JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Tom Scully on February 22, 2018, 11:19:08 PM
-
Unfortunately, 108 threads (of 208 total), in this, the discussion section of this forum
have been created by one poster with a penchant for never correcting an
inaccuracy or conceding, even in the face of overwhelming posted evidence, that he is mistaken.
His latest features discredited Rose Cheramie as an informative and constructive element of JFK Assassination
research. It would be troubling, even if a reasonable poster posting reliably took it upon him or herself to
take advantage of the void here resulting from the sudden recent data loss, to overwhelm this forum
by a single thread author.
Until enough threads exist here to make it unlikely one poster could author even ten percent
of all threads, is it not reasonable to limit each member to 30 new threads, escalating to a ten
percent individual cap until the total number of threads exceeds 2000?
Or....sit idly by and watch the ivy obscure the other foliage.
-
Unfortunately, 72 threads have been created by one poster with a penchant for never correcting an
inaccuracy or conceding, even in the face of overwhelming posted evidence, that he is mistaken.
His latest features discredited Rose Cheramie as an informative and constructive element of JFK Assassination
research. It would be troubling, even if a reasonable poster posting reliably took it upon him or herself to
take advantage of the void here resulting from the sudden recent data loss, to overwhelm this forum
by a single thread author.
Until enough threads exist here to make it unlikely one poster could author even ten percent
of all threads, is it not reasonable to limit each member to 30 new threads, escalating to a ten
percent individual cap until the total number of threads exceeds 2000?
Or....sit idly by and watch the ivy obscure the other foliage.
I wouldn't worry too much Tom, Caprio's threads disappear quickly with bugger all views. The main problem I find is that his thread titles say nothing about the contents, maybe if he told us what we might find within then we may click on them but otherwise it's most likely another Caprio fabrication so why bother!
(https://s17.postimg.org/7o3o6z2xb/caprio_threads.jpg)
JohnM
-
No, it's not a concern. If you don't like them, don't read them.
I do agree that it would be helpful to have a summary in the thread titles, like there is for the newer ones ("#441 McDonald pulls gun").
-
..... He could counter what I post with evidence, but alas he can't since none exists. So he claims that I lie instead. Standard LNer tactic.
I won't bother posting even a few of the many examples of how evidence influences you.
Evidence has no effect on you, yet you keep on demanding it of others.
-
But Oswald wasn't seen in the 6th floor window with a gun in his hand so he didn't do it.
-
But Oswald wasn't seen in the 6th floor window with a gun in his hand so he didn't do it.
Is it not a bit strange to you Anderson that off all the people standing around where Brennan was, that only he could see anyone who had allegedly fired 3 loud shots directly in front of them?
Go careful now or I will add you to the W.A.S.P= Lner thread, Where I think you belong
-
Is it not a bit strange to you Anderson that off all the people standing around where Brennan was, that only he could see anyone who had allegedly fired 3 loud shots directly in front of them?
Go careful now or I will add you to the W.A.S.P= Lner thread, Where I think you belong
Go careful yourself crazy man. I'm white not Anglo Saxon and not protestant. Don't give up the day job.
As I've posted before. Brennan got the shooters location right so he obviously saw something.
The detail he provides is exaggerated though in my opinion.
-
Incorrect. I have never seen you cite the evidence. You can't because you either don't know it or you realize that it doesn't support your claims. There is no reason not to cite evidence IF you have it. This is simply a cop out because you don't want to admit that you have none.
John Iacoletti gave an accurate description of what you do here.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150508145751/http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com:80/index.php?topic=5132.48
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CaprioBenavides2014.jpg)
....and, in the now lost Zangretti fable promotion thread you authored, this was your reaction to my original research which overwhelmingly impeached
Penn Jones's fairytale.: (You had been shilling that Penn Jones BS since at least 2008.: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MgvVGfm6RtU )
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CaprioEroder.jpg)
I put that BS out of its misery, even as you resorted to your denial (Sgt. Schultz) mode.:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,32.msg3289.html#msg3289
Re: Was Jack Zangretti Off Base Or Not?
? Reply #9 on: January 31, 2018, 02:21:55 AM.....
-
But Oswald wasn't seen in the 6th floor window with a gun in his hand so he didn't do it.
Nearly as stupid as the Ln mantra...." But Oswald wasn't seen in the 6th floor window with a gun in his hand so he did do it."
-
;D ;D ;D
-
Unfortunately, 72 threads have been created by one poster with a penchant for never correcting an
inaccuracy or conceding, even in the face of overwhelming posted evidence, that he is mistaken.
A compulsion disorder for minutiae is often a characteristic shared by CTers. Like posting reams of random information or charts with all sorts of arrows going every direction. Sound familiar? The CTer brain has difficulty processing details and confuses them for knowledge. Thus, if enough details are posted they must add up to something. What exactly they never say. It is simply implied by the mass of information posted.
-
But Oswald wasn't seen in the 6th floor window with a gun in his hand so he didn't do it.
But Oswald left his ring in a cup, so he did it.
-
As I've posted before. Brennan got the shooters location right so he obviously saw something.
That's a circular argument. Nobody (not even Brennan) claimed to see any shots fired from that location.
The detail he provides is exaggerated though in my opinion.
Agreed. I'm not sure why most LNers won't even concede this.
-
A compulsion disorder for minutiae is often a characteristic shared by CTers. Like posting reams of random information or charts with all sorts of arrows going every direction. Sound familiar? The CTer brain has difficulty processing details and confuses them for knowledge. Thus, if enough details are posted they must add up to something. What exactly they never say. It is simply implied by the mass of information posted.
You should just accept Richard's conclusions as fact and not bother with any of that "evidence" stuff. It's too hard.
-
Nobody (not even Brennan) claimed to see any shots fired from that location.
Euins, second shot.
-
Euins, second shot.
Fair enough. I'll concede that his testimony could be interpreted that way.
Mr. EUINS. Then I was standing here, and as the motorcade turned the corner, I was facing, looking dead at the building. And so I seen this pipe thing sticking out the window. I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again. So--you know this fountain bench here, right around here. Well, anyway, there is a little fountain right here. I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again.
So after he shot again, he just started looking down this, you know.
Mr. SPECTER. Who started looking down that way?
Mr. EUINS. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?
Mr. EUINS. I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I was looking at the building.
Mr. SPECTER. Looking at anything special in the building?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.
-
That's a circular argument. Nobody (not even Brennan) claimed to see any shots fired from that location.
Agreed. I'm not sure why most LNers won't even concede this.
If my use of the word shooter annoys you tough titty, but I'll explain myself again for your circular benefit. Brennan claimed to see a man with a rifle at that window and three cases were found at that window. So Brennan saw something at that window. Or he was ''in on it' along with half of Dallas.
-
I posted this on the Caprio authored "Zangretti" thread because what is presented in that thread proves my point....
....no evidence is ever enough to move this poster from the inaccurate or deliberately false opinions and details he posts
once he digs in, irrationally intent on marginalizing himself.
Our asset to the forum posted this "gem" a few hours ago on another thread.
Quote from: Rob Caprio on February 23, 2018,
I have never been shown to be inaccurate as Scully claims. All he has done is present evidence he finds compelling, but it isn't proof. There is still a good bit of doubt. He just wants me to agree with his *opinion* and that is not going to happen.
I have said numerous times the subjects he stalks me with are inconsequential in the big picture. This isn't about correcting the record, but rather about trying to discredit me because he can't do it with actual evidence.
All this is ridiculous. He thinks that I am NOT entitled to my opinion, but he is allowed to his.
I prove my opinion and you are not entitled to cling stubbornly to inaccurate BS without it costing you your credibility.
He has shilled this particular fable since at least 2008. No quality of evidence or proof is adequate to persuade him not to post the nonsense
on display in his post earlier today! (quote above)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MgvVGfm6RtU
robcap...@netscape.com
8/14/08
He was a Chicago mobster who worked as a manager of a modular motel
complex near Lake Lugert, OK. He will tell friends of his that "three
other men -- NOT Oswald-- killed the president." He also tells them
that a "man named Ruby will kill Oswald tomorrow (11/24/63)."
Sounds pretty convincing to me but of course LNers have said this is
not the truth and they have tried to show he was off base. Two things
make me believe him (and being a CT kook is NOT one of them). Firstly
he also mentioned this tidbit: "...and in a few days a member of
Frank Sinatra's family will be kidnappd just to take some of the
attention away from the assassination." Now even Kreskin couldn't
predict this wild stuff accurately, but it did happen. Frank Sinatra
Jr. was kidnapped and here is the story:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=1214
Frank Sinatra had as many mob ties as Ruby (maybe more) so this makes
sense to me.
The second thing that makes me believe him is the fact he found
floating in a swimming pool with bullet holes in his chest a few weeks
after saying these things. Witnesses will say it looked like he was
"floating" for at least a week, but maybe two (meaning he could have
been killed shortly after making these statements. Being killed as a
way of validating what you say in my book.
-
>:(
If my use of the word shooter annoys you tough titty, but I'll explain myself again for your circular benefit. Brennan claimed to see a man with a rifle at that window and three cases were found at that window. So Brennan saw something at that window. Or he was ''in on it' along with half of Dallas.
Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth was watching the motorcade on Houston Street as he heard shots fired. He immediately ran to the TSBD building - he said he was there within a minute of the shooting - and started to interview the people there. Here is his account of seeing Brennan:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/25kgzyo.jpg)
So before ANY evidence was found - and while many people were running towards the grassy knoll or the parking lot behind it - Brennan was pointing out that he saw a shooter in the building. He just got lucky, then, that other corroborating evidence supports his account.
The claim, then, that right after the shooting - within a minute - Brennan decided to just make a story up about seeing a shooter defies logic, credibility and common sense. In conspiracy world those aren't allowed.
Although, of course, Aynesworth is also accused of being a liar and, in fact, has been accused of being a CIA asset.
-
Steve M. Galbraith you need to follow the thread. You seem to think I believe Brennan didn't see anything.
-
If my use of the word shooter annoys you tough titty, but I'll explain myself again for your circular benefit. Brennan claimed to see a man with a rifle at that window and three cases were found at that window. So Brennan saw something at that window. Or he was ''in on it' along with half of Dallas.
Using John I's nutty standard, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln. They just heard a shot and turned at that instant to see Booth pointing a smoking gun at Lincoln's head. We can't rule out the possibility, therefore, that Lincoln committed suicide and Booth could have been approaching at that very instant to shake his hand. Booth then had the misfortune to pick the pistol up after Lincoln shot himself. He then realized it looked bad and panicked by running away. It's possible - right? No one could disprove it to John's subjective satisfaction. I bet he could even find some witness who couldn't describe Booth's clothing with 100% accuracy. John is a lazy contrarian taking issue with everything.
-
Booth was a patsy and his mum was an imposter.
-
Steve M. Galbraith you need to follow the thread. You seem to think I believe Brennan didn't see anything.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldHowardBrennanMack1983.jpg)
....vs. Brennan, September, 1964:
-
What's yout point?
-
Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth was watching the motorcade on Houston Street as he heard shots fired. He immediately ran to the TSBD building - he said he was there within a minute of the shooting - and started to interview the people there. Here is his account of seeing Brennan:
It doesn't really matter how Aynesworth interpreted it, Brennan himself said that he didn't see a rifle discharge. And Brennan didn't identify anyone in the lineup he attended either. Everything else is just revisionist excuses.
-
Using John I's nutty standard, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln. They just heard a shot and turned at that instant to see Booth pointing a smoking gun at Lincoln's head.
This false equivalence again. Nobody just heard a shot and turned at that instant to see Oswald pointing a smoking gun at anyone's head.
-
Unfortunately, 86 threads (of 202 total) have been created by one poster with a penchant for never correcting an
inaccuracy or conceding, even in the face of overwhelming posted evidence, that he is mistaken.
......
Slow down,,,,,keep your thread creation proportional....do we have to beg you?
The total percentage of his threads vs the entirety of existing threads of this forum is 42 percent.
(177 threads in this forum section, 13 threads in photograph forum, and 12 threads in video forum)
.....Is there some higher percentage that this thread author would have to
reach before readers would regard this forum as his forum....or that he is actually vandalizing this forum as a consequence
of his disproportional thread creation?
Slow it down....do we have to beg you? is not one poster's 86 threads of 177 total threads in this section of the forum a
spam attack on this forum? Two more threads puts his total in this forum section above 50 percent of all threads here.
-
Slow down,,,,,keep your thread creation proportional....do we have to beg you?
The total percentage of his threads vs the entirety of existing threads of this forum is 42 percent.
(177 threads in this forum section, 13 threads in photograph forum, and 12 threads in video forum)
.....Is there some higher percentage that this thread author would have to
reach before readers would regard this forum as his forum....or that he is actually vandalizing this forum as a consequence
of his disproportional thread creation?
Slow it down....do we have to beg you? is not one poster's 86 threads of 177 total threads in this section of the forum a
spam attack on this forum? Two more threads puts his total in this forum section above 50 percent of all threads here.
Tom, if Duncan doesn't mind him posting his screeds here why do you? They quickly drop down the tier, unresponded to, and disappear from view. Nobody here pays attention to him. LNs or CTs.
-
📬
?Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.? ?Duncan MacRae
You did not post a link back to your quote because there is no available post including that quote. Just use the forum search with the word,
example to confirm that you cannot come up with a link to that quote.
If it was posted at one time, maybe it was deleted because of buyers remorse. Even if it was an ethical, honest poster who authored 42 percent
of the 203 threads in this section of this forum, it would still be too many, too soon. But, that is not even the case, here....
Is it?
It appears that Caprio no longer wishes to hang his hat on the Zangretti story. Nice work Tom.
Our asset to the forum posted this "gem" a few hours ago on another thread.
Quote from: Rob Caprio on February 23, 2018
Incorrect. I have never seen you cite the evidence. You can't because you either don't know it or you realize that it doesn't support your claims. There is no reason not to cite evidence IF you have it. This is simply a cop out because you don't want to admit that you have none.
-
Then ask Duncan. It was in the thread started by Mary Jo Wong in which she was asking why the forum was not backed up. You are more than welcomed to repost your stuff, but why bother?
Why don't you show me one post that actually supports anything regarding the JFK assassination. Go ahead. I don't recall one post of yours that taught me anything about the case or the evidence.
You are like Paul May in your obsession with me. It is all about nonsense too. Nothing groundbreaking. Why don't you focus more time on learning the evidence?
Your opinion is worthless to me in case you have not noticed. I wouldn't have to do all this work if the board wasn't hacked, and the chances of that being done by a LNer are much higher. So blame them.
You owe it to yourself to research your claims before posting them.....unless you are incapable of doing it.
According to records of this forum.....or should we rely on your linkless claims, Mary Jo has authored no threads and has posted only
in one thread. Do not be so confident anyone is all that thrilled with you authoring nearly half of all of the threads in this, the most
popular section of this forum. Have some consideration, it is not all about you....slow down....do we have to beg you?
I'm not saying your "permission" to overwhelm this section of the forum with rehashes of your old threads was never posted. I am
pointing out that it is not currently available and there is objection to your indifference about the freakishly disproportional imprint you
are currently afflicting this forum with, aggravated by your record of refusing to admit you are wrong and attacking those who proved you were
wrong.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=91
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CaprioMaryJo.jpg)
-
So, no relief here from spamming and trolling.
-
Then ask Duncan. It was in the thread started by Mary Jo Wong in which she was asking why the forum was not backed up. You are more than welcomed to repost your stuff, but why bother?
Why don't you show me one post that actually supports anything regarding the JFK assassination. Go ahead. I don't recall one post of yours that taught me anything about the case or the evidence.
You are like Paul May in your obsession with me. It is all about nonsense too. Nothing groundbreaking. Why don't you focus more time on learning the evidence?
Your opinion is worthless to me in case you have not noticed. I wouldn't have to do all this work if the board wasn't hacked, and the chances of that being done by a LNer are much higher. So blame them.
I actually read that post by Duncan you're quoting Rob. There's no denying it's true. But to accuse the LNs of hacking the forum is an utter disgrace. You should withdraw and apologise for that disgusting and groundless allegation.
-
I actually read that post by Duncan you're quoting Rob. There's no denying it's true. But to accuse the LNs of hacking the forum is an utter disgrace. You should withdraw and apologise for that disgusting and groundless allegation.
You should withdraw and apologise for that disgusting and groundless allegation.
Dennis,
I take it you agree then, that John Mytton also should apologize to Colin Crow for making a similar claim
Yeah, it's people like you who hack Forums because they can't stand any evidence that contradicts their limited shaky viewpoint.
Colin if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
JohnM
-
You should withdraw and apologise for that disgusting and groundless allegation.
Dennis,
I take it you agree then, that John Mytton also should apologize to Colin Crow for making a similar claim
If they were perhaps equivalent you may have a point but both posts are a world apart.
Btw thanks for showing us exactly how obsessed you are with me, I should be honored but actually I'm a little creeped out.
JohnM
-
If they were perhaps equivalent you may have a point but both posts are a world apart.
Btw thanks for showing us exactly how obsessed you are with me, I should be honored but actually I'm a little creeped out.
JohnM
If they were perhaps equivalent you may have a point but both posts are a world apart.
BS.. but I expected the reply. You (and the content of the reply) are so predictable.
What really is worlds apart though is the planet where you live and earth.
-
They are "worlds apart" as it is ridiculous to think that Colin would hack this forum and not back up his work, but not to think people who support the official falsehood would want to get rid of a lot of research showing that it is a falsehood.
For a start my post has been taken entirely out of context but you Kooks are famous for your cherry picking so I guess it's just par for the course.
And secondly I said people like Colin, not actually Colin himself whereas your comment was a total affront to our society and the core values which separates us from the animals and was a deliberate and misleading punch to the face for all of us that fight for democracy and freedom!
JohnM
-
For a start my post has been taken entirely out of context but you Kooks are famous for your cherry picking so I guess it's just par for the course.
And secondly I said people like Colin, not actually Colin himself whereas your comment was a total affront to our society and the core values which separates us from the animals and was a deliberate and misleading punch to the face for all of us that fight for democracy and freedom!
JohnM
For a start my post has been taken entirely out of context
Your quote was reproduced verbatim. Through the link anybody can go back and see the "context"
And secondly I said people like Colin, not actually Colin himself
What a pathetic argument!
"people like you" includes the person you are talking to, fool!
-
And secondly I said people like Colin, not actually Colin himself whereas your comment was a total affront to our society and the core values which separates us from the animals and was a deliberate and misleading punch to the face for all of us that fight for democracy and freedom!
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/81409530/hyperbole.jpg)
-
One poster has now posted 108 of the 208 threads in this discussion forum.
I strongly suspect the effort in this thread is influencing the rate of what at this
disproportional footprint of just one individual is reasonably described as spamming,
to flood the forum at a slower rate than he prefers.
At some higher percentage this will be regarded by readers as the Caprio forum.