Martin Hay's review of David Von Pein's book

[Thomas Graves]

DVP,

The weakness in your approach is to ignore or disparage wholly the notion that certain government officials acted to obscure the facts of the assassination. If one admits this possibility, one must concede the possibility these officials did everything in their power to obscure the facts.

Conversely, if the central facts of the assassination are obscured by being debatable, one must assume those who had the power to reveal the facts chose not to do so.

The mere fact there is debate over the location and nature of JFK's wounds, as witnessed on these pages, by individuals of good will, is proof that powerful U.S. officials obfuscated the facts. There is no satisfactory explanation, for example, why the autopsy materials are not utterly clear, convincing, and beyond any question whatsoever. None.

If nothing centrally important about the JFK assassination was debatable, one could feel sure the government had done its job in revealing all the important facts of the assassination. In which case, neither this site nor your book would exist. The mere fact you and Ayton authored "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is proof of the weakness of your approach. You have to maintain nothing is debatable about the JFK case contrary to the fact that almost everything about the case is fiercely debated.

If one accepts your suggestions here, then NO evidence can ever be trusted to be 100% genuine,

Which if true I guess means that LNers as well as CTers (like me) must "cherry pick" the evidence we use to support our theories.

--Tommy

[Jon G. Tidd]

Stephen Roy,

There are facts, and there is evidence. The two are different.

That today in Simsbury, Connecticut, the temperature reached 67 degrees is a fact.

That a prosecutor attempts to introduce into evidence a letter the prosecutor maintains was written by Oswald is a different matter.

The prosecutor has a burden. The weather report is what it is. A fact.

[David Von Pein]

Thomas,

Everybody cherry-picks. It can't be helped. It's done by LNers and CTers alike. It's impossible to avoid.

In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff".

Edited April 18, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

Stephen Roy,

There are facts, and there is evidence. The two are different.

That today in Simsbury, Connecticut, the temperature reached 67 degrees is a fact.

That a prosecutor attempts to introduce into evidence a letter the prosecutor maintains was written by Oswald is a different matter.

The prosecutor has a burden. The weather report is what it is. A fact.

As long as the thermometer was working properly...

--Tommy

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

You're correct. There is fact, and there is argument.

You point out a potential problem with measurement. Always a problem.

If the measurement is accurate, the fact is ascertained.

[David Von Pein]

That today in Simsbury, Connecticut, the temperature reached 67 degrees is a fact.

How do we KNOW that for a "fact", Jon? Just because you say so? Or just because a disk jockey on the radio said so? I heard another report that said the temperature in Simsbury got up to 69 degrees. So who should I believe?

See there? I just started a debate about the Simsbury weather.

There's nothing that can't be debated. Even "facts" are debated all the time. Because somebody will always come forth to claim that the thing you say is a rock-solid "fact" is not really a "fact" at all. It's merely a "manufactured fact". (That sounds familiar to JFK researchers, doesn't it?)

For instance, I maintain that it's a "fact" (proven by the various documents in evidence) that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in March 1963. But many conspiracists will argue with me all day long about how that "fact" isn't a fact at all. Far from it, they'll say. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 is a complete fraud, they'll say. And Oswald's handwriting was forged on all the documents relating to the rifle purchase.

I, however, will still maintain until the world comes to an end that it's a "fact" that Oswald ordered that rifle and was shipped Rifle #C2766 by Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963. But CTers will always disagree. Hence, what I consider to be an undeniable "fact" becomes the subject for a "debate".

As I said, it never ends. And do you think it ever will? And do you think it ever COULD?

Edited April 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

You're correct. There is fact, and there is argument.

You point out a potential problem with measurement. Always a problem.

If the measurement is accurate, the fact is ascertained.

So one must measure (calibrate) the measuring device with other measuring devices, and....

--Tommy

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

You jest, which pleases me.

As an electrical engineering student, I had to measure things like voltage, current, and temperature in labs in the1960s.

I learned then that measurement is critical to ascertaining fact. As such a student, one seeks to measure correctly in order to confirm one's understanding. Experiment reinforced one's theoretical knowledge.

Just some personal history.

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

You jest, which pleases me.

As an electrical engineering student, I had to measure things like voltage, current, and temperature in labs in the1960s.

I learned then that measurement is critical to ascertaining fact. As such a student, one seeks to measure correctly in order to confirm one's understanding. Experiment reinforced one's theoretical knowledge.

Just some personal history.

So if the calibrating devices are, themselves, inaccurate, one cannot trust the readings of the devices they are supposed to calibrate...

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

That today in Simsbury, Connecticut, the temperature reached 67 degrees is a fact.

How do we KNOW that for a "fact", Jon? Just because you say so? Or just because a disk jockey on the radio said so? I heard another report that said the temperature in Simsbury got up to 69 degrees. So who should I believe?

See there? I just started a debate about the Simsbury weather.

There's nothing that can't be debated. Even "facts" are debated all the time. Because somebody will always come forth to claim that the thing you say is a rock-solid "fact" is not really a "fact" at all. It's merely a "manufactured fact". (That sounds familiar to JFK researchers, doesn't it?)

For instance, I maintain that it's a "fact" (proven by the various documents in evidence) that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in March 1963. But many conspiracists will argue with me all day long about how that "fact" isn't a fact at all. Far from it, they'll say. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 is a complete fraud, they'll say. And Oswald's handwriting was forged on all the documents relating to the rifle purchase.

I, however, will still maintain until the world comes to an end that it's a "fact" that Oswald ordered that rifle and was shipped Rifle #C2766 by Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963. But CTers will always disagree. Hence, what I consider to be an undeniable "fact" becomes the subject for a "debate".

As I said, it never ends. And do you think it ever will? And do you think it ever COULD?

Whom, David, whom. Whom should you believe?

But I think I agree with you in principle.

We all cherry pick, LNers and CTers alike.

--Tommy

Edited April 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Brad Milch]

I'm trying to work with your & your message, DVP. I get that Oswald did it. Now go into why Oswald did it.

Open your thesis with 'Lee Oswald did to to start WWIII' & I might buy your book.

Best,

BM

[David Von Pein]

My sentence was correct, Thomas. I said, "So who should I believe?"

Whom doesn't seem right at all in that sentence. (And yes, I am very picky about grammar.)

Edited April 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I'm trying to work with your & your message, DVP. I get that Oswald did it. Now go into why Oswald did it.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html

[Thomas Graves]

My sentence was correct, Thomas. I said "So who should I believe?" That's correct in that sentence. Whom doesn't seem right at all in that sentence. (And yes, I am very picky about grammar.)

David,

Then you're wrong about two things.

--Tommy

[Cliff Varnell]

Everything always comes down to those clothes, doesn't it Cliff?

Nothing else seems to matter very much. It's all about the collar.

Physical evidence in a murder case is paramount.

Yes, it always comes down to the clothes.

You don't contest the fact that the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

What matters is what happened to the bullets which caused the throat and back wounds.