Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Stevens

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark Stevens

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arkansas

Recent Profile Visitors

1,495 profile views
  1. Again, you do not have six eyewitnesses who recall a nondescript kid living across the street.. You have a mix of witnesses and a mix what they said and saw, but 6 witnesses do not state LHO lived in a house across the street. This did not happen, and when you state "The fact that we have six eyewitnesses recalling a nondescript kid living across from the school" you are again intentionally misleading readers by twisting evidence and statements. As I have pointed out before, living near a school in no manner indicates attendance in that school. I have also pointed out that the witnesses who place LHO in this house incorrectly identify which house he is claimed to actually live in. This was a front/rear duplex in which LHO or HLO or whomever lived in the rear with a separate tenant residing in the front. I've explained before the illogical nature of Oswald hanging out on this porch and entering the residence freely. No we aren't attempting to really discredit those things, at least I'm not, I guess I can't really speak for anyone else. All I'm trying to do is discuss the eyewitness statements so we can actual determine what the statements corroborate or support. If any discrediting happens, the I guess that's a side effect. You're not actually doing that, you're just going around in the same circle you always do. When the Stripling matter is examined as a whole, the totality of the evidence points to hundreds of people not recalling Oswald, 4 people with some kind of recollection of Oswald being in the school, 2 people who know he lived near the school, and a guy who heard a rumor. Yet you state: At least here you are rephrasing the statement, that is a little respectable and does begin to paint the statement in an actually accurate manner. I though have given detailed examinations of the eyewitnesses, and while not saying their actual testimony is incorrect, I have stated what these witnesses actually saw and stated and what this actually means in regards to their status as a witness. Because you and the others have failed to discredit the examinations, or demonstrate how they are witnesses to events they didn't actually see, I stand by what I have written about Stripling, the eyewitnesses, and the disingenuous and misleading nature in which you all continue to use them. If my assessment(s) were in error, could you please cite my erroneous sections, and explain how those assessments are in fact wrong? Thanks.
  2. I am not asking anyone to explain what common knowledge means. I am asking you to explain how that common knowledge was created. You know, evidence of people who had first hand knowledge of Oswald attending the school. Those people constitute the common knowledge. If you can say, oh...there were X amount of people who knew of Oswald and their names are.... that constitutes evidence of the common knowledge. Since the commonly accepted chronology of Lee Harvey Oswald's life does not include attendance at this school, I believe it is unreasonable to assume any person to have an understanding that it was "common knowledge" he attended this school without providing sources and citations. Just repeating that Galindo stated it is not evidence. If I stated it was common knowledge aliens had made a number of posts on this forum and you did not outright dismiss it as ridiculous, you would want some examples who who knows about these aliens and some of what they posted. Point 3 is my basic point, I agree the anecdotal story is interesting. What is is not though, without evidence which supports these specific claims, is evidence Lee Harvey Oswald attended the school. It at this point, at best an anecdotal story could support Kudlaty's statements that he gave Oswald's files to the FBI (a basic transaction I at this time believe occurred but do not believe was LHO's records). No one will genuinely portray his statements in this manner though, he will be continued to be referred to as an eyewitness to Lee Harvey Oswald's presence at Stripling and that doesn't paint the integrity of people who knowingly do that in a good light. Again, I'm asking questions regarding specific claims you, Hargrove, Norwood, and/or Armstrong have claimed. I'm not just asking philosophical questions about the nature of man and Pascal's wager. Again, I did not come to your home and kick your door in and demand you answer questions. These are specific claims you, Norwood, and Hargrove have posted on this very thread. It is not unreasonable to expect a person to discuss topics they in fact presented on a discussion forum, on that discussion forum. It would be unreasonable to corner you in the grocery store, or track you down on Facebook. I can't believe I'm saying again, again...but...again, I have tried repeatedly to get you all to engage in serious discussion. I have provided numerous rebuttals to things you said and you all just posted them again, quit because I hurt your feelings, or said you didn't have to answer them and for me to expect you to was unreasonable. I don't understand if you see the irony of your quoted portion above. You tell me you all don't have to answer questions and to give up expecting you to do so, and a better idea is to ask more questions. I've made specific rebuttals which were replied to with "the critics can't debunk it." Not one detail of what I said was actually addressed other than failing to be witty about common knowledge. You then tell me to make a rebuttal. You know this because you've stated you would reply to my comments when you felt up to it. Apparently you feel up enough to demand I make rebuttals, but not respond to rebuttals I've made and you've stated you'd respond to. I'm the unreasonable one though.
  3. Cool story bro. What though does that have to do with literally anything we are talking about? What do Rachel and June, or their opinion of "Uncle Robert" have to do with Galindo, Stripling, or even Robert Oswald and his statements about Stripling? No, at least not right now. As I've stated at least once before, we can talk about literally all of the topics in H&L, some I'm more curious about than others but I genuinely would like to discuss them. I'd like you though to stop diverting from the questions which have already been asked first, then we can move on. Much like I stated above, I have some questions but I'm not going to introduce them just so as not to give you excuse to not answer the ones already presented. I would though like to come back to some items you mention here if we can get past the witnesses and their statements regarding what they know, saw and heard.
  4. No it's not Sandy. When we ask Jim to explain the claim he again just posts the claim. When we ask about Schubert's statements he posts them again and accuses us of denying them. When we ask about the claims made regarding Kudlaty he posts the claims again, and accuses us of denying the claims. There is example after example of this behavior on this thread. This is what someone might refer to as common knowledge, especially when people post examples of this being discussed at an entirely different forum. We do get to cross examine though. I don't believe cross examine only exists in a courtroom. I can cross examine my son over the breakfast table about his whereabouts last night. While I do agree it is an inherently legal term, maybe akin to testimony, but I don't believe it or testimony is something that is regulated to a courtroom. Whatever the term used though, you understood his intent. We can examine, peek at, sneak a look at, peer at, glance at, review, observe, analyze, and discuss claims and evidence presented.
  5. Who will you accept the question from? In what form will you accept it to be reasonable? What I'm saying is it is common knowledge that Galindo has to explain his statement, or at the least you do if you continue to prop it up. Will you accept the Federal Rules of Evidence and what they have to say regarding common knowledge? https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_201 See that part about reasonable dispute and sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned? Considering the source, I believe we can reasonably question his accuracy. Years had passed since he started and the events occurred. Teachers and students came and went. It is reasonable to question what he based the statement on. Will you accept what Wikipedia has to say regarding common knowledge? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge Note how in this example, they mention that something that is known by "nearly everyone" and how often evidence does not need to be cited for common knowledge. This is typically because it is "common" knowledge. I do not need citations if I claim it is common knowledge what time the sun rises. It is "common knowledge." What about MIT? Will you accept what they state regarding integrity in writing and common knowledge? https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/what-common-knowledg See that pesky thing again? Information most people know? See that last question? "Will I be asked where I obtained my information?" No MIT, that is unreasonable. What about a legal textbook? Will you accept what they say regarding common knowledge? https://books.google.com/books?id=7pP0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144 I think I mentioned that rule. Again, uncontroverted facts can be considered common knowledge and not require evidence. Here is how it is defined by the Supreme Court of California, cited on the page the above quote is from. They kinda echo old unreasonable MIT, when in doubt cite your sources. With all I've posted above in mind. Can you please explain how I and all those sources are unreasonable in "demanding" what I have "demanded" and what these sources have explained to be required? Can you explain how it is in fact not required to provide evidence or to "explain what common knowledge means", and how I and these sources are in fact wrong? Are you instead conceding that some of what Armstrong did was at best shoddy research and investigation but in spite of that you will continue to use and promote it? Again, it's clear that my request is not unreasonable. Maybe unanswerable. This is different though, and apparently much harder to state. By merely stating it is unanswerable you are then led down a path in which Galindo's statements are nothing more than some passing anecdotal story and another "witness" is gone and you are left with what number of witnesses with direct personal knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald attending Stripling in 1953-54?
  6. I've decided to scale back my participation on this thread to a degree. While I may have said: I'm not actually trying to get banned and I am really trying to discuss topics the H&L crowd continually presents. I don't believe I came here and posted a topic and demanded they talk about it. They presented the arguments and evidence, all I did was ask questions. I feel though that I have made my point, and while I'm not celebrating victory (because I'm not trying to win anything and I don't believe anything has been won), I do believe I have made my point clear and asked valid questions and made valid observations which have largely gone ignored. I really just wanted replies such as those (eventual witness detail based replies) from Sandy, and not exactly ones that agreed with my opinion, just legitimate discussion of the topics. I appreciate Sandy for at least finally getting to that point, and I wish the others who present and use this "evidence" would at least do the same. If anyone wants to discuss the details of the evidence and whether these details actual support or negate aspects of the H&L story then I'm all in. Circuitous debates where evidence is presented, made known it exists, then not discussed doesn't reach that goal and should be frowned upon on an education discussion forum. If we deny the existence of information which may contradict, or may give reasonable suspicion to our ideas, or even may confirm it, then again what is even the point? How are we educating? How are we creating and conducting legitimate discussion? In the words of a now basically defunct but once great source of interesting information.... Deny Ignorance.
  7. I try to quote as much in one reply to keep any "flooding" at bay, my apologies for missing this one. I agree Sandy, the common knowledge is silly. It is also silly that Galindo is even used. Galindo is irrelevant. Galindo was the Principal of Stripling in 1994. He has no direct knowledge of LHO and any rumors he may have heard are equally irrelevant. I believe this is the definition of hearsay. My point in bringing up this information regarding Galindo, as well as quantifying witnesses is so that readers can "decide for themselves what can be deduced from Galindo saying it." By not giving the readers all of the information, you do not really give them a legitimate ability to decide for themselves. You're just present to them what you want them to know.
  8. I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut. Wow, Mark. You and I live in different universes. If an opponent doesn't rebut, it generally means one of the following: Your argument is right and he can't defend his position against it. Your argument is wrong, and so bad that he's counting on readers making the same assessment. Your argument is so trivial that it's not worth debating. Or some other, mundane reason. Like he missed your argument. You just never cease to amaze me. You intentionally left out the first half of my sentence to make it appear as though I said something ridiculous. To be honest, if I saw only that section you quoted I would also say me and the other person live in a different universe. Of course there is no unstated rule that person has to respond to another. What I actually said was: The context of my comment is incredibly important and defines it as pertaining to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education. It wasn't a blanket statement of some universal unstated rule and you absolutely know this.
  9. Considering this is a discussion forum, and one inherently based on education, I believe you are wrong. It is not as though I have tracked Jim down in the street, grabbed and shaken him, and demanded he present his evidence. He came to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education, made claims and posted links and then refused to discuss and educate people regarding those claims and links. I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut. If not, then what is the actual point? I did make a good point regarding common knowledge, and to be honest one of the three other people actually participating in this foolishness has pointed out the validity of my question. (I misspoke, he didn't actually concur with me, rather said the same thing) Common knowledge equals many people. 6 out of 300 doesn't equal many. I don't need anyone to pat me on the back and say "boy you really zinged em there buddy." My opinion of common knowledge is pretty much based on the definition of common knowledge, not how many people agree with my opinion. Again, you come in and point out how my(?) ideas are "lame" but you don't actually explain how. At the least, I'm providing what I believe to be reasonable explanations and observations of why the H&L ideas are incorrect. Can you not do the same to support your statements and position, or is that something you don't have to do, since there's no rule and all?
  10. I guess you missed it, or thought I was copying Cliff's thoughts. I did "articulate" my own counter argument and asked direct questions related to that argument. Do you also have Kirk on ignore? Honestly, i don't really care about your personal relationships/conflicts or why anyone might have you on ignore. I'm guessing you think though that I'm low hanging fruit, for easy pickin', and is why you singled out my reply, when we are all making the same point, albeit with different questions raised. I'm not sure why the snarkiness either. You should understand that although I disagree with almost everything about Trump, this doesn't mean I have any inherent personal animosity to you as a Trump supporter.
  11. I believe my sentiment echoes Cliffs. As I understand Trump and his associates, he is very much a member of this club. Did they turn on him for some reason, or was Trump just playing the game and making him think he was one of them so he could bring it all down? Did he participate in the sexual assault (I'll at least say allegedly) of minors just to expose others doing it?
  12. Uhm, actually you did the exact opposite. When I pointed out that "normal people" would expect qualification to the statement "common knowledge," you stated: You did not explain what a "normal person" would understand that to be. You instead hem and hawed and pretended as though I asked a question I didn't, so you could attack the question instead of responding. You see what I did there? You see how I used your actual words to refute a baseless statement you just made? How I post what you actually said and allow readers to know what you actually said. I don't make up some exaggerated version of what you said, I just post what you said. Notice how instead you do this? All of those accusations are from the same reply. Not once do you use any facts or actual words of the accused to support your statement. You just baselessly slander their name without any remorse (or concern).
  13. The point I've been trying to make is that in the time it took you to make this post you could read the statements and know for yourself. I liken this statement to a Libertarian saying they don't know how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights. As a H&L supporter I believe this is a basic fact you should know and understand. My basic point was that which I made above. Much of what we are discussing is core evidence of the H&L story. If you aren't familiar with the details of the evidence then I don't really understand what has convinced you. Sandy, do you mean to tell me that a guy saying it is common knowledge Oswald went to the school is a better witness than 1 or more people who can attest to being part of a group of friends with Oswald? Those witnesses aren't even worth putting any effort to, because we have a guy who never actually saw him, just maybe heard rumors? I feel those witnesses bear a significant importance and I believe almost any lawyer would agree. There are some on this forum, we can ask them. I agree though with the uncheckable nature, especially at this point, of much of the...I don't know...evidence...I guess... Regarding McClinton, I was largely being facetious, it would take more to convince me of the Hungarian Oswald. I do though subscribe to basically, a "2nd Oswald" theory, it though follows more "traditional" impersonation scenario(s). Delbert McClinton is named as a person in the group of Oswald's friends. I believe his name was also in an address book of Ruby's. From what I recall, it was related to his music. He does, or at some point has played, in a band with Willie Nelson. One could think otherwise because there are other, at the least equally valid explanations. I believe you would have to concede the other explanation is at least equally likely. Then, that explanation is weighed against other evidence (for and against it) as is the original(?) explanation and see what you come to. The facts are this, everything Kudlaty stated mirrors the actual truth of Robert Lee Oswald's attendance at Stripling and is at the least as likely as the H&L story to be true. If you don't believe this to be true, could you please explain how so?
×
×
  • Create New...