30-08-2013, 11:14 AM
Phil, Jeff dealt with those herky jerky motions already.
And they have been dealt with elsewhere too.
Duke Lane did a very nice analysis of the 59 witnesses.
They are not 59. In reality, they are something like less than 20% of that sum: 12 or 13.
Everyone sees the jump cut in the film of course. And most people think its a start, stop. I mean, what could be hidden there? I have heard some of the things floated, but where is the witness corroboration?
And no, it was not a "courtesy visit" I paid to the Wilkinsons. You don't drive 50 miles one way with the price of gasoline being what it is out of "courtesy". They really strike me as being credible people, since they work in the industry every day. And they have done their homework. They have one significant technical problem to overcome. And I look forward to the end result of that endeavor. But during our talk, it became clear to me that they don't buy the wholesale alterationist concept. And that, in this regard, Horne misrepresented who they were and what they are about.
Too often in this so called research community, people recycle what other authors have written without doing any kind of proper check up on what is on the page. It then gets repeated and it then becomes acceptable. Even though it should not be. Remember, Garrison being in bed with the Mafia? Complete and utter balderdash. But it lasted for 25 years. That is how great our "research community" is on peer review.
I am in neither camp on this issue. I have alway said that I was agnostic on this point. And I await the end game for the Wilkinsons.
But I don't know what is achieved by the almost fascist zealotry of the radical alterationist school here. So far you have driven out Rossi, who is going to Greg Parker's site. And I consider that a big loss to DPF. Jeff Carter is not posting. And his contributions to 50 Reasons are indelible. I mean on a five dollar budget with almost no time allowed, to come up with what they did on that is really something.
And when these things happen, what is the creed the radical alterationist follower recites? Most of the time its something like, well there are infiltrators in our midst.
Uh, will someone please explain to me how Bob Groden is an infiltrator? Gary Aguilar? Lisa Pease?
In other words, if you disagree with someone about a particular issue, then this translates into being a CIA agent?
Well, I hate to tell everyone, but the highest rating the critics ever got with the public was after Oliver Stone's movie came out. Remember, "back and to the left"? Yep, he said it five times. Maybe Stone was a CIA agent? Or maybe it was Zach Sklar?
Or was it Albert Rossi?
No one has done more work on this concept of jackals in our midst than I have. I did it in the Second Edition of Destiny Betrayed at length. And I did it in my essay, "How Gary Mack became Dan Rather". But there is one big difference. I did it with strong evidence. And in some cases, this rose to the threshold of proof. Disagreements about whether or not the Z film is genuine does not constitute proof. Just like disagreements about George H. W. Bush being in on the Kennedy caper does not constitute proof of being a spook.
Unless you are John Hankey of course. Hankey actually called me a CIA agent because CTKA printed Seamus Coogan's critique of Hankey's crappy movie. Now if you are in his camp, why don't you guys go to Santa Barbara in November instead of Dallas. And you can listen to the likes of Fetzer, Cinque, and Janney. I mean Janney accused Lisa and myself of being the Real Deal, yep, Nazis, because we did not like his book on Mary Meyer.
Yep, that is what this "research community" has come to. In the immortal words of Kevin Costner in The Untouchables, "I have become what I beheld and I am convinced I have done right."
And they have been dealt with elsewhere too.
Duke Lane did a very nice analysis of the 59 witnesses.
They are not 59. In reality, they are something like less than 20% of that sum: 12 or 13.
Everyone sees the jump cut in the film of course. And most people think its a start, stop. I mean, what could be hidden there? I have heard some of the things floated, but where is the witness corroboration?
And no, it was not a "courtesy visit" I paid to the Wilkinsons. You don't drive 50 miles one way with the price of gasoline being what it is out of "courtesy". They really strike me as being credible people, since they work in the industry every day. And they have done their homework. They have one significant technical problem to overcome. And I look forward to the end result of that endeavor. But during our talk, it became clear to me that they don't buy the wholesale alterationist concept. And that, in this regard, Horne misrepresented who they were and what they are about.
Too often in this so called research community, people recycle what other authors have written without doing any kind of proper check up on what is on the page. It then gets repeated and it then becomes acceptable. Even though it should not be. Remember, Garrison being in bed with the Mafia? Complete and utter balderdash. But it lasted for 25 years. That is how great our "research community" is on peer review.
I am in neither camp on this issue. I have alway said that I was agnostic on this point. And I await the end game for the Wilkinsons.
But I don't know what is achieved by the almost fascist zealotry of the radical alterationist school here. So far you have driven out Rossi, who is going to Greg Parker's site. And I consider that a big loss to DPF. Jeff Carter is not posting. And his contributions to 50 Reasons are indelible. I mean on a five dollar budget with almost no time allowed, to come up with what they did on that is really something.
And when these things happen, what is the creed the radical alterationist follower recites? Most of the time its something like, well there are infiltrators in our midst.
Uh, will someone please explain to me how Bob Groden is an infiltrator? Gary Aguilar? Lisa Pease?
In other words, if you disagree with someone about a particular issue, then this translates into being a CIA agent?
Well, I hate to tell everyone, but the highest rating the critics ever got with the public was after Oliver Stone's movie came out. Remember, "back and to the left"? Yep, he said it five times. Maybe Stone was a CIA agent? Or maybe it was Zach Sklar?
Or was it Albert Rossi?
No one has done more work on this concept of jackals in our midst than I have. I did it in the Second Edition of Destiny Betrayed at length. And I did it in my essay, "How Gary Mack became Dan Rather". But there is one big difference. I did it with strong evidence. And in some cases, this rose to the threshold of proof. Disagreements about whether or not the Z film is genuine does not constitute proof. Just like disagreements about George H. W. Bush being in on the Kennedy caper does not constitute proof of being a spook.
Unless you are John Hankey of course. Hankey actually called me a CIA agent because CTKA printed Seamus Coogan's critique of Hankey's crappy movie. Now if you are in his camp, why don't you guys go to Santa Barbara in November instead of Dallas. And you can listen to the likes of Fetzer, Cinque, and Janney. I mean Janney accused Lisa and myself of being the Real Deal, yep, Nazis, because we did not like his book on Mary Meyer.
Yep, that is what this "research community" has come to. In the immortal words of Kevin Costner in The Untouchables, "I have become what I beheld and I am convinced I have done right."