Was the Stemmons Freeway sign removed?

[John Mytton]

By all means, Mr. layman, explain how I got it wrong.

No, you said you could explain "exactly how it works", you're not a liar, are you John?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Bill Brown would be proud of your word games.  If my summary was inaccurate in any way then specify how.

[John Mytton]

Bill Brown would be proud of your word games.  If my summary was inaccurate in any way then specify how.

Bill Brown would be proud of your word games.

It's your words, if you don't want to stand by them then don't, it's only your credibility at stake.

If my summary was inaccurate in any way then specify how.

No it doesn't work that way, you made a claim and now you have to prove your claim.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

It's your words, if you don't want to stand by them then don't, it's only your credibility at stake.

I explained it.  You don't approve of the explanation, but can't point to anything inaccurate about it.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

[Steve Howsley]

I explained it.  You don't approve of the explanation, but can't point to anything inaccurate about it.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

This post of yours is unadulterated BS. You make a claim of knowing "exactly" how something works then are unable to do so when challenged. If you were remotely honest you'd admit that your claim of knowing "exactly" how it works was wrong and there would be nothing wrong in saying that. Then to cover your embarrassment you throw out a red herring by saying:

"But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?"

hoping like hell to drag the conversation in a different direction where you feel comfortable i.e. in the  Deny Deny Deny world you live in. That attempt to distract is such a cheap shot. Now I understand why you are called a liar and a fraud.

[John Mytton]

I explained it.  You don't approve of the explanation, but can't point to anything inaccurate about it.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

I explained it.

You think you did and that's the problem, all this time you've never had a clue and subsequently all your criticisms of my work have been based on your inability to actually understand what was being presented.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

Again you started, if you want to stay focused then practice what you preach.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

This post of yours is unadulterated BS. You make a claim of knowing "exactly" how something works then are unable to do so when challenged. If you were remotely honest you'd admit that your claim of knowing "exactly" how it works was wrong and there would be nothing wrong in saying that. Then to cover your embarrassment you throw out a red herring by saying:

"But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?"

hoping like hell to drag the conversation in a different direction where you feel comfortable i.e. in the  Deny Deny Deny world you live in. That attempt to distract is such a cheap shot. Now I understand why you are called a liar and a fraud.

You nailed it. He keeps writing checks that either he can't afford to pay or just denies outright, weird!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

This post of yours is unadulterated BS. You make a claim of knowing "exactly" how something works then are unable to do so when challenged. If you were remotely honest you'd admit that your claim of knowing "exactly" how it works was wrong and there would be nothing wrong in saying that. Then to cover your embarrassment you throw out a red herring by saying:

"But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?"

hoping like hell to drag the conversation in a different direction where you feel comfortable i.e. in the  Deny Deny Deny world you live in. That attempt to distract is such a cheap shot. Now I understand why you are called a liar and a fraud.

Really, Steve?  This is the JFK Assassination Forum, not the Quibble About What The Word "exactly" means Forum.  Like I said, do you want the source code?  Would you even understand it if you saw it? 

The point is, the morphs are composed of artificially generated intermediate images that are not reality.  "Mytton" hasn't disputed that because he knows it's correct.

But if it makes you feel better to call me a "liar" because I wasn't "exact" enough for you then be my guest.  You don't seem to be anywhere near as concerned when people lie about the evidence in the JFK case.  Which is why you're here, right?

Right?