+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland (/thread-13848.html)
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Lauren Johnson - 28-04-2015
Jim
Have you not chosen to join EF or you still "not welcome?"
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Jim DiEugenio - 28-04-2015
I have not tried to join EF.
I think the place has really fallen in the quality of membership.
They have lost so many good posters like Martin Hay, Robert Charles Dunne, Dwayne Dunn etc.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Magda Hassan - 28-04-2015
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:BTW, Roy/Blatburst is also pushing the whole line of rigamarole about him being a careful researcher.
This is the guy who wrote that when the cut Z frames are inserted into the Z film at around 207 forward, that still does not prove a conspiracy.
HA HA HA LOL
See, those excised frames clearly show Kennedy's head buckling from an impact. And when Groden first showed them at Harvard in 1993, the audience was shocked since it was on a big screen with very good resolution.
Everyone realized why Hoover had cut those frames. Because the WC wrote that Oswald could not have gotten a shot off at that point since his vision was blocked by the branches of an oak tree. If you can believe it even Dunacan McRae said it looked like he was hit before he went behind the sign. (DVP went nuts when he said that, of course.) The HSCA photo panel also said this was the case.
But not that "careful researcher" Roy/Blatburst. The troll who feels fine at Max Holland's site.
Jim, Stephen has been contacting us to let him join so he can comment/rebut what has been said about him here. Any point? We have our policy of not having LNers of course.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Ivan De Mey - 28-04-2015
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Yeah, I saw that too and I added to my post above about it.
Wow, what chutzpah.
And man now the EF has fallen: Von Pein and Roy. Bad cop, good cop.
BTW, Roy/Blatburst is also pushing the whole line of rigamarole about him being a careful researcher.
This is the guy who wrote that when the cut Z frames are inserted into the Z film at around 207 forward, that still does not prove a conspiracy.
HA HA HA LOL
See, those excised frames clearly show Kennedy's head buckling from an impact. And when Groden first showed them at Harvard in 1993, the audience was shocked since it was on a big screen with very good resolution.
Everyone realized why Hoover had cut those frames. Because the WC wrote that Oswald could not have gotten a shot off at that point since his vision was blocked by the branches of an oak tree. If you can believe it even Dunacan McRae said it looked like he was hit before he went behind the sign. (DVP went nuts when he said that, of course.) The HSCA photo panel also said this was the case.
But not that "careful researcher" Roy/Blatburst. The troll who feels fine at Max Holland's site.
Is the Zapruder film with the cut frames inserted to be seen somewhere? Can't seem to find it on YouTube.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Drew Phipps - 28-04-2015
There's another solution to that: Simply quit talking about the motives of other researchers and just discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of their theories.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Albert Doyle - 28-04-2015
Blackburst is fair game. He's a Lone Nutter who uses the classic Lone Nut method (ala Bugliosi) of whitewashing the evidence in phony high rigor analysis while fully intending to lose incriminating content in diversionary volume. He then pleads that he is only being objective and following higher standards. If you read the Amazon comments section for his review he had every chance to answer for it but didn't. There's a modern element in Million Fragments​ of using Shaw's gay-ness as a contemporary focus. Sort of like switching the subject and trying to humanize Shaw as a progressive gay man. It's obvious the only reason Carpenter is doing that is because he's trying to shift attention from Shaw's wolf status and participation in the assassination.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Jim DiEugenio - 29-04-2015
Magda:
Roy/Blatburst is a Krazy Kid Oswald advocate all the way. You have a policy on that. Why break it for him?
If I had any interest in going back on EF, I would have no problem locking horns with him. But I don't have any such interest for reasons I stated above.
And I am doing very little that is personal.
But anyone who posts at Max Holland's web site and then allies himself with DVP, I mean puhlease!
Its really odd he is complaining since he has no problem going after other "mythologists". For instance, according to Bill Davy, he trashed his book when it came out.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Jim DiEugenio - 29-04-2015
Ivan:
It should be.
Just google "Z film including excised frames."
If not Groden sells it.
But see, there is a difference seeing it on a big screen in film form, versus seeing a video or digitized version.
On a big screen, with high resolution it is really compelling.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Albert Doyle - 29-04-2015
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:I have not tried to join EF.
I think the place has really fallen in the quality of membership.
Mostly because of your absence. I think the cause needs you over there. The place has gotten weedy with deniers and contrarian skeptics.
Blatburst-Roy, Carpenter and Holland - Tracy Riddle - 29-04-2015
Ivan De Mey Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Yeah, I saw that too and I added to my post above about it.
Wow, what chutzpah.
And man now the EF has fallen: Von Pein and Roy. Bad cop, good cop.
BTW, Roy/Blatburst is also pushing the whole line of rigamarole about him being a careful researcher.
This is the guy who wrote that when the cut Z frames are inserted into the Z film at around 207 forward, that still does not prove a conspiracy.
HA HA HA LOL
See, those excised frames clearly show Kennedy's head buckling from an impact. And when Groden first showed them at Harvard in 1993, the audience was shocked since it was on a big screen with very good resolution.
Everyone realized why Hoover had cut those frames. Because the WC wrote that Oswald could not have gotten a shot off at that point since his vision was blocked by the branches of an oak tree. If you can believe it even Dunacan McRae said it looked like he was hit before he went behind the sign. (DVP went nuts when he said that, of course.) The HSCA photo panel also said this was the case.
But not that "careful researcher" Roy/Blatburst. The troll who feels fine at Max Holland's site.
Is the Zapruder film with the cut frames inserted to be seen somewhere? Can't seem to find it on YouTube.
You can see some frames here, about 1/3 the way down the page:
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza