Lance Payette

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lance Payette

  • Rank
    Experienced Member
  • Birthday 03/03/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Because I am exceedingly kind and patient (as lawyers go), I will kindly and patiently point out the fuzziness in your thinking: The question is not whether I "believe" abortion is murder or you "believe" abortion is not murder. The question is, "What is abortion? Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job? Should society outlaw, restrict or tolerate it?" If you premeditate the killing of your grandmother, whether you "believe" it is murder or just good clean fun is irrelevant. Those who enact the laws have defined it as murder, and this happens to accord both with Christian doctrine and with the thinking of 99.9% of sane people of all beliefs. Probably 99% of all laws "impose beliefs" on segments of society that disagree with them. I firmly believe I should be able to ride my Yahama FJR1300 150 miles an hour whenever I think it's safe to do so, but the Motorcycle Unbelievers who wrote the un-American traffic laws disagree. The Man-Boy Love Society firmly believes sex between adults and children is healthy for children, but the Pedophilia Unbelievers who wrote the un-American molestation laws disagree. See how long that lasts. So when the Supreme Court decides abortion is murder, or at least that it may be flatly prohibited at the State level, will this be "American" or "Un-American"? Will it be Un-American because President Trump has appointed Justices who happen to think this way? Will you change your views on abortion because "the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"? I prefer to base my thinking on less shifting sand than "what the Supreme Court has decided" at any given point in time. Are you familiar at all with the history of Supreme Court rulings, with the rather unbelievable things the Wise Justices have decided over the years - even long before the typical Justice was a partisan political hack and the Court had become the Unelected 5-4 Legislature it now has? I do? Remind me again, what are those views I am imposing? What, I am not entitled to express opposing views "if the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"? Gee, you would have made a good little Nazi or Stalinist, wouldn't you? I believe the pro-abortion position is literally evil - not because "God has said so," but for precisely the same reasons I believe the Holocaust was literally evil - and I am entitled to work my hardest both to change minds and to change the laws. That is what America is all about. I would suggest it is you who "don't seem to get it." Actually, more than 50% of Americans favor greater restrictions on abortion - so why is their position "Fascist" while the pro-abortion position is not? The fact that my position on abortion happens to square with mainstream Christian doctrine may irk the hell out of you, but it does not make the position any less valid. To repeat: The question is not whether I, a Christian, "believes" abortion is murder or your Aunt Hatty, a New Atheist, "believes" abortion is not murder. The question is, "What is abortion? Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job? Should society outlaw or restrict it, or should society tolerate or even encourage it?" I believe this is what those of us in the legal profession refer to as a non sequitur. I don't care if a woman rips out her reproductive organs with her bare hands if it makes her happy. I don't care if a woman chooses never to have children if it makes her happy. But when she does manage to get herself pregnant despite the plethora of ways society affords her to avoid becoming pregnant, then I do firmly believe the rights of the incipient human being she has brought into existence trump (or Trump, if you will) any right she might think she has to terminate said incipient human merely being because she finds the pregnancy inconvenient. I really don't think you're advertising your critical thinking skills here, Cliffaroo, I'd stick to that "weaponized fact of conspiracy."
  2. See, that's why the world needs lawyers who can actually think through issues: I could be a raving New Atheist who believes God is a dangerous fantasy yet still believe abortion is murder. Whatever your notion of the "separation of Church and State" may be, it does not mandate a pro-abortion perspective, as you seem to believe it does. Is this an example of your critical thinking skills? Some who claim to be Christians support abortion. Most do not. Filtering my religious beliefs entirely out of the equation, as I am perfectly capable of doing, I still come down on the side that believes the rights of the incipient human being far outweigh, by several magnitudes, any right of the mother to terminate the incipient human being she has brought into existence. I still come down on the side that believes abortion is murder and should not be tolerated in a society that at least wants to pretend it is civilized and enlightened. Ta-ta for now.
  3. No, I'm one of those "large God" guys who believes abortion is murder.
  4. No one could possibly have more disdain for the military-industrial complex than I do. My biggest disappointment with Obama was that he immediately turned into Dubya Jr. insofar as the insane "military actions" favored by the MIC were concerned. I was fool enough to think he might actually put an end to them. The MIC does indeed control the country, if not the world. Eisenhower's parting warning has come to fruition, in spades. Neither Obama, nor Hillary, nor Bernie, nor The Donald could lay a glove on the MIC. That's just the reality. I simply accept it. Obama, Hillary or Bernie might not have given the MIC everything it wanted, whereas The Donald will, but they did and would have played ball because they have no other alternative. I'd like to think if I were President the military budget would be reduced to about $1.2 million, but that's just a fantasy on my part; I'd play ball too because I'd have no other alternative. As everyone who is elected finds out, the President is almost as much a figurehead as the Queen. It is unfortunate that "The Left" and "The Right" are now monolithic entities, each of which comprises a weird diversity of positions on economic, social, moral and religious issues. I happen to be solidly in The Left in regard to issues such as the MIC and solidly in The Right - indeed, The Extreme Far Right - on certain other issues like abortion. I and most people who voted for Trump did so because (1) to the maximum extent realistically possible, he is an egomaniacal political outsider who might at least attempt to buck some of the craziness of the current system, (2) he holds or at least supports positions that are the same as ours on social and religious issues, and (3) we believed that Hillary Clinton was, personally, a fraud, pretty much the personification of evil, and an unthinkable President. I refuse to be pigeonholed, to allow The Left or The Right to define who I am. You, if I may say so, seem to be a card-carrying lemming. I revel in being equally irritating to The Left and The Right. I am interested in following the JFK assassination only as far as the best evidence leads. The MIC and a host of other agencies, organizations and individuals were unquestionably delighted by his assassination - but it doesn't mean they killed him. The best evidence I have seen suggests LHO killed him for a combination of reasons unique to LHO, including the fact that he thought he would be a hero to at least some of the elements that were in fact delighted by the assassination. I have no obligation to support wild conspiracy theories that invest the assassination with cosmic significance just because this is consistent with what The Left would prefer than I do to support Planned Parenthood because this is what The Left would prefer. I do indeed see within the conspiracy community (as others have) a tendency to view the assassination through the lens of the current political situation - the election of someone like Trump "must have" its roots in the assassination, things "would have" been so much better today if the assassination had not occurred, the same Dark Forces that "must have been" responsible for the assassination "must be" in control today. I do indeed believe that the forces Eisenhower warned against were and are in control - not necessarily in any concerted, conspiratorial way, but certainly not in a good way - but this does not mean there is some direct link to the assassination. The best evidence suggests to me there is not.
  5. I truly hope for your sake that your entire post was tongue-in-cheek. Yes, my deep "family connection" to the UFC is that my father, who died in 1971, once made an offhand comment that my middle name, Baker, is in honor of Lorenzo Dow Baker, who brought the first bananas to America and was one of the founders of the UFC. I am now trying to establish the precise connection on, and it's proving damn difficult because half the family was born in Jamaica. Oh, and I do eat the occasional banana, I must confess. My deep "family connection" to the Dulles clan is that my maternal grandmother, who died in 1967, was, via marriage, Richer Than Anyone You Know, traveled in rarified social circles, and (I was told) on social-acquaintance terms with the Trumans, the Dulleses, and other luminaries. If she was a CIA operative, the CIA must have had an inordinate interest in country club gossip. I believe the term "master," that you apparently find suspicious, is Rather Common in occult literature, spy novels, and wherever loonies congregate; I used it precisely because it would resonate with the loonies here. Yes, I can easily see how all this would cast dark suspicion on a small-town Arizona lawyer in 2017. I may as well just confess: I am indeed a "dangle," whatever the F a dangle is, and a very poorly compensated dangle at that. The tentacles of the CIA are everywhere, I tell ya. In fact, you're probably a dangle without even realizing it. In fact, I'm now almost sure you're a dangle. Your cleverly disguised post is what we in the trade refer to as reverse-dangling. My post here, of course, is but an example of triple-dog-dare counter-dangling. What you regard as my "identifying thread" and "giving myself up," I would submit, is actually evidence of the mindset of the tinfoil-hat conspiracy community that causes it to be regarded as pretty much insane by those with at least one foot in reality.
  6. People, people, people. Let's not overlook the obvious. Dorothy had to be silenced because of - yes, that's right - her UFO connection. We folks in the UFO research community cannot be certain the aliens themselves did it, of course, but that would explain the clumsy crime scene. That Dorothy Kilgallen was indeed implicated in the UFO controversy is not a matter of any doubt. In the May 23, 1955 edition of the Los Angeles Examiner, Kilgallen wrote: “British scientists and airmen, after examining the remains of one mysterious flying ship, are convinced these strange aerial objects are not optical illusions or Soviet inventions, but are flying saucers which originate on another planet. The source of my information is a British official of Cabinet rank who prefers to remain unidentified.” [This is believed to have been Lord Mountbatten.] The “British official” told Kilgallen that: “We believe, on the basis of our inquiry thus far, that the saucers were staffed by small men – probably under four feet tall. It’s frightening, but there is no denying the flying saucers come from another planet.” Kilgallen was further advised that a report concerning the crash was being withheld by the British Government, since it did not wish to alarm the general public. In other words, this gels very well with the comments attributed to Kilgallen in the CIA document obtained by Milo Speriglio. If you will simply connect the dots of UFOs/Marilyn Monroe/JFK assassination, all of which have a Kilgallen angle, I believe you will have pretty well solved all three mysteries.
  7. I watched the entire David Lifton "Night Fright" episode on YouTube a while back. I was at least expecting a coherent, intelligent discussion. I was simply agog. Is there not a point at which even those who are most favorably disposed toward an elaborate conspiracy have to say, "This has gone too far down the rabbit hole. This is making us all look like complete fools. This guy is just desperate to either (1) sell books, or (2) remain relevant." (The host, I must admit, was priceless, well worth the price of admission as he gasped and popped his eyes at Lifton's revelations.) What I do see is what you are suggesting about Bugliosi. When one reads the Lone Nut literature, everything flows, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual evidence; the overall picture is entirely believable. Some of it can seem implausible, but in the way events in the real world are implausible. Did anyone follow the completely weird deaths of the healthy, happy, well-to-do Korkki sisters in the Seychelles a few months ago? Or the well-to-do grandmother in a Hummer who, this week, was trying to steal stuff out of a charity donation box at 2:30 a.m., had the lid slam shut on her arms, and was found hanging and dead the next morning with her Hummer still running? How much fun could a conspiracy theorist have with those events? A substantial percentage of crimes have strange, almost inexplicable elements, but it doesn't mean the CIA or FBI was behind them. The elaborate conspiracy theories, on the other hand, seem to be largely based on people (almost EVERYONE) not being who they seemed to be, on evidence (almost ALL OF IT) not being what it seems to be, on motives not being what they seem to have been, and on ALL of the gaps being filled and all of the dots being connected with conspiracy-oriented speculation. This is why 15 or more different conspiracy theories seem or have seemed at various times to be plausible, because they rely so heavily on rank speculation. It increasingly seems to me that the real explanation for the popularity of conspiracy theories is to be found in the psychology of the believers. I would challenge some of the true believers to take a break and read something like Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America, You might find more answers there than in Lifton's latest book. As one who has been heavily involved in Weirdness himself, I think you have to make a genuine effort not to become a one-dimensional zealot, to step back and take a hard look at wild claims, and to force yourself to confront with an open mind the literature of those who oppose the wild claims; this is easy to say, but very difficult to do. Just as FWIW addendum, here is how I currently view the assassination in descending order of likelihood: The Assassination 1. LHO acted alone, for motives unique to LHO. (HIGHLY LIKELY) 2. The above, but LHO made assassination-related statements during his trip to Mexico City and was "encouraged" by Cuban contacts there ("You'll be a hero to Fidel, and to true Marxists everywhere if you pull it off"). (FAIRLY LIKELY, BUT PURE SPECULATION) 3. A limited conspiracy along the lines of what Larry Hancock has suggested. (CERTAINLY POSSIBLE, AND SUPPORTED BY AT LEAST SOME THINGS RESEMBLING "EVIDENCE") Post Assassination 1. A scrambling cover-up to minimize the embarrassing fact that the CIA and FBI had failed to keep adequate tabs on LHO, perhaps coupled with legitimate fear about provoking a public outcry for an invasion of Cuba or even an attack on the USSR. (HIGHLY LIKELY AND CONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE ASSASSINATION SCENARIOS) 2. There was no cover-up, just bureaucratic fumbling and bumbling. (POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY)
  8. I was sort of a Marguerite myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30. Sometimes just for fun I try to recreate all the jobs I had and places in which I lived. I had some jobs more than once and lived in some apartments up to four different times. An accurate recreation is impossible. Likewise, as I mentioned on another thread, I have numerous photos of myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30. I would almost swear these were different people, and they are all me; you would definitely swear they were different people. To me the photos of Marguerite look far more like the same woman than do the photos of moi. Indeed, the four photos above look exactly like the same woman. As I've said before, I was surprised and disappointed that Harvey & Lee just stopped with the assassination as though it had hit a brick wall. Fake Marguerite and Fake LHO just vanished into the mist. Having supposedly pieced together their trail over a period of decades, I would have expected Armstrong to leave no stone unturned in an effort to show what became of them after the assassination. The fact that they vanished into the mist would be consistent with them never having existed.
  9. How does one "infiltrate" a public forum? In other weirdness forums on which I participate, the prevailing mode of paranoia is to suspect those who disagree with our pet theories of being "disinformation agents" planted by the Government, the Illuminati or whatever other real or imaginary group feeds our fantasies. If I were inclined toward paranoia, this would be my suspicion within the JFK research community as well. Some of the theories that seem to be taken seriously are so laughably, demonstrably preposterous that it would be very easy to suspect they exist only to sow confusion. Since I am increasingly convinced the Lone Nut theory is correct or at least substantially correct, however, it's hard for me to see what purpose would be served by a disinformation agent promoting wild and crazy conspiracy theories. Ergo, my conclusion is that what I see here - can I say this, so long as I don't point any fingers or name any names? - is (1) a fair degree of genuine mental illness on the part of some, and (2) the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many. I enjoy the occasional thread that slides off into some side topic like UFOs simply because most of the conspiracy threads are boring and silly, and the political threads are so predictably leftist they serve no purpose except to reinforce the prevailing paranoia. I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected. I am 67, highly educated, financially secure, and stupid enough to have voted for Kerry once and Obama twice. To repeat, I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected. Waking up in the morning to learn he had been elected, after an entire night of truly strange dreams that he had been elected, is one of the genuinely unforgettable moments of my life - really far more stunning to me than the JFK assassination, although I remember the moment I learned of it as well. I applaud every step Trump has taken in his effort to restore our country to moral and fiscal sanity. If Hillary had been elected (as I fully anticipated), however, I would have simply shrugged and said "Well, the inmates have spoken. Four more years of sliding into the cesspool, but I'll just have to lay low and deal with it." But now we see how the amalgamation of extreme special interests that constitutes the left reacts when things don't go their way; the country is bitterly divided, and perhaps on the brink of a genuine civil war, but the bitterness is almost entirely on the part of the losers who have seen their fantasies evaporate via the elective process and can't deal with it. Good Lord, people, get over your childish fantasies of what might have been achieved if JFK had lived and your equally childish fantasies that the Dark Forces responsible for his assassination have reached their zenith in the election of Trump. Hillary Clinton is about as much in the tradition of JFK as Pee-wee Herman (is he still around?). JFK is no more relevant today than Warren Harding. The Donald is the new sheriff in town. Deal with it or go "infiltrate" Canada or France.
  10. Forget Newman's scholarly twaddle, people, now you can get the scoop directly from JFK's mouth: This new book did not make my buy list - but, given the nature of such books, I'm betting the word from the Great Beyond is not "Oswald did it, case closed." I do think any conspiracy theorist worth his salt owes it to himself to factor JFK's actual words into the equation - although, alas, this author is about the 473rd psychic, medium or channeler to contact JFK. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has reported JFK saying "Oswald did it, case closed." A thread comparing all of the accounts would probably be way more fun, and at least as valuable, as debating Prayer Man.
  11. Michael and Sandy, I appreciate your comments, but I realize any further discussion of Christianity or Newman's book on Jesus would be inappropriate here. is one of the most active sites on the Internet and has so many forums and sub-forums that almost any subject is fair game for discussion. My point here, which I realize has been beaten to death and beyond, was simply that taking a scholarly but extremely fringe position on one subject may be relevant when one takes a scholarly but fringe position on another. What if Posner or Bugliosi had written the same book Newman has - think that would have been highlighted here? Perhaps I have spent so much time in the world of weirdness that the term "lunatic fringe" is second nature to me. It actually does have a dictionary definition and is not typically understood as having any connection to mental illness or anything of that sort: lu·na·tic fringe ˈˌlo͞onəˌtik ˈfrinj/ noun noun: lunatic fringe; plural noun: lunatic fringes an extreme or eccentric minority within society or a group.
  12. With all due respect - and I mean that - this again is conspiracy logic. It's the classic "post hoc" ("confusing cause and effect") fallacy. Yes, many different people and groups benefitted from the assassination of JFK. This is why a host of different conspiracy theories are plausible. The logical fallacy is to assume that because these people and groups benefitted from the assassination, one or more of them must have caused the assassination. It assumes a connection that is not necessarily there. I can't tell you how many people have said to me, "Want to know who killed JFK? Look at who benefitted." Wrong. Your post is one small example, but most of the conspiracy theories are riddled with this "dot connecting" logical fallacy. I realize that even mentioning the Lone Nut theory is like waving a red flag in front of a bull around here, but this is one thing that impresses me about the theory - it does flow from point A to B to C with a minimum of speculation and logical fallacies. This is precisely why people are fans of murder mysteries - they invite you to commit the post hoc fallacy and reach an "obvious" conclusion, only to find out at the end you were dead wrong.
  13. Ah, yes, Conspiracy Logic! The fact that a remote relative of mine was involved in the formation of the United Fruit Company in 1899 indeed does cast a long shadow over my Internet postings in 2017, I understand that. United Fruit Company ... John Foster Dulles ... CIA ... JFK assassination ... Internet poster in 2017. Yep, the link is there, it cannot be denied. Dang, you've figured me out. I have slipped on my banana peel, figuratively speaking. I am here as a United Fruit Company Operative (oh, yes, we have them, although these days we are known as Chiquita Brands Operatives) to promote the Lone Nut theory. This will benefit the banana industry and the CIA by ... well, my masters have not yet explained exactly how, and I'm a bit fuzzy myself as to exactly what my mission is, but I am confident they know what they are doing. This conspiracy is bigger than you can imagine (well, probably not, but it's huge).
  14. Through the Miracle of Google, I actually found (on my third attempt) some scholarly discussion of Newman's Jesus thesis. This is from the abstract of a paper presented in 2016 to the American Academy of Religion by Matthew J. Dillon of the Religious Studies Department at Rice University. This is all quite interesting (to me, anyway), and I have ordered the Kindle edition of Newman's book. If it turns out to be the Case Closed of Christianity, I will be the first to admit it. In December 1945, twelve codices (and leaves of a thirteenth) dating from the 4th century were found just outside the town of Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The fifty-three texts within them are translations of Greek originals into Coptic. From the time these Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC) became available they have been seen as a new window onto the historical Jesus. ... That is, readers utilize the NHC in order to challenge orthodox constructions of history and legitimize their own new readings of the past. In three case studies – Bagwan Shree Rajneesh or Osho (1931-1990), John M. Newman (B: 1952), and Jonathan Talat Phillips (B: 1975) – I examine how readers utilize The Gospel of Thomas to assert that the historical Jesus advocated a ‘Tantric’ cosmology, anthropology, and practice (White 2000). ,,, John M. Newman, PhD in East Asian Studies, worked for fifteen years as a forensic documentary specialist in the Army and National Security Agency. As an author he is best known for his studies of Lee Harvey Oswald and the John F. Kennedy assassination (Newman 1992; Newman 1995). Recently, he produced the most rigorously researched non-academic study of Thomas I am aware of (Newman 2011). Utilizing his facility in both Greek and Coptic, Newman inserts his readings into the academic debates on Thomas conducted by scholars such as Robert Funk and Stephen Patterson. He argues that the historical Jesus had discovered the “perennial” system of “yogic mysticism” found in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. Jesus’ disciples misunderstood him so severely that his yogic teaching was lost to the historical record – even misunderstood him so severely that his yogic teaching was lost to the historical record – even Thomas. Newman reconstructs this system from logion two of Thomas by emending the Coptic to reflect similar passages in Clement’s quotations of The Gospel of the Hebrews. I will briefly touch on his Greek and Coptic analysis prior to examining Newman’s primary hypothesis: Jesus taught the struggle of the “true self” with the “ego” through psycho-physical discipline. Once the disciple learns and practices yogic techniques (jnana, hatha and bhakti), they will begin to “marvel,” that is, recognize consciousness is eternal. Marveling, the disciple realizes “the Kingdom of Heaven” is the realization of conscious awareness pervading the finite world. I conclude these case studies exhibit something fundamental about the religious reception of the NHC. The histories and readings of these cases cannot be justified by original meanings of The Gospel of Thomas. Nevertheless, they exhibit how the NHC is providing a new resource in cultural memory through which individuals re-imagine Christianity beyond the pews. Each of these authors avers that Orthodox Christianities are ill-suited to the (post-)modern West. They produce counter-memories in order to draw the Christian symbolic into a horizon of reference that encompasses humanism, democracy, disenchantment, and unprecedented pluralism. Each of these case studies promotes Jesus as a mouthpiece of “Tantric” wisdom (as understood by the reader). Each offers a Jesus who suggests that every human is fundamentally divine, regardless of sex or gender. In distinct but overlapping ways, the Jesus of Osho, Newman, and Phillips respond to the problem disenchantment by enchanting the human body and framing the Kingdom of Heaven in psychological discourse. Such cases suggest tracing the reception of the NHC will illuminate further radical reformulations of Christian symbols.