Mark Stevens

I first became interested in JFK and the JFKA when I was about 12. There was a flood of JFK related things on TV at the time and I've since understood that this was 1993 and the 30th "anniversary" of the event. One of the shows on during this time was a cop drama based on real experiences from real cops called "Top Cops." During the JFK 30th they aired an episode that featured "Nick" McDonald. At the end of the episode they mentioned that he was living in my hometown of Hot Springs, Arkansas. I immediately looked him up in the phone book and called him and mentioned my interest in the events and if I could talk with him. He was happy to talk with me and over the next 2 years or so I visited him many times, helped him do things around the house, and talked with him about his experiences that day. I fell out of touch with him and regret not visiting with him more before he died. My regret is I didn't have the anything near the knowledge and questions about that day that I do now and I really wish I would have asked him more in-depth questions, took more notes, and kept the notes I did take. I also believe that time biased me considerably to criticism of McDonald and what he may have done that day and his motivations for what people claim he might have done. The Nick I knew (albeit as a child) had a different character than what people try to pin on him and I don't believe he had anything to do with framing Oswald. His character was far different than that of the crooked cop in "Shooter," at least as much as I can recall and could have seen through the eyes of a 12 year old.

What is nonsense about what I posted? I guess I can understand if you don't agree with the possibility that Prouty was some kind of plant, but besides that all I've done is use Prouty's own words to highlight and prove my point. You guys dance around those statements and give "whataboutisms" and believe for some reason that since I haven't read his "1986 essay on Vietnam" that I'm not qualified to read and understand his comments on an entirely different subject. Or because I haven't read some other book he wrote that he somehow didn't mean what he said. What about his essay on how a "Jewish Cabal" was behind the JFKA? What about his essay on how a "bankers cabal" was behind the JFKA? What about your lack of appropriate criticism for his obvious cognitive dissonance on the subject? You're living in the past man. You're hung up on some clown from the 60's, man! What he said in 1996 is the only real thing that matters. He didn't back up literally anything he had ever said. Maybe 50% of those claims he at least "stood by" but in those he admitted he didn't actually have any real knowledge of anything related to the JFKA. Everything he ever said was based on what experiences he had in the military, unrelated to the JFKA but related to intelligence, and things he read and heard. He references Oliver Stone for Lansdale being in Dealey Plaza and Stone references him. I mean, c'mon. The other 50% of his claims he backtracks on and/or changes. You saying "nuh-uh" doesn't really change any of that.

I don't have any "oft-repeated trope" regarding Antarctica, all I did was copy and paste Prouty's own words (my emphasis added though): You saying "nuh uh" isn't debunking. Prouty said it. It was routine for him to be called to go on those trips. What is there even to debunk? Crazy talk... Again, I'm not saying Prouty isn't who he is, wasn't where he was, and hell didn't even hear the things he says he heard. What I am saying is Prouty has no actual first hand knowledge of anything related to the JFKA. His opinions were formed based on his experiences, unrelated to the JFKA, as well as newspapers and books, and "other things he heard." With this lack of any genuine evidence or knowledge, when you account for his military experience, his opinion ranks just slightly higher than yours, or mine for that matter. Until he goes of the rails with this beliefs that is, then his opinion is obviously worthless.

Well, that's not entirely true... Previous Prouty Discussion

He must say it so fast that only you can hear it, because he most definitely doesn't say it. I don't even know why I'm continuing to try to have a reasonable debate. I seem to forget Sandy "the truth doesn't matter" Larsen said this gem: That's right folks, just because someone isn't telling the truth that doesn't mean you shouldn't believe them and accept their testimony anyways since it backs up your pet theory. All the better is if multiple people are wrong, but they are saying the same thing. Even better to believe them... Maybe the Earth is flat after all! You can't win with someone who uses that logic, why even bother....

lol @ these "debates." What you did is conflation, conflation isn't "combining two versions of writing." Conflation is..well geez I gave the literal definition. You merged different things to make a composite whole, composite meaning "a thing made up of various parts or elements." You took various parts of Kudlaty's interview and merged them into one. We can only guess as to your rationale for doing so, since you're not typically disingenuous. You hear contradictions as well and you've all but admitted to it, you just chose to ignore them and come up with your own "understandings" behind what people said while ignoring what they actually said. Their explanations are contrary to your "understandings" so you just come up with what they should have meant.

The problem is that all of the "Harvey and Lee" Stripling witness are clearly and provably wrong and you know they are wrong and you continue to prop them up as evidence. Call it mistaken if you will, but you know they are wrong, you in most cases admit they are wrong and then turn around and say they are witnesses and "proof." When case-by-case, every single witness is provably wrong, then the "totality" of the evidence is that there is no evidence that supports your theory. Every single witness you present has been shown to not actually support the "Harvey and Lee" theory. You know this and you continue to push the witnesses as some sort of proof. Then you pontificate about biases and intellectual laziness and ignoring evidence that doesn't support your beliefs. Dishonest indeed.

I most definitely did not leave anything out. I most definitely did not mishear. He most definitely does not say "should." He most definitely does not say "ones files." He most definitely does say "your files." Why you are claiming something that is just untrue is beyond me, but I believe speaks to the levels "Harvey and Lee" believers will stoop to in an effort to push their "theory." Kudlaty interview, beginning at 1:42. Compare my transcript to the audio....

You absolutely conflate what Kudlaty says and you even do it in this post I'm quoting. You take statements Kudlaty made at various points of the interview and put them into one paragraph as though he just said all those things verbatim. Merriam-Webster states this as the definition of conflate: You combined multiple things he said into a composite whole, that's the literal definition of conflating. I haven't seen your transcript, but if it reads like your quoted portions then I doubt they will agree because as I've stated, you take statements from Kudlaty at multiple points of the interview and put them into one paragraph. I can give timestamps for things he said and you can see they are at different intervals and after different questions. I also have a transcript I made years ago and I will gladly offer it to anyone and they are free to point out any mistakes in my transcript. It's not a theory, it's literally what Kudlaty says. You even quote his statement above but I will give the entire statement for better context and to make sure I don't leave out anything of importance: I agree that Kudlaty states there were records from Stripling, but as I point out above, and numerous other times, he also contradicts himself by saying there were no records from the junior high school. You don't have to accept "my theory," you just have to watch the interview and you will see that it is in fact full of contradictions. You seem to know this, but dismiss it and come up with excuses as to why these contradictions exist. But, you do know they exist. You can claim he meant prior junior high records all you want. But, arguing about what he meant is pretty nonsensical and moot. All we can do is agree on what he actually said, because you know, he actually said it. Neither of us can begin to know what he meant. To claim otherwise is nonsense. This is especially true when he makes no statements which would infer he actually meant prior junior high schools. He did say it was customary for elementary schools to forward records to the next school. The closest inference he makes is that the records are from the elementary school, not a prior junior high school. Kudlaty's actual words as well as the preceding question (with time stamp of video for easy reference): "I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period." "I wouldn't want to swear to that." Again, this is not definite. He is clearly saying he doesn't really know what he saw in spite of saying other contradictory things. As I continue to point out, the interview is full of contradictions. Since I'm accused of "leaving out items of importance" and Sandy claims he didn't conflate anything, I'll post Sandy's quote interview portions below and then quote my transcript (with time stamps for reference). Please take a moment to see if either person left things out. Please take a moment to see if either person conflated multiple statements from various points in the interview into a single paragraph/statement. Sandy's quotes from the interview: My transcription: Beginning of interview: From 1:42 in the interview, following the preceding question: Later in the interview (where again his "definite" claims are questionable: Later in the interview (his "definite" claims in full force): As you can see, Sandy has clearly conflated multiple portions of the interview. As you can see, I have left nothing out, regardless of it's supposed importance.

I don't entirely disagree, and that's why I said it was an interesting possibility. After all my research into this avenue though, I don't believe LHO attended Stripling but I am coming to accept one possibility. LHO moved to New York in August of 1952. I can't remember if an exact date for this move has ever been given. Most schools begin their school year sometime in August. It is at least possible that LHO attended Stripling for some weeks in August 1952 before moving to NYC. I know the records have been posted on the forum before, but I can't seem to find them. Maybe someone more familiar with those records can post them and we can see if LHO began school in NYC on the first of the school year or a few weeks into it. This though still does not mesh with the "Harvey and Lee" theory, which posits that LHO attended Stripling during the 1954-55 school year, for the first 6 weeks or so of the school year.

The immediate question before that statement was: I think your question was clear, and it is an interesting possibility. Kudlaty may have been referencing why no Stripling records showed up in WC evidence. I can't recall all of the school records which are contained in the WC, but I do believe there are junior high school records included. Saying there were no records from the junior high, unless he is specifically referring to Stripling, would then be incorrect. If he is referring to Stripling then there were no records present from that school because he didn't actually go to that school. There is no video or record of whatever Kudlaty and his interviewers spoke of the night before though.

Maybe it is convoluted, but sometimes the actual facts lie in the details that go ignored. The JFKA is convoluted. If we ignore evidence and ideas because they are complex then well I guess Oswald did it because his prints are on the rifle and the shots came from the building he worked in. Case closed guys.... Or not. My "redundant response" is asking "Harvey and Lee" believers to actually debate me and explain what is wrong with what I've stated about the witnesses and their statements. Instead I get the equivalent of "nuh uh's" and accusations that I'm spinning and denying, blah blah blah. Again I ask you, W. Niederhut to go through the witnesses with me and explain how their statements support the "Harvey and Lee" theory. I'll redundantly post my statements from my previous post making this offer to you, or literally anyone... So again I ask, how does Summers statements support the "Harvey and Lee" theory when he is a) obviously wrong about teaching Robert, and b) his statements contradict the timeline of "Harvey and Lee?"

If it's nonsense then it's Kudlaty that is stating the nonsense, I'm simply posting his words. If there is any confusion, it is not I who is confused, it is Kudlaty since I'm simply posting his actual words. You conflate Kudlaty's statements at various points of the interview and make it seem as though he stated those things verbatim, which just isn't true and is pretty misleading. It's also comical that in your own post you contradict your theory but you refuse to focus on those parts and only pay attention and highlight the points you want to hear. When in their "totality" as you like to say, the comments do not back any "Harvey and Lee" theory unless you ignore the "totality" of Kudlaty's statements and focus on two sentences. On to what Kudlaty actually stated... In Kudlaty's first statement he does state the following: In response to a separate question he then states: He clearly contradicts his earlier statements that there were Stripling records by stating there were no junior high records. He doesn't state prior records. He states there were no junior high records. It can't be both. There can't be records showing some attendance at Stripling and also have no records. You can't pick and choose which statement you want to believe. You have to acknowledge he stated both things and you have to acknowledge his statements are contradictory, anything else is disingenuous at best. He also states in that portion that elementary records were customarily sent to the next school. I'm not confusing anything. He isn't saying elementary school school records are sent by a prior junior high school as you exclaimed in bold font. He clearly states: 6th grade. Elementary school. Not a prior junior high school. Those are Kudlaty's own words from around 1:42 of his interview. Listen to that portion and tell me I'm wrong. Tell me he doesn't state what is quoted above. Kudlaty did not "definitely state Oswald attended Stripling." What he actually said was: I wouldn't want to swear to that. Doesn't seem too definite to me. This part is almost demonstrably false: This is not the only explanation. What "Harvey and Lee" believers don't tell you (even though it's in their holy book) is this exact same scenario occurred at another school that Oswald never attended. FBI agents came to Monnig Junior High school and retrieved records related to Oswald. This is from the book, "Harvey and Lee," page 100. Oswald clearly never attended Monnig, unless we now have 3 Oswalds, I guess we can call him Herbert Lou Oswald. If Oswald never attended Monnig, what records could the school have for the FBI to retrieve? Is it because as Kudlaty states, it was customary to send records to the next school, as stated even in the book "If there were records, they were probably copies of Oswald's records from Ridglea West Elementary that were forwarded to Monnig. " You can continue to use Kudlaty as your star witness all you want, but you have to admit he made statements that are contradictory and at best his statements in their totality, are questionable considering the contradictions. You have to also admit Oswald attending school at Stripling is not the only explanation for Stripling having records, considering that Monnig also had records. Doing so does weaken your Stripling case, and I all but guarantee not a single one of you will do so because, who needs actual facts when we can speculate and make up whatever you want.

Convoluted...by pointing out what the people actually stated and what they actually saw and explaining in great detail how those statements and observations do not mesh with the "Harvey and Lee" theory. I'll offer you to go through them one by one and you can explain how their statements create a second Oswald and/or attendance at a school he didn't go to and I'll counter, or vice versa. Since Summers has already been mentioned we can start with him... Summers stated he taught LHO in 1952, two years after he began teaching. "Harvey and Lee" claims states that LHO attended Stripling in the school year 1954-1955. How does Summers statement support the "Harvey and Lee" theory? Summers also states he taught Robert, although Robert started high school at Arlington Heights in 1949. He is obviously wrong about teaching Robert. Also, I don't think you've actually read that thread, if so point out how they won and by what logic. At almost no point is anything I wrote about even mentioned or discussed. The closest Hargrove gets is by continually repeating "but it was in the newspaper 5 times!!!" Again, I state that repetition of 1 single interview does not make it correct. At no point did the Telegram conduct another interview with Robert where they were told LHO went to Stripling, much less 5 additional interviews. As a believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories, you must believe that since the newspaper said umpteen times that OBL was responsible then it's obviously true, because well it was in the newspaper umpteen times. If you countered that with logic and evidence and I said...nu uh...it was in the newspaper by golly...would you believe I bested you? I certainly doubt it. That is what Hargrove did. So again I ask, how does Summers statements support the "Harvey and Lee" theory when he is a) obviously wrong about teaching Robert, and b) his statements contradict the timeline of "Harvey and Lee?"

I've been hesitant to get back into any of this but I thoroughly detest the "Harvey and Lee" "theory" and equate it as the flat earth theory of JFKA theories and "research." I feel like I should say a few things though... I 100% believe a conspiracy existed to assassinate JFK which may or may not have included Oswald as a willing participant. I 100% believe Oswald's identity was used by others. I can't say whether this was because somehow his identity was available for them to use, or if it was being used in an active effort to frame him but it was most definitely used. Other cases are also mistaken identity and some are others are most likely bald faced lies. On to Stripling... The things attributed to Kudlaty are things he most definitely never stated. For instance, he never stated that the FBI removed records from the school pertaining to Oswald's attendance at Stripling. I do believe it is likely the FBI removed records, but as Kudlaty himself points out there is a high probability those records were records from Oswald's elementary years that were customarily sent to the next school when he graduated. Instead, everyone is lead to believe that Kudlaty stated things he did not in fact state, when his own explanation of the records in possession by Stripling is a logical and likely one. Let's not cut ourselves on Occam's razor though. Robert Oswald did attest to LHO attending Stripling. In one instance this attribution was made to him, likely in error (as explained below), by a local newspaper. When interviewed again by the Warren Commission he did again state that LHO attended Stripling, but his knowledge of these events are questionable. Robert joined the Marine Corp. in 1952 and had little contact with his family during those years. LHO and his family moved to NYC in 1952, the years he would have began attending at Stripling had he not moved to NYC. Robert is most likely speaking from an erroneous memory and basing his knowledge on information which is incomplete to him and for which he has no first hand knowledge of since he was not present for any of the events. I can't recall if Robert was asked about the families time in NYC, what that timeline was, or what he had to say regarding those events. Again, let's not cut ourselves on Occam's razor here. Is it more likely that Robert had first hand knowledge of events he was not present for and that he misspoke due to this? Or are the premises of "Harvey and Lee" the likely ones? I will only mention Mark Summers since he is the one Sandy has mentioned, although all the "witnesses" have questionable "facts" as relevant to the "Harvey and Lee" saga. Summers places LHO at Stripling in 1952, 2 years before "Harvey and Lee" places him at the school. He also references teaching Robert when this couldn't be true if he began teaching in 1950. According to "Harvey and Lee" believers, this was because Summers was simply mistaken, yet this idea is laughable when applied to the statements of Robert Oswald. If he can be mistaken and believe he taught Oswald in 1952 when it was actually 1954 then Robert Oswald can equally be mistaken in his recollection of LHO attending Stripling, especially since he wasn't even present for the events in question and not once explains how he knows this to be true, considering he was not present. Mark Summers cannot be considered a reliable source for LHO considering Stripling. Another thing I like to mention is that a former teacher at Stripling did an interview recalling famous students of Stripling, and who also researched LHO for The New York TImes, never made a mention of LHO attending Stripling. You'd think he would be a famous student who wouldn't just slip the teachers memory. One last thing not related to Stripling but goes to the heart of all of the "Harvey and Lee" theories. "Harvey" is stated to be a Hungarian boy (based on 1 single phone call no less) and the "theory" has the need for a "native Russian speaker." The problem being that Hungarians do not speak Russian, 98% of the population speaks Hungarian. How does that narrative fit into the "Harvey and Lee" theory? Russian is spoken by somewhere around 1% of Hungarians. I guess they really lucked out and got the boy from that 1%? Let's not cut ourselves on Occam's Razor again... I'll gladly debate anyone on the Stripling evidence. Lee Harvey Oswald, the one and only, never attended Stripling.

I'm not exactly sure how the two are related. I also don't have any "recently professed abhorrence" of censorship in the U.S., I've always professed abhorrence to such practices and often to those that are for them. Censoring the discussion of thoughts and ideas is an entirely different thing than staying within the guidelines of copyright law as to ensure our/your/their work on this site is not lost. Post whatever topic you want, talk about whatever you want (that conversation is up to the moderators), but in doing so please do not open this forum to litigation or other forms of legal action. You really do put who you are on full display, not matter what huh. Even in a situation such as this, you can't refrain from in some way making the issue about the person making the post instead of the message contained within the post. In any event, what I said is a real and legitimate risk and if something isn't done to contain and control this then it won't be a matter of if, but when. No good deed, eh?

I'm not a moderator, so maybe I shouldn't be even mentioning this, but... This site has a huge problem with copyright infringement and there are quite literally thousands of instances of copyright infringement on this forum. There are between 10-100 just on the first page alone. On internet forums, a poster is not allowed to post an entire article which they did not write, or they do not hold the copyright to, even if they link back to the source or otherwise "credit" the source. In these instances, the only thing allowed under Fair Use is an excerpt of the article with a link to the article (not just saying "you can find it on YouTube"). Moderators have to step up and not only disallow this behavior, but efforts have to be taken to clean up posts that exist on this site with copyrighted material in them. If not, this entire forum is at risk and the entire forum could either be shut down through legal action, or offending posts would be taken down. If either of these happens then a great wealth of information and research will be lost forever. Please, all members, stop posting entire articles, blog posts, or other websites to the forum. Only post small snippets of the information and then link back to the complete material. Moderators, please start policing this before all the work and effort which has went into this site is lost. It won't take but 1 disgruntled current or former member to get all of this blown up. We all know there is no shortage of disgruntled ex-members of this forum. Any author or even "lone nutter" could use this to have the website shut down or severely "damaged" by post removal. For more information check out these links, or do your own searches... Fair Use for Forums (and How to Explain to Your Members That They Can’t Quote Entire Articles) Be Proactive in Preventing Content Theft and Copyright Infringement

I read an interesting story about the Rambler many years ago. I'm at work without access to my links, but here is a forum post on the article. I don't believe this is new to most of you.

Dude, I started by asking a question that you never answered. In the spirit of fairness, being that I asked first and then you changed the subject, shouldn't you actually be answering my questions? Read back a few pages if you need to see who asked who first and who was ignored first. I actually answered yours, this was never a 9/11 debate until you made it about 9/11. It was a question about our ability to even have a 9/11 debate. You didn't want to answer that because you know I'm right, so instead you intellectually condescend to me while deflecting and changing the subject. You know 9/11 debate would be censored right along with JFKA debates, climate change debates, and a list of others which would be deemed harmful to the public interest. I've never changed the subject, each of my posts has been on the topic of the original question I asked. The irony of all of this is so astounding. I ask you a question. You ignore the question, change the topic and then ask me a list of questions. I refer back to my original question. You ignore that, and ask more questions on a different topic. I refer back to my original question. You tell me to answer your questions (even though this began with me asking you a question that you'll get around to answering after I kowtow to you and your intellectual superiority) and to stop deflecting (which is what you have done and are projecting onto me). You know your field well, don't you? Wow. Just.... Wow.... But, in any even, I've more than proven my point. 9/11 debate is no different that climate change debate, no different than JFKA debate, no different than COVID debates, no different that QANON debate. No different than "insert conspiratorial debate here." An "authority" has decided the official story in each of these. Speaking out against that "authority" rejects the basic tenets of "accepted science." If you want to ban any of these because the "authority" has spoken (which is what W. Niederhut wants to do with climate change debate) then a precedent is set which opens the door for all others to be equally censored on the same grounds. It doesn't really matter what Mark Stevens, or W. Niederhut believes. Those people do not make the rules, the "authority" does and W. Niederhut would like that "authority" to save us from the "crazies." This is a horrible idea and would make us all criminals just for having conversations or having ideas. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

The irony of all of this... The reason I am having this conversation to begin with is because you want to censor climate change denial. You want to censor climate change denial based on the evidence and scientific consensus which supports the facts of climate change and the dangers climate change poses. I can't believe you don't realize this, but your argument is a...you guessed it...argument from authority. Science says climate change is real, therefore climate change deniers must be silenced. If your argument is not this, please correct me. Then there is some group, just like A&E, who believes the data is not real, who believes the science is pseudo-science, who believes the media is an echo chamber repeating the lies that hold up the entire hoax. They post links showing how the science which is accepted by the scientific community is wrong and therefore...debunked. But, they are actually wrong...right? According to you, to scientific consensus, to the general public, and to the federal government, their science is the pseudo-science, their claims are the ones which have no merit, which have been...debunked. That is the...authority...right? If I'm wrong in anything above, please correct me. Sure, I've answered it here... And here... And again... And again... Again, this conversation was not about my beliefs on 9/11 or whether or not WT7 was brought down by a CD. This conversation was about our ability to even have this conversation. It was started based on your ironic appeal to authority. Will you please now answer the original question which I have asked repeatedly in which you have not answered, but have continued to deflect from by questioning my 9/11 beliefs. I will clarify the question... Do you believe climate change denial should be censored? Do you believe it should be censored because the government and science (aka the authority) has spoken on the issue? If that is true, how does that differ from 9/11 debate, and our ability to have this conversation? If the authority (aka the government and the NIST report) says 9/11 was not brought down by a CD, but by the "official story" would we be censored? Could me and you have this conversation? My position, again, is no. The situations are one and the same. The same "authority" which says climate change science is real, says the NIST report is real. If that authority says climate change denial is censored, 9/11 debate would be equally censored. How am I wrong? (please for the love of John O'Neill do not just again question the validity of the NIST report, let's just assume it's as wrong as eating through your ass, it doesn't change the fact that the government recognizes it as the authority and it would be that authority making censorship decisions)

Again, you are playing some semantics game while trying to beat around my point. I'm not trying to get you to abandon your position, or to even speak favorably of the NIST report. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge reality. Being in the profession you are in (or were in), I'd think this to be an easy task. You don't have to defend your views to me, or the views of A&E, or even try to prove to me why the NIST report is wrong. This isn't about that. This isn't even about the NIST report being right or wrong. It's about it being accepted by the scientific community at large, and we both know that it is. The scientific community, in an overwhelming fashion, accept the information in the report, as well as the calculations and science which are used to make the conclusions. Again, the NIST report has not been 'thoroughly debunked." Please provide one scientific, peer reviewed journal or publication which supports your statement. A report published in the echo chamber of "A&E" does not debunk anything anymore than the book "Harvey and Lee" debunks the Warren Commission. Until then.... The NIST report is accepted by the scientific community at large. The consensus between scientists agrees with the report. The NIST report is accepted by the general public as the official story. The NIST report is accepted by the federal government as the official story. For all intents and purposes, history recognizes the NIST report as the official "bona-fide" story and as the real evidence. At this point you are doing the same thing climate change deniers do. They say the scientific consensus has been "debunked" and their science which is not accepted by anyone but them is the real science, the "bona-fide" truth if you will. You have said the scientific consensus has been "debunked" (without providing anything to support your claim, and when you do it will just be the views of A&E, which doesn't actually debunk anything). You have said that the science that is not accepted by anyone outside of A&E is the real science. How are you any different from a climate change denier, how does your argument not deserve censorship based on your own criteria? Again, I'm not even saying I agree with the NIST report. I'm just saying its the recognized, scientific, "truth." My agreement with that "truth" isn't going to change the simple that fact. I don't have to recognize it, you don't either. The same as climate change deniers do not have to recognize the scientific consensus. Does it change the fact that the consensus exists? Has it been "debunked?" Maybe in your eyes, yes it has been debunked. In the eyes of science, the simple truth is again, no, it has not been debunked. So we can keep playing semantic games around "debunked," "scientific consensus," and whichever other words you want to play games with, but you know what I'm saying and you know what you're doing when you play those games, probably better than most people here do.

Best review I could find... https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/oleg-maximovich-nechiporenko/passport-to-assassination/

You're again making this about me and what I think when I haven't offered any opinions. You continue to beat around my point. You again prove my point by saying the "fringe" research is the "bona-fide" scientific evidence when again, that is just not the case. If that evidence was the bona-fide evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the NIST report. What I'm saying is the report and the information contained within it is the accepted science, that is the bona-fide evidence. You know what I am saying. You don't have to accept that report, that is fine. But, in refusing to accept that science you become a climate change denier. You dismiss accepted science and instead say your science is the real science. You know what I'm saying. This isn't about my 9/11 beliefs or whether I believe the NIST report. I'm simply saying, the NIST report is the accepted science. Climate change science and whatever report/study is the accepted science. If you dismiss either of these items you are dismissing what is considered by the general public to be the "bona-fide evidence." Your evidence is the "fringe" evidence, your science is the "pseudoscience" until it becomes the accepted science, even if it is actually the truth. Until it is accepted as the truth, it's not. Again, this is not about my personal beliefs on 9/11 or even climate change.

You're speaking directly to my point though. Much like a climate change denier says "there are thousands of scientists who reject the [insert organization or report here]" you say the same, but with the WTC. This puts you on the opposite side of mainstream, peer reviewed, community accepted, public protecting science. The thousands of scientists and engineers you speak of are still only in the 2%. The other 98% says you're wrong and right or wrong that is the voice that is listened to, that is the voice of "reason." Nothing you say or post will change that. The question I'm trying to get you to answer, is does that then make it suitable to censor your argument? Both situations fit your criteria for censorship. If you are for banning climate change dissent based on scientific concensus, you have to logically be for banning 9/11 truth discussion based on the same scientific consensus. They are one and the same. Your agreement with the consensus/research or lackthereof doesn't change the scientific agreement that exists in both areas. At the end of the day the criteria you have laid out for censorship includes your WTC 9/11 truth arguments. If censorship as you want it were put into effect, you would be equally censored. I get that you think you are right about 9/11 and you think climate change deniers are wrong, but that doesn't change where science sits on those two issues. On one you are on the same side as science, on another you are not. This isn't meant to be a 9/11 debate so there really isn't a point in trying to convince me one way or the other. I'm just pointing out what science says about the issue and how that relates to your ideas of censorship.

A couple of others I have which are related. I have some others related to SS agent shot at DP but I can't find them right now.