30-01-2011, 06:17 AM
Jim, not OK, not OK at all. You are not being responsive to my challenges. Is Ms. Adams lying in your opinion? If so, please explain why. I want you on record calling her out, which you have not been brave enough to do thus far. Or are you calling me a liar? I really, really want to know about that.
The newspaper story, including the homemade caption from the print shop, is "incredible"? Why do you say that? Incredible? Really? It's all a "story that has been spun here"? By me? I'm the "spinner"? It is far from incredible, very ordinary really. Are you claiming Allan and I are just "spinning" stories? Despite your many contributions to knowledge about conspiracy theory and "inside jobs," perhaps you have been too deep into conspiracy theory for too long and have taken leave of your senses, I don't know. I do know you are not exercising good judgment in this instance.
Ms. Adams claims her husband was at an historic event and happened to be a person in a famous newspaper photo from that event. What is incredible about that? Do you claim Ms. Adams is lying about her trip to the printer to memorialize her husband's appearance at Dealey Plaza with a caption? On behalf of what cause? Are you claiming that her framed photo and testimony are inauthentic (faked) evidence--based on what? Of course you are declaring the framed photo and her testimony are false, intentionally. You know so much about the features of Mr. Adams and Conein that you declare Conein the authentic person in the photo, not Mr. Adams, and we are supposed to bow to your authority and that of Jack White? You never met either man, Ms. Adams knew Mr. Adams rather well. You say you have a strong impression of "physical difference (sic) more imposing that (sic) the story that has been spun here." I've spun a story? Is that your claim? A false story? You are tossing out accusations about the veracity of Ms. Adams or me or both without being explicit. Be a man and tell me whether I am the liar or Ms. Adams or both. And neither you nor Jack apparently intend to talk to the woman to gather more information and assess her veracity. In this case, I find your investigative methods woeful.
The newspaper story, including the homemade caption from the print shop, is "incredible"? Why do you say that? Incredible? Really? It's all a "story that has been spun here"? By me? I'm the "spinner"? It is far from incredible, very ordinary really. Are you claiming Allan and I are just "spinning" stories? Despite your many contributions to knowledge about conspiracy theory and "inside jobs," perhaps you have been too deep into conspiracy theory for too long and have taken leave of your senses, I don't know. I do know you are not exercising good judgment in this instance.
Ms. Adams claims her husband was at an historic event and happened to be a person in a famous newspaper photo from that event. What is incredible about that? Do you claim Ms. Adams is lying about her trip to the printer to memorialize her husband's appearance at Dealey Plaza with a caption? On behalf of what cause? Are you claiming that her framed photo and testimony are inauthentic (faked) evidence--based on what? Of course you are declaring the framed photo and her testimony are false, intentionally. You know so much about the features of Mr. Adams and Conein that you declare Conein the authentic person in the photo, not Mr. Adams, and we are supposed to bow to your authority and that of Jack White? You never met either man, Ms. Adams knew Mr. Adams rather well. You say you have a strong impression of "physical difference (sic) more imposing that (sic) the story that has been spun here." I've spun a story? Is that your claim? A false story? You are tossing out accusations about the veracity of Ms. Adams or me or both without being explicit. Be a man and tell me whether I am the liar or Ms. Adams or both. And neither you nor Jack apparently intend to talk to the woman to gather more information and assess her veracity. In this case, I find your investigative methods woeful.