Deep Politics Forum

Heh, a simple "no, I don't find any of the claimed evidence of video fakery in the blog entry I posted compelling" would have been fine.

Kyle Burnett Wrote:Heh, a simple "no, I don't find any of the claimed evidence of video fakery in the blog entry I posted compelling" would have been fine.

But then that would have been lying to you, myself, and the folks here at Deep Politics Forum who invited me to participate here.

And I am not amused by people who try to put words in my mouth by spinning what I have stated. It's not what I said; it's not what I meant. So please cease and desist with your games and go find someone else to dog. You want to disprove or prove something? As I said before, have at it. I don't have time to waste.

Ed Jewett Wrote:And I am not amused by people who try to put words in my mouth by spinning what I have stated.

Yet I'm just trying my best to accurately decipher the ambiguous statements you make in response to simple questions. In this case I took your use of the past tense in "I thought perhaps the post held some evidence or inquiry" to mean you no longer hold that opinion, but it seems we have different understandings of when one should employ the past tense.

FFS - please leave it alone. mileymad: :nosmilie:

None of us is gaining any deep political insight from this badgering and hectoring.

Kyle Burnett Wrote:The vast majority of what little I know about Greer has nothing to do with my comparison, and anyone who takes a moment to google "Greer shot Kennedy" will find all the information by which I justify the comparison and more on the JFK Lancer page that comes up as the top search result. So, recounting all of that won't demonstrate any notable bona fides, and most of it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

You admit that you know "little" about an event, yet you use that limited knowledge to criticize another writer?

You admit that you know "little" about an event, then claim even that paucity of knowledge has nothing to do with your comparison?

And you DEFEND your comparison?

A comparison built on NOTHING?

And you DEFEND your ignorance?

Who the hell do you think you're screwing with?

Your pathetic evasions tell us all we need to know about your bona fides.

They are non-existant.

Except those that would be identified with an agent of ...

Run along and go play at the EF -- aka the Disinformation Bazaar.

Another one exposed and disposed of.

Charles Drago Wrote:A comparison built on NOTHING?

My comparison is built on the facts of mentioned on the JFK lancer page I linked previously, along with those in the videos I posted my first reply to this thread. Why do you insist on badgering and hectoring me rather than acknowledging the information provided in the videos I posted? Did you even watch the videos?

Kyle, as has been suggested already, you clearly do not know with whom you are "debating". I would recommend you invest some money and identify the investigators in this arena, the works they have already produced, and what they have already demonstrated. I just cracked that book last night for the first time and I am deeply humbled and grateful to be in his company. And on the basis of what little research I have done in the last four months on a parallel track, it is right on the money. In fact, I am learning things I did not know and had not yet uncovered. And it has implications for additional questions and research. Maybe you should lend a hand instead of a challenge. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

To further exemplify my comparison, here is a quote from the JFK Lancer page stating some relevant facts of the Greer shot Kennedy fiction:

Quote:One theory that keeps coming up is that Secret Service Agent William Greer, the limousine driver, actually shot President Kennedy with a handgun. Proponents of this theory claim to show he reaches back with his right hand and simply shoots JFK in the head. Look closely and you will note that what seems to be a light colored gun is actually the sun reflection of Agent Kellerman's hair.

And here I've edited the statement to exemplify some relevant facts from the 9/11 video fakery fiction:

Quote:One theory that keeps coming up is that video footage of the planes hitting the towers is faked. Proponents of this theory claim to show the image of the plane simply pops through the other side of the building. Look closely and you will note that what seems to be the nose of a CGI plane is actually a bunch of rubble displaced by the plane impact.

For anyone who hasn't watched the videos I linked, I attached a good shot of the ejected rubble taken from 6:43 of the second video, though I still recommend watching the video to see it in motion.