reason I'm not getting "any takers" is that none of you WCR Supporters
are willing to address the official evidence/testimony ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
-----------------------------------------------
tomnln
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the Gov't/Media Misinformation on the JFK Assassination, I give
people the Truth with Official Citations from Gov/t evidence/testimony.
THAT's what it's all about.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
Beyond Don Thomas' excellent article, q.v., I have written a series of
messages here detailing Myers errors, q.v.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Gerry Simone
I'd like to take this opportunity to ask questions on this topic.
Is the position of McLain's cycle important to correspond where BBN said
he was?
Is there not a tolerable margin of error in their acoustical analysis or
test that could permit the placement of McLain elsewhere?
"Greg Jaynes" <jay...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:a5b49dd4-b585-4765...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Don Thomas Should have been There At The Birth of his Theory. - I was
From - The Bike with the Mike
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike
"Myers? new analysis reemphasizes that Jaynes was wrong, inasmuch as in
Myers analysis H-20 is the equivalent of Z-138. Yet, Myers cites Jaynes as
among the ?credible analysts? whose work contradicts those of Mack and
John Fiorentino
of the "test shots" to the impulses on the dictabelt and get "matches"
when there were in fact no shots on the tape?
McClain's position is essentially superfluous since the recording wasn't
from Dealey Plaza, nor was it contemporaneous to the assassination.
Answer: The "study" was a sham.
John F.
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4adfade5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> And I have a question for you. How is it possible to compare the
> waveforms of the "test shots" to the impulses on the dictabelt and get
> "matches" when there were in fact no shots on the tape?
>
It is possible because of the design of the test. It was designed to be
loose. They EXPECTED to get false alarms for about half of the matches.
Look at the grassy knoll shot. It also matches a shot from the TSBD.
Greg Jaynes
> I'd like to take this opportunity to ask questions on this topic.
>
> Is the position of McLain's cycle important to correspond where BBN said
> he was?
>
> Is there not a tolerable margin of error in their acoustical analysis or
> test that could permit the placement of McLain elsewhere?
BBN identified a specific location by using numbered microphones
set up in arrays to record their test shots. Then they compared
the waveform of the test shots to the DPD ch 1 audio using an
ocilliscope. They knew which microphone recorded the waveform/
audio that seemed to match the ch 1 recording. The motorcycle
would need to be where the matching microphone was.
I wonder where all the those 36 microphone recordings are.
Don Thomas should have tracked those down before writing
his essays.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Greg Jaynes
I'm glad you like my picture. I see you used it on
your three tramps page. There are a couple of details
you have on the page that are in error.
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
1.) The picture doesn't show the whole area
regarding the tramps arrest. See the Terminal
Annex Building in the bottom right? The tramps
were arrested at Union Station and not behind
the grassy knoll. Union station is not in the
frame of that shot.
2.) I'm not sure what you mean by "shortly
after the shooting" but they were arrested
almost two hours after the shooting.
This is all I looked into on your site. There may
be other things but it's not really my concern.
I have checked it out in the past.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 20, 3:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Greg Jaynes wrote:
>
>
>
>> dissin me here mocking the idea that I would be a
>>> credible analyst with work contradicting his and Macks.
>>> I don't know this guy but he's the one partnered up with "Mack". So, I
>
>> He is not "partnered up" with Gary Mack. Why are you resorting to the
>> old guilt by association card?
>
> Yo Dude. He's the one referring to his and "Macks" work.
>
>
> You could also claim that I am "partnered
>> up" with Gary Mack because we have discussed the case or that I am
>> "partnered up" with YOU. I certainly spent a lot of time with Bob Cutler
>> but I believe very few of his theories. The same is true for Steve Barber.
>> It's called open research.
>
>> Is Todd Vaughan partnered up with Harry Livingstone?
>
> No. Harry is partnered up with Groden.
> Just don't tell him I said so.
>
Seems you don't keep up with current events. Harry HATES Groden now.
>
>
>
>>> think any discussion of credibility should start there. What work is
>>> Thomas referring to? I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with Badge
>>> Man. I'm sure he does not agree with Dunkles claims of finding gunshots on
>> That's silly. There is no reason at all to mention Badge Man. That is a
>> red herring. If one accepts the acoustical evidence that rules out Badge
>> Man and places the shooter where Tink saw the man's head above the fence.
>
> I was simply exploring the parameters of their embrace.
> I didn't accuse Thomas of being in on Badge Man.
Then what was your purpose? Some type of guilt by association when they
are not even close to being associated?
> But his and "Mack's" work does not include the other
> gunshots Dunkel identified on the ch1 recording. That
I don't see any basis for a lot more shots or the relevance of Dunkle.
Why don't you point us to this Dunkle stuff online?
> is not a red herring. After all, I was discussing
> credibility. Dunkle knows he has none left. That's
So, who the Hell is Dunkle and why should we even care?
Is this Dunkle nonsense online anywhere?
>
>
>
>>> Y'all probably thought that Thomas came up with it. But I already heard
>>> most of it before I ever heard of Thomas. In fact, I should get the credit
>> If you want to give out credit, my work predated Thomas's.
>
> But your work hasn't been blessed by the gatekeeper. Remember
> the Target Car? Dunkel admitted to screening out the less
> acceptable theories. Him, of all people.
>
>
>
>>> for it because I was the one on the phone with Dunkle explaining to him
>>> that McLain was out of position. When I referenced the two Mercury Comets
>>> and McLain arriving at the same time in the Dorman film, it was an obvious
>>> epiphany for Dunkle. The first instant it ever occurred to him to claim it
>> Which cycle do you think was McLain's and which frame? Show us.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image8.jpg
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image9.jpg
>
>
Do you see anything on that cycle which could identify it uniquely as
McLain's? Can you see the papers on the windshield?
Can you imagine anyone else's cycle getting past the dignitaries car's
at that moment?
Oh yeah? Ask Todd Vaughan what a fouling shot is.
Anthony Marsh
> I'd like to take this opportunity to ask questions on this topic.
>
> Is the position of McLain's cycle important to correspond where BBN said
> he was?
>
Not exactly. The position they specified depends on several factors
which could be different from what they assumed.
> Is there not a tolerable margin of error in their acoustical analysis or
> test that could permit the placement of McLain elsewhere?
>
It's not exactly a margin of error. The 18 foot wide circle represents
the looseness of their test which is determined by how wide an
acceptance window they allowed for impulses to match.
Did you read Don Thomas' excellent article? If so, what in it did you
not understand?
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> And I have a question for you. How is it possible to compare the waveforms
> of the "test shots" to the impulses on the dictabelt and get "matches"
> when there were in fact no shots on the tape?
>
> McClain's position is essentially superfluous since the recording wasn't
> from Dealey Plaza, nor was it contemporaneous to the assassination.
>
> Answer: The "study" was a sham.
>
> John F.
And I have a question for you. How is it possible to compare the
waveforms
of the "test shots" to the impulses on the dictabelt and get
"matches"
when there were in fact no shots on the tape?
McClain's position is essentially superfluous since the recording
wasn't
from Dealey Plaza, nor was it contemporaneous to the assassination.
Answer: The "study" was a sham.
John F.
Hello, John F.
You are confusing interpretation of the pulses with their existence.
No matter what the critics say they cannot make the pulse pulses
attributed to gunfire vanish from the acoustic records. These patterns
contain very special pulses that distinguish themselves from all the
other snaps, crackles or pops. I call these special signals limiting
pulses.
Playing a wave file of these limiting pulses at progressively slower
speeds provides audible evidence of the special nature of these
pulses.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limitingpulses.wav
Reducing playing speed dramatically lowers the pitch of the voice and
has a similar effect upon a brief heterodyne and the background noise.
However, the pitch of the limiting pulses initially resist lowering
and change slightly at greatly reduced playing speeds. This
demonstration shows that the high frequency contents of the limiting
pulses are widely dispersed and extremely rich. These uncommon
characteristics are further evidence that these special pulses are the
responses of the radio system to impulses generated by the limiting
circuit in audio stage of the transmitter.
BBN documented a level of 100 db re 2 X 10^-5 Newton per square meter
at the microphone as the threshold for activation of the limiting
circuit. This means that ears in the vicinity of that microphone would
have heard sounds reminiscent of moderately distant gunfire.
So you have two choices. You can assert that the Dictaphone recorded
gunshots on the Dictabelt or a studio added the limiting pulses and
made an untrue acoustic record.
Herbert
>
> "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Greg Jaynes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gerry Simone
Just bear with me on this John as I don't have a solid grasp of the
acoustical debate.
Let's assume that the BBN simulation corresponds with acoustical signatures
on the Dictabelt.
I know about Barber's argument (he sent me a CD and I don't hear shots
either but they may be masked or indiscernible to the ear), I know about
D.B. Thomas' counterargument, and I know about Dale Myers argument (if the
position is superfluous, he wouldn't have gone thru the trouble of analyzing
same).
So I re-iterate:
Is the position of McLain's cycle important to correspond where BBN said
>> he was?
>>
>> Is there not a tolerable margin of error in their acoustical analysis or
>> test that could permit the placement of McLain elsewhere?
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4adfcff0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
John F.
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3df8f9ea-f879-4793...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Gerry says:
"I know about Dale Myers argument (if the position is superfluous, he
wouldn't have gone thru the trouble of analyzing same)."
You're confusing Dale's willingness or motivation to do something with the
reality of the necessity of doing it. What Myers does or doesn't do, and
why he does or doesn't do anything is irrelevant.
The reason McClain's position is superfluous is for the reasons I already
stated. Now, there may be (and in fact are) some other reasons one would
wish to verify his position re: the HSCA investigation as a whole. But it
has no bearing on any shots on the tape, since there weren't any.
John F.
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae08970$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4adfe448$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Greg Jaynes
> Greg Jaynes wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 3:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Greg Jaynes wrote:
>
> >> dissin me here mocking the idea that I would be a
> >>> credible analyst with work contradicting his and Macks.
> >>> I don't know this guy but he's the one partnered up with "Mack". So, I
>
> >> He is not "partnered up" with Gary Mack. Why are you resorting to the
> >> old guilt by association card?
>
> > Yo Dude. He's the one referring to his and "Macks" work.
>
> > You could also claim that I am "partnered
> >> up" with Gary Mack because we have discussed the case or that I am
> >> "partnered up" with YOU. I certainly spent a lot of time with Bob Cutler
> >> but I believe very few of his theories. The same is true for Steve Barber.
> >> It's called open research.
>
> >> Is Todd Vaughan partnered up with Harry Livingstone?
>
> > No. Harry is partnered up with Groden.
> > Just don't tell him I said so.
>
> Seems you don't keep up with current events. Harry HATES Groden now.
Is my wit over your head Tony?
> >>> think any discussion of credibility should start there. What work is
> >>> Thomas referring to? I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with Badge
> >>> Man. I'm sure he does not agree with Dunkles claims of finding gunshots on
> >> That's silly. There is no reason at all to mention Badge Man. That is a
> >> red herring. If one accepts the acoustical evidence that rules out Badge
> >> Man and places the shooter where Tink saw the man's head above the fence.
>
> > I was simply exploring the parameters of their embrace.
> > I didn't accuse Thomas of being in on Badge Man.
>
> Then what was your purpose? Some type of guilt by association when they
> are not even close to being associated?
Follow the flow. Thomas mocked my credibility to
contradict his and "Mack's" work. So, Thomas himself
refers to some sort of collusion or partnering up
between him and Dunkel/"Mack".
I was addressing credibility. How credible can "Mack"
be having promoted Badge Man? Has he yet recanted?
Has he ever provided a report from M.I.T. to
substantiate that anyone there supports Badge Man?
Have you ever listened to the narration of the famous
Gallery record which Steve Barber discovered the
Decker crosstalk on? Know who narrates it?
I have a recording of Dunkle/"Mack" calling off the
shots on a radio show for the host as the ch 1
audio is played. Never mind that the shows host
politely say's he can't hear anything and reminds
the audience that "Mack" is speaking for himself
and not the station...... These alleged shots
the guy is calling off aren't even at the same
location on ch 1 as BBN's impulses.
Now, this is who Thomas has colluded with, and whose
latest revision of a conspiracy theory he is pushing.
> > But his and "Mack's" work does not include the other
> > gunshots Dunkel identified on the ch1 recording. That
>
> I don't see any basis for a lot more shots or the relevance of Dunkle.
> Why don't you point us to this Dunkle stuff online?
>
> > is not a red herring. After all, I was discussing
> > credibility. Dunkle knows he has none left. That's
>
> So, who the Hell is Dunkle and why should we even care?
Larry Dunkel is the real name of the man who uses
the pseudonym "Gary Mack".
Hmmmmm... there's an idea. Maybe it ought to be.
But, I'm only answering being mocked disrespectfully.
This is enough for now. But yes, I most definitely
could do it. I think moderation is a good thing.
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image8.jpg
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image9.jpg
> Do you see anything on that cycle which could identify it uniquely as
> McLain's? Can you see the papers on the windshield?
> Can you imagine anyone else's cycle getting past the dignitaries car's
> at that moment?
> > In no way do I want to attack Myers. You think I'm stupid?
> > First thing you know Todd Vaughan would show up to chime in.
> > Then where would I be? Hmmmm? Getting my ass kicked in front
> > of God and everybody. That's where. Nobody beats Todd Vaughan
> Oh yeah? Ask Todd Vaughan what a fouling shot is.
I've never heard of a fouling shot. I have heard of
a clearing shot. But I bet you Todd knew who Dunkel was.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
John McAdams
>On Oct 22, 12:03=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Greg Jaynes wrote:
>
>I was addressing credibility. How credible can "Mack"
>be having promoted Badge Man? Has he yet recanted?
>Has he ever provided a report from M.I.T. to
>substantiate that anyone there supports Badge Man?
>
I called Gary years ago about Jack White's claim that MIT scientists
had vindicated the "Badgeman" claim, and he quite freely admitted it
wasn't so.
He did mention a fellow who stuck his head through the door when it
was on the sceen at MIT and said "who's that?"
But, of course, that's not scientific analysis, and Gary never claimed
to me that it was.
Apparently, Cal Tech reached the same (non)conclusion.
Gary told me that scientific photo analysis could neither vindicate
nor debunk the photo.
That sounds fair enough, and Gary was quite up front with me.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gerry Simone
What do you base your argument on?
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4ae09d20$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
So the ear might not discern shots, but there are impulses that represent
shots as measured by a scientific apparatus which are similar to the
acoustic signature or profile of test shots?
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3df8f9ea-f879-4793...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
"These uncommon characteristics are further evidence that these special
pulses are the responses of the radio system to impulses generated by the
limiting circuit in audio stage of the transmitter".
Herb, what do you mean by 'impulses generated by the limiting circuit in
audio stage'? If I'm a lay person or juror, this explanation sounds like
the impulses were artificially produced by the radio system.
Gerry Simone
I did read Thomas' article but long ago, and don't have a grasp of the BNN
work.
So Hugh McLain's cycle could be in various positions that works with their
conclusions?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4adfe448$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
Marsh indicates that the array of matching microphones could have changed
depending on various assumptions.
Does this mean that the cycle's position could vary too?
"Greg Jaynes" <jay...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cb6aebde-cff2-4abb...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
> looseness of their test which is determined by how wide an acceptance
> window they allowed for impulses to match.
R u referring to the mean and standard deviation as in statistical
parlance?
John Fiorentino
First off, a few years ago, I tracked Geoff Crawley half way around the
world at the behest of Ed Cage, who couldn't locate him.
I wound up speaking to an aide of Crawley's who explained quite bluntly to
me that it was explained in detail to Mr. "Mack" via photographic
analysis, that if there was indeed a "Badgeman" in that photo, then he
would have to have been approx. 2 feet tall. Naturally, this assessment
was never mentioned in TMWKK.
Apparently all of this escaped the fellows at Cal Tech.
I have the conversations with Crawley's assistant on another computer, and
I had many rather heated exchanges with Mr. "Mack." who tried his weasel
best to thwart my efforts, but in the end found himself trapped in the
henhouse.
Old Ed was also kind enough to credit me with the cessation of the out of
context quote from the Redlich memo that Barb J used as a sig on every
post. I gladly will take the credit for that.
All (or most) of this is in the alt.assassination.jfk archives.
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ae0f78a....@news.supernews.com...
Gerry Simone
>
> 1. Rules of Evidence.
>
> 2. Adversary procedure.
Seems like the conspirators knew all about the Rule of Evidence, and the
Warren Commission unfortunately, had nothing to do with Adversarial
Procedure :(
Anthony Marsh
I have not yet seen that.
> I was addressing credibility. How credible can "Mack"
> be having promoted Badge Man? Has he yet recanted?
Strangely enough Mack has little credibility in my opinion, but he was
responsible for promoting the acoustical evidence. And now it disproves
his Badge Man. Irony.
> Has he ever provided a report from M.I.T. to
> substantiate that anyone there supports Badge Man?
>
> Have you ever listened to the narration of the famous
> Gallery record which Steve Barber discovered the
> Decker crosstalk on? Know who narrates it?
>
You?
I have the record, but I no longer have anything to play it on.
> I have a recording of Dunkle/"Mack" calling off the
> shots on a radio show for the host as the ch 1
> audio is played. Never mind that the shows host
> politely say's he can't hear anything and reminds
> the audience that "Mack" is speaking for himself
> and not the station...... These alleged shots
> the guy is calling off aren't even at the same
> location on ch 1 as BBN's impulses.
>
> Now, this is who Thomas has colluded with, and whose
> latest revision of a conspiracy theory he is pushing.
>
Colluded with how?
>
>>> But his and "Mack's" work does not include the other
>>> gunshots Dunkel identified on the ch1 recording. That
>> I don't see any basis for a lot more shots or the relevance of Dunkle.
>> Why don't you point us to this Dunkle stuff online?
>>
>>> is not a red herring. After all, I was discussing
>>> credibility. Dunkle knows he has none left. That's
>> So, who the Hell is Dunkle and why should we even care?
>
> Larry Dunkel is the real name of the man who uses
> the pseudonym "Gary Mack".
>
>
"el" or "le"?
If you are going to attack something I think it helps to show people what
you are attacking. If you say you don't like the man's blue socks then
show them those blue socks so that they know what you are talking about.
>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image8.jpg
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/image9.jpg
>> Do you see anything on that cycle which could identify it uniquely as
>> McLain's? Can you see the papers on the windshield?
>> Can you imagine anyone else's cycle getting past the dignitaries car's
>> at that moment?
>
>
>>> In no way do I want to attack Myers. You think I'm stupid?
>>> First thing you know Todd Vaughan would show up to chime in.
>>> Then where would I be? Hmmmm? Getting my ass kicked in front
>>> of God and everybody. That's where. Nobody beats Todd Vaughan
>
>> Oh yeah? Ask Todd Vaughan what a fouling shot is.
>
> I've never heard of a fouling shot. I have heard of
> a clearing shot. But I bet you Todd knew who Dunkel was.
>
Why don't you want to let me have any fun? I wanted to see Todd take a
poke at you for embarrassing him.
HE didn't know what a fouling shot was and claimed that I just made it up.
> Respectfully,
> Greg Jaynes
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Gerry:
>
> Gerry says:
>
> "I know about Dale Myers argument (if the position is superfluous, he
> wouldn't have gone thru the trouble of analyzing same)."
>
> You're confusing Dale's willingness or motivation to do something with
> the reality of the necessity of doing it. What Myers does or doesn't do,
> and why he does or doesn't do anything is irrelevant.
>
> The reason McClain's position is superfluous is for the reasons I
> already stated. Now, there may be (and in fact are) some other reasons
> one would wish to verify his position re: the HSCA investigation as a
> whole. But it has no bearing on any shots on the tape, since there
> weren't any.
>
> John F.
>
>
You're begging the question again. You'd say that Galileo's treatise is
crap because you already know that the Earth is the center of the
universe.
Anthony Marsh
> A question to a question is not an answer.
>
> Just bear with me on this John as I don't have a solid grasp of the
> acoustical debate.
>
> Let's assume that the BBN simulation corresponds with acoustical signatures
> on the Dictabelt.
>
> I know about Barber's argument (he sent me a CD and I don't hear shots
> either but they may be masked or indiscernible to the ear), I know about
> D.B. Thomas' counterargument, and I know about Dale Myers argument (if the
> position is superfluous, he wouldn't have gone thru the trouble of analyzing
> same).
>
> So I re-iterate:
> Is the position of McLain's cycle important to correspond where BBN said
>>> he was?
No, McLain could be several feet before where BBN placed him.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 21, 9:46 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to take this opportunity to ask questions on this topic.
>>
>
>
>> Is the position of McLain's cycle important to correspond where BBN said
>> he was?
>>
>> Is there not a tolerable margin of error in their acoustical analysis or
>> test that could permit the placement of McLain elsewhere?
>
> BBN identified a specific location by using numbered microphones
> set up in arrays to record their test shots. Then they compared
> the waveform of the test shots to the DPD ch 1 audio using an
> ocilliscope. They knew which microphone recorded the waveform/
> audio that seemed to match the ch 1 recording. The motorcycle
> would need to be where the matching microphone was.
>
It's a little more complicated than they. They did not just look at an
oscilloscope. They had a printout of the impulses and mathematically
lined up impulse patterns.
And one shot might have several matches to different microphone/shooter
locations.
> I wonder where all the those 36 microphone recordings are.
That is one thing that I pointed out to the ARRB that they should
obtain. I suspect they are still at BBN and being held illegally in
violation of the JFK Records Act.
Anthony Marsh
> Thanks Tony.
>
> I did read Thomas' article but long ago, and don't have a grasp of the BNN
> work.
>
> So Hugh McLain's cycle could be in various positions that works with their
> conclusions?
>
The BBN conclusions may not be the whole story. They only went so far. But
yes the cycle could have been at a slightly different location and still
made a match. Think of it as the cycle driving THROUGH the circle that
Myers claims he must be inside.
davidemerling
> The reason I'm not getting "any takers" is that none of you WCR Supporters
> are willing to address the official evidence/testimony ! ! !
Tom, the reason nobody wants to come outside and play with you is NOT
because you have some compelling argument to make. Quite the opposite. You
are actually a very fatiguing person to debate because almost everything
you say elicits a sigh of frustration because you just keep repeating long
since debunked crap from just about every conspiracy theory every
conceived. You contest EVERYTHING with little factoids & inconsistencies
that you accept as gospel - even if it makes no logical sense. You think
all these inconsistencies and oddities suggest something sinister. You do
not seem to have any unified theory of your own. Your only mission seems
to prove that everything pointing towards a no-conspiracy finding must be
wrong.
Nobody wants to debate the Oswald in the Depository doorway silliness with
you.
Nobody wants to debate the it-was-really-a-Mauser-on-the-6th-floor
silliness with you.
Nobody wants to debate the ridiculous gaping-back-head-wound issue with
you.
Nobody wants to go over the tired old issue of all the photographic fakery
you allege.
Nobody is afraid of you - it's just that you keep pounding your fist on
the table making points that only YOU think are compelling. Well, you and
the fringe element on the conspiracy side of which you are certainly a
member.
Boo-hoo, Tommy has nobody to debate.
"Me thinks the man doth protest too much"
I have this vision of you standing in front of your computer monitor,
jumping up and down in frustration, turning red, and screaming - "Why
won't anybody debate me?! I'm a very important person with very important
things to say! Why doesn't anybody want to hear my opinions?"
Tom - just keep posting links to your website and hope that somebody
decides to *click* on it.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Greg Jaynes
> On 22 Oct 2009 20:22:06 -0400, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 22, 12:03=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Greg Jaynes wrote:
>
> >I was addressing credibility. How credible can "Mack"
> >be having promoted Badge Man? Has he yet recanted?
> >Has he ever provided a report from M.I.T. to
> >substantiate that anyone there supports Badge Man?
>
> I called Gary years ago about Jack White's claim that MIT scientists
> had vindicated the "Badgeman" claim, and he quite freely admitted it
> wasn't so.
Hmmmm.. I wonder which one of us he was lying to.
> He did mention a fellow who stuck his head through the door when it
> was on the sceen at MIT and said "who's that?"
I never heard that one. All I heard about was drum scanners and super
computers.
Dunkel was late coming to computers. He tried to baffle me with techno
babble about MIT's capabilities. I pointed out to him that whatever
computers MIT had when this alleged Badge Man nonsense went on, probably
weren't as powerful as the one he had on his desk.
> But, of course, that's not scientific analysis, and Gary never claimed
> to me that it was.
>
> Apparently, Cal Tech reached the same (non)conclusion.
I'll bet you $50 either Cal Tech or MIT could prove that effin cartoon was
not a person as they presented it.
Dale Myers has done that already.
> Gary told me that scientific photo analysis could neither vindicate
> nor debunk the photo.
>
> That sounds fair enough, and Gary was quite up front with me.
>
> .John
You think that's fair enough do you?
Dunkel is some kind of an authority now on scientific photo analysis?
He wasn't up front with you. He was putting the best face on it he could
weasel up without having to admit he was wrong.
It's not in his DNA, to concede he is wrong.
Seems he's told you a different story than the one I have heard.
And you Dr. McAdams have shown a recurring propensity to try deflect his
accountability for his track record.
Who gets away with throwing a nonsensical scenario out; proclaiming it
can't be disproved and calling it a draw? No one else.
Who gets away with proclaiming acoustics theories as facts and simply
changes the details at will as his become debunked? No one else.
Personally, I never claimed any credentials for being a "credible analyst"
to analyse photography. But I have never been dishonest in any claim I
have made. I have always allowed for the possibility that I might be
wrong in an interpretation and have always been willing to admit it if
shown to be.
Note: For Mr. Thomas. I'm a hundred times more credible than your partner
whose theory you are pushing as if it were your own.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
Gerry Simone
Why does Tom have to have a theory of his own?
What he cites calls into question the official version and that's enough a
concerned citizen has to do.
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd3e0cd9-0d0d-4bdd...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Resulting in his loss of credibility.
That's where the WCR went wrong.
They were discussing JFK's back /throat wounds on page 541 they said ....
"presumable of entrance, presumably of exit".
Their credibility has been going down hill ever since.
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae5efb5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
davidemerling
> "presumable of entrance, presumably of exit".
This is such a classic case of the type of word parsing and nit- picking
you like to do.
First of all, if the Warren Commission was so dead set on covering-up a
conspiracy, as you consistently contend - what is your explanation for
such wishy-washy terminology on their part?
The Report was written by the lawyers. This is nothing more than classic,
noncommittal lawyer-speak!
Along the same lines, when it comes to a conspiracy, the Report usually
uses terminology like "discovered no evidence of a conspiracy". They
seldom say, if ever, "there was no conspiracy."
Even the conspiracy-inclined HSCA favored such noncommittal terminology,
saying that there "probably" was a conspiracy.
If you read the testimony and look at the evidence, you would have to
admit that those "presumablies" are a very generous head nod to the
naysayers like yourself. I don't think any of the autopsy doctors would
characterize any of Kennedy's rear wounds as "presumable" entrance wounds.
We all know the story of how Dr. Humes determined that the rear back wound
exited the throat. It was certainly an extrapolated conclusion based, not
on direct observation, but more on the information he obtained from Dr.
Perry. In that particular case, I would think you'd HAVE to say that the
throat wound was "presumably of exit."
Does anybody really want to make the completely nonsensical argument that
Kennedy had two entrance wounds in his neck, neither of which transited
the body and neither of which caused a bullet to be lodged in his body?
Good luck with that!
One of my favorite questions to ask CTers who claim that the throat wound
was one of entrance is this:
Where do you think the origin of such a shot might have been?
There's no good answer to that question that is not far more magical than
any Magic Bullet Theory ever divined. Do you want to take a shot at
answering that question? Go ahead and speculate! I won't criticize the
speculation - I actually INVITE it! You don't even need evidence to
support whatever you come up with. Try to concoct something ... anything!
... just try to make it seem like something that would be reasonably
plausible. I say it can't be done. Whatever you come up with is going to
sound absolutely ridiculous.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> When someone Speculates, he's talking about a subject that he can't Prove;
>
> Resulting in his loss of credibility.
>
> That's where the WCR went wrong.
They had no choice. They were ordered not to investigate the case.
>
> They were discussing JFK's back /throat wounds on page 541 they said ....
>
> "presumable of entrance, presumably of exit".
>
They said? No. They quoted what Humes said. And Humes was ordered to
rewrite the autopsy report under threat of court martial.
davidemerling
>
> Resulting in his loss of credibility.
There's nothing wrong with speculation. Sometimes you have to do a little
of it to connect the dots. But speculation comes in many different
flavors. There is REASONABLE speculation drawn from the evidence and there
is UNREASONABLE and WILD speculation that defies the evidence.
In many ways, not stating one's conclusion in a categorical manner and
admitting that some speculation was used in drawing those conclusions can
actually LEND credibility; whereas dogmatically insisting you are
absolutely right when you are clearly doing a little speculating causes
you to LOSE credibility.
> That's where the WCR went wrong.
If anything - I thought the WCR could have been more definitive with some
of their conclusions.
> They were discussing JFK's back /throat wounds on page 541 they said ....
>
> "presumable of entrance, presumably of exit".
>
> Their credibility has been going down hill ever since.
That's YOUR characterization but the FACT of the matter is that, as time
marches on, the case for conspiracy has continued to weaken.
Again, do you think either Humes, Boswell, or Finck would characterize the
back wound as PERSUMABLY one of entrance - notwithstanding how the WCR
chose to word it?
With all your research - do you think a reasonable argument can be made
for the back wound being one of EXIT? If so - I want to HEAR that
argument.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/april_22.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:104cc3d5-baff-4512...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"presumable of entrance, presumably of exit".
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:104cc3d5-baff-4512...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
.... just try to make it seem like something that would be reasonably
tomnln
On Oct 27, 7:21 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> When someone Speculates, he's talking about a subject that he can't Prove;
>
> Resulting in his loss of credibility.
There's nothing wrong with speculation. Sometimes you have to do a little
of it to connect the dots. But speculation comes in many different
flavors. There is REASONABLE speculation drawn from the evidence and there
is UNREASONABLE and WILD speculation that defies the evidence.
In many ways, not stating one's conclusion in a categorical manner and
admitting that some speculation was used in drawing those conclusions can
actually LEND credibility; whereas dogmatically insisting you are
absolutely right when you are clearly doing a little speculating causes
you to LOSE credibility.
> That's where the WCR went wrong.
If anything - I thought the WCR could have been more definitive with some
of their conclusions.
> They were discussing JFK's back /throat wounds on page 541 they said ....
>
> "presumable of entrance, presumably of exit".
>
> Their credibility has been going down hill ever since.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That's YOUR characterization but the FACT of the matter is that, as time
marches on, the case for conspiracy has continued to weaken.
Your Disrespect of 90% of the American people is Duly Noted !
----------------------------------------------------------------
Again, do you think either Humes, Boswell, or Finck would characterize the
back wound as PERSUMABLY one of entrance - notwithstanding how the WCR
chose to word it?
With all your research - do you think a reasonable argument can be made
for the back wound being one of EXIT? If so - I want to HEAR that
argument.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
All you need do is check the Original Reports.
1. Throat wound was an "Entrance wound".
2. Witnesses saw a bullet hit the street Behind the Limo.
Anthony Marsh
> The throat wound was a "wound of Entrance" until April 22, 1964.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/april_22.htm
>
>
Wrong.
davidemerling
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> That's YOUR characterization but the FACT of the matter is that, as time
>> marches on, the case for conspiracy has continued to weaken.
>>
>> Your Disrespect of 90% of the American people is Duly Noted !
What percentage of the people who hold this view would you say are
"educated" beyond reading a couple conspiracy books and watching the
movie JFK?
I'm talking about serious students of the assassination. The fact that
you have to enlist the numbers from the masses of the uninformed
speaks volumes.
>> Again, do you think either Humes, Boswell, or Finck would characterize the
>> back wound as PERSUMABLY one of entrance - notwithstanding how the WCR
>> chose to word it?
>>
>> With all your research - do you think a reasonable argument can be made
>> for the back wound being one of EXIT? If so - I want to HEAR that
>> argument.
>>
>> DavidEmerling
>> Memphis, TN
>
> All you need do is check the Original Reports.
>
> 1. Throat wound was an "Entrance wound".
>
> 2. Witnesses saw a bullet hit the street Behind the Limo.
You have just connected two disjointed pieces of information and
concocted a wholly ridiculous trajectory - completely unsupported by
the evidence.
How could a bullet go through the front of Kennedy's throat, exit his
back (leaving the classic abrasion collar of an entry wound) and hit
Elm Street, all the while WITHOUT striking the limousine?
You conveniently didn't answer the question though: I asked WHERE
could a shot like that originate? Feel free to speculate! Where? The
railroad overpass? The grassy knoll? From the sewer? WHERE????
Is this what you believe happened? Truly??
I feel the urge to start another poll on *this* issue amongst your
conspiracy brethren. Who is onboard with Tom's shot-through-the-front-
of-the-throat and exited-the-back and hit-the-street and didn't-hit-
the-limo Theory? All those in favor, say "Aye" [crickets chirping]
By the way, I thought you guys were of the opinion that when the back
wound is connected to the throat wound it would actually be an UPWARD
trajectory. And now you're claiming that it hit the street? Now THAT'S
a magic bullet theory! I can't wait to hear how this accounts for
Governor Connally's wounds.
How many shots do you think were fired, anyway? Did somebody have a
machine gun with disappearing bullets?
Are you seeing a pattern here? In the assassination debate, you might
as well be on the planet Neptune.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/april_22.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ae7cf3e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
The only people who I've ever seen with NO Knowledge of the
evidence/testimony are LN's.
You Personally have been invited to debate the evidence/testimony
Repeatedly on my Live Audio Chat Room.
You've never had the intelligence of the evidence/testimony to accept that
Invitation ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c15f864-95ec-401a...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 27, 10:44 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> That's YOUR characterization but the FACT of the matter is that, as time
>>> marches on, the case for conspiracy has continued to weaken.
>>>
>>> Your Disrespect of 90% of the American people is Duly Noted !
>
> What percentage of the people who hold this view would you say are
> "educated" beyond reading a couple conspiracy books and watching the
> movie JFK?
>
Maybe you don't realize how an opinion poll works. They contact people
at random and ask them their opinions about a subject. They do not
screen the interviewees or give them tests first.
> I'm talking about serious students of the assassination. The fact that
> you have to enlist the numbers from the masses of the uninformed
> speaks volumes.
>
You have no basis to guess about the serious students of the
assassination. Virtually none of the WC defenders are serious students.
All they know how to do is lie about the evidence.
davidemerling
> davidemerling wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 10:44 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> That's YOUR characterization but the FACT of the matter is that, as time
> >>> marches on, the case for conspiracy has continued to weaken.
>
> >>> Your Disrespect of 90% of the American people is Duly Noted !
>
> > What percentage of the people who hold this view would you say are
> > "educated" beyond reading a couple conspiracy books and watching the
> > movie JFK?
>
> Maybe you don't realize how an opinion poll works. They contact people
> at random and ask them their opinions about a subject. They do not
> screen the interviewees or give them tests first.
Thank you for informing me about how an opinion poll works - because
THAT'S what we're talking about. Pfft!
I take it that you decided not to chime in on the "poll", no matter how
unsophisticated, and that you do NOT agree with Rossley's ridiculous neck
wound trajectory theory.
>
> > I'm talking about serious students of the assassination. The fact that
> > you have to enlist the numbers from the masses of the uninformed
> > speaks volumes.
>
> You have no basis to guess about the serious students of the
> assassination. Virtually none of the WC defenders are serious students.
> All they know how to do is lie about the evidence.
Well, it takes a little sophistication and knowledge to tell a good lie -
don't you think? The BEST way to tell a believable lie is to wrap it in a
few truths. :)
When polls are taken on this subject ... and as you've already pointed
out, the only valid poll is one taken of random participants ... what are
the chances that those who are polled are serious students of the
assassination? People like us are a dying breed. I think it's fair to say
that VERY few of those randomly polled about the Kennedy assassination are
serious students. Since those polls indicate a vast majority believe that
a conspiracy DID exist - it's fair to say that a vast majority of them
have no idea what they're talking about. The same goes for those who are
polled and express the opinion that no conspiracy existed. What I'm
saying, I guess, is that they are polling people, on both sides of the
fence, who really do not know very much about this case. Consequently, I
think they are subject to be more influenced by the persistent drumbeats
of the conspiracy crowd. I have to give you guys credit - you are much
more passionate (I dare say EMOTIONAL) about your beliefs than the
non-conspiracy crowd. There are far more books and movie references to the
Kennedy assassination that have a conspiratorial theme.
It would be like polling people on whether they believe in "String
Theory". Scientists, with conflicting views of "String Theory", would look
silly by saying, "80% of the people polled do not accept String Theory."
Most people are not qualified to have an intelligent opinion of "String
Theory".
This reminds me of a scene in the movie "When Harry Met Sally". Harry
(Billy Crystal) is starting to date again, recovering from his divorce. He
is frustrated because he just can't find any girl with whom he can relate.
He was set-up with a girl named Emily but he didn't feel like they had
anything in common. He didnt' think she was very bright and found it
difficult making any conversation.
HARRY: "... I asked her where she was when Kennedy was shot she said, 'Ted
Kennedy was shot?'"
I wonder what Emily would answer, if polled, regarding the Kennedy
assassination?
She would probably say, "I thought he died of a brain tumor, or
something."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
the subject.
Even McAdams in our debate, gave NO Official Citations for his Claims.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
No WCR Supporter will debate evidence/testimony with me here>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d490122-d464-492e...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
davidemerling
> My experience has been that those who believe the WCR are NOT well read on
> the subject.
>
> Even McAdams in our debate, gave NO Official Citations for his Claims.
I listened to that debate and I would say that official citations
existed for all of McAdams's statements. Fundamentally, he claimed
that Oswald assassinated Kennedy and acted alone. One citation for
that conclusion is the Warren Commission Report.
One of the little games you play is that when somebody says something
you don't like you demand an official citation on the HOPE that they
cannot remember EXACTLY where that information came from. If a person
cannot immediately quote you line-and-verse off the top of their head
- then you say, "Ah hah!", as if you've scored some point. This is why
you much more enjoy LIVE debates - where this tactic is far more
effective.
In the slower-paced, more contemplative world of research - you fail
miserably! When people actually DO have time to find citations - you
strikeout every time. You claim things don't exist that DO exist. You
make claims about certain documents when OTHER, more compelling
documents, contradict what you cite.
You raise esoteric points from esoteric documents and draw esoteric
conclusions then, on the spot, smugly challenge people on that point.
Well, that often takes a little research rebut. You seem to think that
this is some kind of game where you have to have everything at the tip
of your tongue.
There is such a wealth of information on this topic. It is not
uncommon to REMEMBER something you've read (from an official document)
but not recall exactly WHERE you read it -or- exactly WHO wrote it
without doing a little research.
A classic example are those photos you have of Billy Lovelady wearing
a short-sleeved, red & white shirt taken by the FBI. You might be able
to ambush somebody with those photos and ask, "Does that look like
what the individual in the Altgens photos is wearing? I ask you! Does
it?"
You might score some points as the individual is befuddled about the
obvious disparity. But, with a little research, in time, he discovers
that ...
1) Those photos were taken in 1975! (not on the day of the
assassination)
2) Billy Lovelady said, about those photos, that the FBI never told
him to wear what he wore on November 22, 1963.
3) Billy Lovelady claimed to be wearing a shirt like that in 1964 (red
& white)- but the EVIDENCE (other photos and films) clearly show that
he was wrong!
4) Billy Lovelady, HIMSELF, claims that HE is the individual in the
Altgens photo.
5) Billy Lovelady, apparently embarrassed by his 1964 misstatement
about what he wore on November 22, 1963 - later claimed that he never
said that he wore a short-sleeve, red & white shirt because the FBI
never asked him that. Yeah, RIGHT, Billy.
6) He eventually claims that it was a long-sleeved, plaid shirt - just
like the one seen in the Altgens photo.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 29, 12:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> davidemerling wrote:
>>> On Oct 27, 10:44 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> That's YOUR characterization but the FACT of the matter is that, as time
>>>>> marches on, the case for conspiracy has continued to weaken.
>>
>>>>> Your Disrespect of 90% of the American people is Duly Noted !
>>
>>> What percentage of the people who hold this view would you say are
>>> "educated" beyond reading a couple conspiracy books and watching the
>>> movie JFK?
>>
>> Maybe you don't realize how an opinion poll works. They contact people
>> at random and ask them their opinions about a subject. They do not
>> screen the interviewees or give them tests first.
>
> Thank you for informing me about how an opinion poll works - because
> THAT'S what we're talking about. Pfft!
>
> I take it that you decided not to chime in on the "poll", no matter how
> unsophisticated, and that you do NOT agree with Rossley's ridiculous neck
> wound trajectory theory.
>
Why would you ever doubt that I disagree with Rossley? Is that the best
you can come up with for a personal attack? A false guilt by association?
Very silly.
The point of such a poll would be to see how well the scientists have
made their case.
tomnln
Facts"???
I understand YOU not knowing anything of the case ! ! !
McAdams teaches the subject on a University level ! ! !
He SHOULD know some of the Basic Facts ! ! !
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53e826ce-742f-41e1...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I don't know what your Country of origin is but, In America your
Allegations must be proven by evidence/testimony Under oath ! ! !
Apparently you don't know the difference between the Warren Report and,
the 26 Volumes of evidence/testimony.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53e826ce-742f-41e1...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
davidemerling
> What kind of person "Reaches conclusions BEFORE Gathering all of the
> Facts"???
You're having comprehension issues. I didn't say that Prof. McAdams
reached conclusions without "gathering all the facts." He just didn't
debate you with a computer in front of him and volumes of books by his
side. He was just recalling things from his memory - and a pretty good
memory I would say. I don't have a problem with that - as long as there IS
evidence to support what he says. And there was! Asking him "Which page
number?" - is just silly. The debate would have come to a mind-numbing
halt if he had to search for the citations you were demanding. But they
existed - and you know it.
Again, that's why you prefer live debates because you like to focus on
esoteric issues that require a bit of research to debunk ... but can
ALWAYS be debunked. And most of your crap HAS been debunked ... long ago.
It's just amazing that you cannot see that. Your persistence would ALMOST
be admirable if it wasn't so irrationally dogmatic.
> I understand YOU not knowing anything of the case ! ! !
Fair enough. You're free to have an opinion on that matter.
> McAdams teaches the subject on a University level ! ! !
>
> He SHOULD know some of the Basic Facts ! ! !
He DOES know the "Basic Facts". And to accuse him of not knowing them
makes YOU look silly. Everybody respects John's knowledge of the case.
Even his adversaries ... well ... except YOU, apparently.
His website is professional, well organized, and scholarly. Yours is
nothing but a collection of oddities with your biased opinions layered
upon them.
You're right - he teaches the course at the university level. I would
think that, by definition, means he understands the "Basic Facts."
Now you're just making yourself look small.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL it proves is that he/you know the "charges" against Oswald contained
in the WCR.
The evidence/testimony within the 26 Vollumes proves those "Conclusions"
WRONG.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
You/He can debate me on evidence/testimony ANY Night you choose to.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 30, 9:49 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> What kind of person "Reaches conclusions BEFORE Gathering all of the
>> Facts"???
>
> You're having comprehension issues. I didn't say that Prof. McAdams
> reached conclusions without "gathering all the facts." He just didn't
> debate you with a computer in front of him and volumes of books by his
So, you are claiming that TOMNLN had a laptop computer and the 26
volumes of the WC with him for the debate? Can McAdams confirm that is
what happened? The problem is that McAdams has never bothered to read
the 26 volumes, not even the Report. He defends a myth.
> side. He was just recalling things from his memory - and a pretty good
> memory I would say. I don't have a problem with that - as long as there IS
> evidence to support what he says. And there was! Asking him "Which page
> number?" - is just silly. The debate would have come to a mind-numbing
> halt if he had to search for the citations you were demanding. But they
> existed - and you know it.
>
> Again, that's why you prefer live debates because you like to focus on
> esoteric issues that require a bit of research to debunk ... but can
> ALWAYS be debunked. And most of your crap HAS been debunked ... long ago.
> It's just amazing that you cannot see that. Your persistence would ALMOST
> be admirable if it wasn't so irrationally dogmatic.
>
>> I understand YOU not knowing anything of the case ! ! !
>
> Fair enough. You're free to have an opinion on that matter.
>
>> McAdams teaches the subject on a University level ! ! !
>>
>> He SHOULD know some of the Basic Facts ! ! !
>
> He DOES know the "Basic Facts". And to accuse him of not knowing them
> makes YOU look silly. Everybody respects John's knowledge of the case.
NO.
> Even his adversaries ... well ... except YOU, apparently.
>
Apparently I have to be the only one to correct McAdams' false information.
> His website is professional, well organized, and scholarly. Yours is
> nothing but a collection of oddities with your biased opinions layered
> upon them.
>
Wow, his disinformation looks very pretty. I think you confuse
appearance with substance.
davidemerling
> On 10/31/2009 9:50 PM, davidemerling wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 9:49 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> What kind of person "Reaches conclusions BEFORE Gathering all of the
> >> Facts"???
>
> > You're having comprehension issues. I didn't say that Prof. McAdams
> > reached conclusions without "gathering all the facts." He just didn't
> > debate you with a computer in front of him and volumes of books by his
>
> So, you are claiming that TOMNLN had a laptop computer and the 26
> volumes of the WC with him for the debate? Can McAdams confirm that is
> what happened? The problem is that McAdams has never bothered to read
> the 26 volumes, not even the Report. He defends a myth.
If you heard the debate - you would have noticed that Tom steered it
into areas that HE was prepared to discuss. HE had citations ready
because he obviously wanted to talk about those specific things. Tom's
"citation", from what I could tell, was - "It's all on my website!" I
think John could have said the same thing. Basically, Tom hijacked the
debate. That is not a compliment to Tom's debating acumen, by the way.
You see, people like Tom HAVE to debate in that manner. They thrive on
ambushing their opponent with silly points that are not commonly
known, not commonly cited, and not commonly accepted. And there is a
REASON for that! This forces the other individual to try to explain
these inconsistencies, oddities, and disparities. It's a cheap way of
trying to get the other person on the defensive.
There's really no explanation for some of these things OTHER than the
fact that there is a wealth of evidence and testimony that contradict
it. To extemporaneously come up with citations in a live debate is a
silly requirement. I wasn't expecting anybody to say, "It's in volume
4, page 17 of the House Select Committee investigationg, allow me to
read it for you..." That's something I would expect to see as a
citation in a book, however.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
Unless of course David is ALSO NOT familiar with evidence/testimony ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Robert%20Oswald.htm
I Love it when LN's Reject their own evidence/testimony ! ! !
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:176ae08a-28a7-4244...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
davidemerling
> All David had to do is CHECK the Volume/Page "Citations" I gave.
>
> Unless of course David is ALSO NOT familiar with evidence/testimony ! ! !
You seem not to like the citation that came from the Warren Report
where they concluded that Oswald killed the president and that they
could find no evidence of conspiracy.
How 'bout THAT citation?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
You seem to have some trouble translating bureaucratise. They did not
say that there was no conspiracy. They said and Ford emphasized this,
that they could not FIND the evidence of conspiracy. They were forbidden
from finding conspiracy and that evidence was withheld from them. Even
Belin complained about that years later.
tomnln
How 'bout THAT citation?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
david;
That's NOT a "citation".
That's a "conclusion"
NOT supported by the evidence/testimony.
Don't you know the difference between the WC Report & the 26 Volumes?
You need>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Jaynes
Alright Marsh. Don't ever let me hear you calling anyone else a Warren
Commission defender.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
davidemerling
So, what you're saying is that when Representative Ford said that they
could find no evidence of a conspiracy, what he REALLY meant is that there
definitely WAS one ... they just couldn't find it. Is that it?
That's what he meant?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
That's exactly what he meant.