On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 1:28:50 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 3:34:16 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 2:37:08 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
DiEugenio wrote:
Pat Speer:
2. The images were still quite blurry--nearly identical to what is in the public domain.
If one wants to get access to the original film, and have it studied, then fire away. Get on it. But I'm not aware of anyone who'd attended that screening believing further study will prove anything.
"The above is not true."
I believe Jim D is trying to say that the images he saw from this secret copy of Darnell were much clearer than the avilable images...It has to be said that as good as Jim D is in pedantic book-type written research he has the weird condition of being
below average in technical analysis...Jim is also not to be trusted because his ignoring of the correct Prayer Man evidence on JFK sites shows he isn't to be trusted as a reliable opinion on technical evidence...Especially Prayer Man where he is
obviously doing outright shameful demagogery...
As the top voice on the Prayer Man subject, and person who single-handedly refuted the theory, you would think the people in possession of that secret copy would get me involved...This is really foolishly embarrassing because Jim is ignoring that we have
already proven Prayer Man is Stanton so Jim's attempt to bully the wrong conclusion through is just more evidence of the serious problem in the research community...This is just yet another good example of how the research community has now devolved in
to a clique that researches by friendships and membership rather than sound investigation...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)