I've corrected you on this before, but you just keep lying about it. I'm neither "Alt-Right" nor a Trump apologist. I've defended many of Trump's policies but have strongly criticized his conduct and have publicly declared many times that I hope he doesn't run again.
There's "Do as I say" and "Do as I do". You voted wholeheartedly for Trump twice, and will a third time. And you express Far Right views all the time.
And, pray tell, in what other forum do I allegedly suffer "beatings"? The only other JFK forum I post in is the Education Forum's JFK Assassination Debate forum, which is dominated by WC critics with whom I agree the vast majority of the time on all matters pertaining to JFK's death. You're just making up stuff again.
You're gaslighting, like a true Trump Republican.
"You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp. You really wanted
an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam. In other words, if you have to
do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine. If you want to firebomb
Haiphong, fine. If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
-- James DiEugenio
"This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
"anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
-- Paul Jolliffe
"Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
-- James DiEugenio
"This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
-- Benjamin Cole
"It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
-- Pat Speer
"Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
-- James Wilkinson
"You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
-- James Wilkinson
"Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
-- Paul Brancato
Go watch the segment on this in JFK Revisited and look at the high-quality enlargements. Denying the problem won't make it go away.
And Galbraith's answer is still nonsense. He's using a poor version of 133-A, which shows the worst view of the ring on the right hand (if it shows the ring at all), as the comparison to 133-C to try to fool people into believing there were two rings. But if you look at 133-B, which shows a much clearer view of the ring on the right hand, you can see that it's the same ring as the ring on the left hand in 133-C. Just go watch the segment on this in JFK Revisited.
Is this one of those issues your CT "buddies" lap up and agree with you on?
The wedding ring on the right hand in 133-A doesn't cast a full shadow because of its angle to the sun. Notice how the right forearm in 133-A is sun-struck.
Compare with the same ring on the same hand in 133-B. Because the ring on the right hand is now more oblique toward the sun, the ring casts a full shadow onto the finger. Notice how the right forearm in 133-B is now no longer sun-struck because it is now angled oblique to the sun.
It's the same ring in 133-A and 133-B; just that the ring in 133-B projects a shadow that falls onto the width of the finger. This merely gives the ring a sense of depth lacking in 133-A.
It's interesting to note that the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) did not attempt to address this issue, even though Jack White and others had raised it. The PEP answered every other argument that White made about the backyard photos, but they oddly said nothing about this one.
Jack White presented this issue to the HSCA? Seems pretty easy to refute. Can you show us where White presented the issue to the Photographic Evidence Panel?
