Mark Stevens
-
Posts
288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stevens
-
-
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
What a load of malarkey Mark.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb
And have you ever read his 1986 essay on Vietnam?
yes or no.
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.
-
2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Utter nonsense, Mark.
Your oft-repeated trope about Prouty's "routine" trip to Antarctica was debunked long ago on this forum.
What had he been working on in the fall of 1963-- a treatise on penguins?
I understand your methodology.
If you, Griffith, McAdams, et.al., repeat the bunk enough times, some people will mistake it for the truth, eh?
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):
Quote"It was so routine for them to call me, I didn’t give it a second thought... it’s the military custom to put an escort officer on board.” “And even afterwards, when I heard people extrapolating in that sense--
thinking that it wasn’t my job-- they didn’t know I’d already been working with Antarctica people
since 1959.”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.
-
1 hour ago, David Andrews said:
In which case, it didn't really happen until this thread, did it?
Well, that's not entirely true...
QuoteThe only thing misleading is Prouty.
It matters that when given the opportunity to support his claims he instead backtracked from them.
There is no shortage of people associated with the JFKA changing their stories over the years and no shortage of people taking them to task for it. Why does Prouty get a free pass?
It's not "lingo" about routine..These are Prouty's own words. Why do you all ignore his own words which negate his past comments? This isn't some outside attack on his statements, this is him negating them with his own words. This is him refusing to defend his comments and not only refusing to defend them, but actually saying the opposite.
We aren't making this up. He really did it. You really don't care though. Why?
Personally, I think Prouty's role all along was to mislead. His position and background makes him the perfect candidate. Surely enough, 99% of the JFKA community has eaten everything he has ever said without taking into account his connections and who he actually is.
-
18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Yes Mark, Kudlaty definitely does say "should." He says it very quickly. I guess you have to have a fast ear. 😋
Interested forum members can check for themselves.
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:
On 7/20/2020 at 1:39 AM, Sandy Larsen said:You guys crack me up. You seem to think that witnesses should be accepted if their testimony is true, but thrown out if it is false.
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....
-
18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
What I did is replace superfluous parts of Kudlaty's statements with ellipses (i.e. three dots, like this "...") which is a common practice when quoting someone. I was careful not to change the original meaning.
This is not conflation.
Conflation is where you merge two different things to make something new. These days it is often used to mean confusing one thing for another, for example: "The judge erred when he conflated the credit for time served with the defendant's negotiated sentence reduction."
Text conflation -- which is what you referred to -- is when two version of a writing are combined. For example, two versions of the same biblical story, as recorded in different gospels, can be conflated to create a more complete story. That new version of the story is said to be a conflation of the two originals.
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.
QuoteYou hear contradictions because you don't understand what he says regarding the transfer of records.
I do understand what he says regarding the transfer of records, and so I don't hear any contradictions at all.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
How does a person argue against the contention that a witness is mistaken? Any witness may be mistaken. The argument against it is understood... without any comment.
Same thing with the argument that a document is erroneous.
90% of anti-H&L arguments are along those lines.
Which often works fairly well on a case by case basis. But doesn't hold up in a "totality of the evidence" basis.
Plus I find it disturbing when a person, because of his biases, decides what to believe first and then seeks evidence to support his belief. And ignores evidence that doesn't. A practice that I consider to be intellectually lazy if not dishonest. But I think it is quite a common practice. I try very hard not to fall into it, though I'm sure I do at times.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Tom,
Just in case you didn't consequently work this out...
First, Mark left a word out in his transcript, innocently I'm sure. The part reading:
The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, ...
Should be:
The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you SHOULD have in your files, ...
The Kudlaty interview is divided into three videos and I believe you have to listen to more than one if you want to hear everything the interviewers said about the conversation that was had the night before.
The meaning of
The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files, ...
in context is clearly
The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that [one] should have in [one's] files, ...
(For those who may not know, the way Kudlaty worded it is common vernacular in America for the way I wrote it.)
I don't recall Kudlaty ever referring to Armstrong's files or works.
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."
Quote(1:42)
Kudlaty: The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, because it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level (audio blip) a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6th grade…and as I said last night how did that…how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?
Kudlaty interview, beginning at 1:42. Compare my transcript to the audio....
-
7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Everything in my post is true and without conflation. In it I clearly differentiated between what Kudlaty said and my remarks. Unlike Mark, I didn't leave out anything of importance, other than my transcript only paraphrasing things the interviewers said, which I did in order to save myself from having to transcribe it.
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:
Quoteto combine (things, such as two versions of a text) into a composite whole
You combined multiple things he said into a composite whole, that's the literal definition of conflating.
QuoteI encourage everybody to listen to the first couple minutes of the interview (at least) while following along with my transcript. The reason for reading my transcript while listening to Kudlaty is because he says two or three important things very quickly and it's hard to make it out without repeating the video multiple times. I spent a fair amount of time doing that and I believe I got it down correctly. You can correct me if you find my transcript is wrong about something.
I'm confident that open-minded people will agree with my characterization of what Kudlaty said.
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.
QuoteThis theory Mark has, that Kudlaty admitted that there weren't any Stripling records in the Stripling file when he said, "As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school?" is simply ridiculous, given that elsewhere and multiple times Kudlaty says that Oswald was a student at Stripling. If you accept Mark's theory, you'll find that much of the interview makes no sense and is full of contradictions. (Mark's emphasis added) But once you realize that, by saying "there are [no records] from the junior high school," Kudlaty was talking only about a PRIOR junior high records that normally would have included the elementary school records... once you realize that, then everything Kudlaty says makes sense. And this becomes perfectly clear if you listen to all the comments, including those made by the interviewers, about the procedures schools followed when transferring records.
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:
Quotehow did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school
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.
QuoteOne other important thing that Mark gets wrong is when Kudlaty says, "I wouldn't want to swear to that," he wasn't talking about whether Oswald attended Stripling... he was talking about HOW LONG he attended. He recalls seeing that only one column in Oswald's record was filled in, which would indicate that he completed only the first six weeks of classes.
Kudlaty's actual words as well as the preceding question (with time stamp of video for easy reference):
QuoteInterviewer 2: When you looked at the records did you by chance notice that he had grade marks, not necessarily what the grade marks were, but grade marks to indicate that he’d been there...a 6-week period in order to perceive (sic) grades…or…?
(3:30)
Kudlaty: You know that’s a…I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period. That’s the best I can remember…but that, you know…I wouldn’t want to swear to that.
"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:
QuoteIf anybody wants to check this out themselves, here's the link to the Kudlaty interview. And here's the transcript of the relevant parts of the interview, Kudlaty's words only:
I went to the records file, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them in kind of a cursory way. And the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were [in that?] he didn't attend there for a full year. I put them back in the brown envelope.... The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files....
[A comment is made by an interviewer regarding their previous-nights discussion of how school records are transferred from one school to another.] ... As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school? That would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the file -- and where they came from? Did someone go to -- went to the elementary school and get them?...
To the best of my recollection, his records were incomplete and that they did not show a full year of attendance.... I believe that he had grades for one six-week period. That's the best I can remember. But I wouldn't want to swear to that.... [Kudlaty explains why he believes it was six weeks.] ... He received grades for the first six weeks....
My transcription:
Beginning of interview:
QuoteOn a Saturday morning following the Kennedy assassination I received a call at home. I lived at 4225 Curzon at that time…from Mr. Wylie who was my Principal, telling me to go to school and to go to the records file and to get Lee Harvey Oswald’s records and that someone from the FBI would be there to pick them up. That’s exactly what I did. I went to school…I went to the records files, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them…in kind of a cursory way, and the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were incomplete (audio blip) and that he didn’t attend there a full year. I put them back in the brown envelope and left it on my desk and waited, oh...10-15 minutes or perhaps longer, and two gentlemen came in…showed me identification that they were FBI agents. I gave them the records and the best I remember one of them did open the envelope and kinda look in it, and they thanked me and they left, and I locked the doors and I went home and that’s about all I know about Lee Harvey Oswald.
From 1:42 in the interview, following the preceding question:
QuoteInterviewer 1: You had mentioned last night about the procedures of elementary school records.
(1:42)
Kudlaty: The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, because it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level (audio blip) a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6th grade…and as I said last night how did that…how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?
Later in the interview (where again his "definite" claims are questionable:
Quote(2:28)
Interviewer 1: Now, just to clarify we are talking about the records of Lee Harvey Oswald the accused assassin of President Kennedy?
Kudlaty: That’s right, uh-hmm.
Interviewer 1: And to your knowledge he did attend…Stripling Junior High School?
Kudlaty: Yes, he had to attend. I don’t…didn’t know Lee Harvey Oswald…I didn’t know he was a student there, but we wouldn’t have had a copy of (audio blip) some records for them had he not attended at least…you know even one day, we would have had a record…and that’s before…the best of my knowledge, or the best of my recollection, his records were incomplete in that they did not show a full year of attendance.
Later in the interview (his "definite" claims in full force):
Quote(3:30)
Kudlaty: You know that’s a…I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period. That’s the best I can remember…but that, you know…I wouldn’t want to swear to that.
Kudlaty: Again…as I recall from looking at that record it would have been in the fall semester.
Interviewer 1: Of?
Kudlaty: I don’t…I can’t answer that, I don’t know.
Interviewer 2: Why do you say the fall semester?
Kudlaty: Because, the best I remember the report card started on the left hand side with courses and the grades went…the first 6 weeks was in the first column, and I remember that that…it seemed like to…I remember that column was complete and there was nothing else beyond there.
Interviewer 2: That column was complete?
Kudlaty: Uh-huh and he received grades for the first 6 weeks.
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.
-
58 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:
The way Kudlaty phrases it does make it sound like he’s talking about specific schools:
how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?
Kudlaty may have been wondering if the elementary records Armstrong found in the WC volumes, NARA, etc. were originally obtained directly from each school by the FBI as opposed to from himself - since he’d just speculated that he might have been the original source:
The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files…
So in this case when Kudlaty stated “that would be an interesting path to go down” he’d be referring to a potential lead to investigate on why no Stripling records were entered into evidence.
Hypothetically, if Kudlaty was not completely full of it and he really did give records to the FBI, which is questionable, I think the Bostick/Monnig scenario makes perfect sense - but there should be a 302 report, teletype, memo, etc. reflecting that records were requested and/or obtained from both schools - and that the records were duplicate elementary files routinely sent out to Junior High schools as per Armstrong:
Only notification by Marguerite Oswald of their move to New York in the fall of 1952 would have prevented Ridglea West from routinely forwarding carbon copies of Oswald's transcripts to Monnig (From H&L)
Are we absolutely positive such documents don’t exist, even in the Dallas Field Office files that are not online? Even if there are no actual reports but duplicate records were really obtained, the records should be buried somewhere in an EBF (enclosure behind file) somewhere, most likely the Dallas Oswald File. You’d think Armstrong would have followed Kudlaty’s lead and looked for this stuff, but it might have been easy to miss if the only thing in the FBI files was a carbon copy of elementary records already available elsewhere. The same records appearing under different file numbers might be an interesting clue though, and something potentially worth looking into.
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.
-
50 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:
What was the question that elicited this response, and is there any audio or transcript of the “last night” interview referred to by Kudlaty?
I ask because my first impression on reading this was that Kudlaty was referring to the records Armstrong had in his files i.e. the stuff in the WC volumes - and he was telling Armstrong that it might be interesting to trace how the elementary school records were entered into evidence, since records from Stripling did not “show up” and Kudlaty thought he might have turned over both sets of files to the FBI himself - since the elementary records were a part of Oswald’s file at Stripling.
I know that was convoluted as hell but I’m in a bit of a rush. I am not a H&L supporter but this seems like a valid question. Maybe I’m missing something though.
The immediate question before that statement was:
QuoteYou had mentioned last night about the procedures of elementary school records.
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.
-
6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
So, Jeremy Bojczuk is reduced to copy-and-pasting Mark Stevens' convoluted arguments alleging to "debunk" multiple concurring witnesses about Oswald's attendance at Stripling. Got it. More "floor wiping."
This is what Stevens calls an "Occam's Razor" approach to the witness testimony...
"Here I sit so patiently, waiting to find out what price, you have to pay to get it out of going through all these things" THRICE... 🤥
Here is Jim Hargrove's response to Steven's (above) redundant response.
Jim Hargrove
-
- Members
- Gender:Male
To Mark Stevens:
You and the other H&L critics are free to spin the Stripling School evidence any way you wish for as long as you desire. But you simply cannot make that evidence go away. I stand by that evidence, and see no point in arguing the details with you since you and the other H&L critics will always claim victory no matter what I say.
Nothing you have said makes me doubt in any way that one LHO attended Stripling School, a fact which is supported by so much evidence. I will continue to present that evidence, which includes five Fort Worth newspaper articles, sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, two videotaped interviews and written descriptions of other witness recollections presented in H&L. You can do as you wish.
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?"
-
-
19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
This is nonsense.
First let me explain the thing about Oswald's elementary school records that has Mark confused:
Apparently, the night before the Kudlaty interview, the two interviewers discussed with Kudlaty how records were generally passed from elementary school to junior high school, and from one junior high school to another.
When a student completes elementary school, a copy of the records would be sent to the junior high school. If the student then switched from that junior high to another, a copy of the records -- including the elementary records -- would be sent from that junior high to the new one.
Kudlaty apparently knew that there were no prior junior high school records in Oswalds Stripling file. Yet he thought or assumed that there WERE elementary school records in the file, maybe because that was typically the case with any junior high school file. But he wasn't sure because he didn't know how the elementary records would get there if not passed from a prior junior high school. If you read the transcript below you will see Kudlaty wondering how the elementary school records (if any) got into Oswald's file.
In the interview, one of the interviewers mentioned the discussion they had had the night before. This triggered Kudlaty into wondering again, out loud, how there could be elementary records but no prior junior high records in Oswald's file. The interviewer then brought Kudlaty back from his tangent.
Here's a transcript of the relevant part of the interview, Kudlaty's words only:
I went to the records file, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them in kind of a cursory way. And the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were [in that?] he didn't attend there for a full year. I put them back in the brown envelope.... The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files....
[A comment is made by an interviewer regarding their previous-nights discussion of how school records are transferred from one school to another.] ... As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school? That would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the file -- and where they came from? Did someone go to -- went to the [elementary] school and get them?...
To the best of my recollection, his records were incomplete and that they did not show a full year of attendance.... I believe that he had grades for one six-week period. That's the best I can remember. But I wouldn't want to swear to that.... [Kudlaty explains why he believes it was six weeks.] ... He received grades for the first six weeks....
Kudlaty definitely said that he gave LHO's records to the FBI and that LHO attended Stripling for part of a year. He didn't say that the records might have been just elementary records. And in fact, he says that the only explanation for Stripling having those records is because Oswald attended classes there.
Here's the link to the Kudlaty interview.
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:
QuoteI went to the records files, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them…in kind of a cursory way, and the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were incomplete (audio blip) and that he didn’t attend there a full year.
In response to a separate question he then states:
QuoteThe records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, because it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level (audio blip) a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6th grade…and as I said last night how did that…how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?
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:
Quotea copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6th grade
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:
QuoteYou know that’s a…I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period. That’s the best I can remember…but that, you know…I wouldn’t want to swear to that.
I wouldn't want to swear to that. Doesn't seem too definite to me.
This part is almost demonstrably false:
QuoteAnd in fact, he says that the only explanation for Stripling having those records is because Oswald attended classes there.
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.
-
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:
I would urge people who are interested in the Stripling subject to read this entire thread (above--at Cohen's link.)
Contrary to Jonathan Cohen's latest spin, Mark Stevens and his colleague W. Tracy Parnell did not "destroy" Jim Hargrove and David Josephs in this Stripling debate.
Hargrove and Josephs won the debate, as they did in the Forum's original Harvey and Lee thread.
Nor did Stevens use Occam's Razor. On the contrary, his convoluted counter-arguments are based on attempts to discredit the testimony of multiple Stripling witnesses.
Occam's Razor would entail believing that multiple concurring witnesses were most likely telling the truth.
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?"
-
38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Mark Stevens certainly did not destroy Hargrove. Though he actually did a lot of work and did argue his side without merely putting up "it's been debunked" links. Gotta give him credit for that.
I think most people agreed with Mark that the students recalling LHO at Stripling weren't substantial witnesses. That's pretty obvious. I'll have to click the link and refresh my memory on what his arguments against the Kudlaty and Robert evidences are.
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.
Quotebecause it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level…a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6th grade (1:52) (Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty Interview)
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.
QuoteMr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.
Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.
Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School? (Warren Commission)
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.
-
21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Mark,
Interesting, thoughtful warning.
Is your call for more strict "policing" of the forum possibly related to your recently professed abhorrence of censorship in the U.S.?
Also, do you happen to know anyone, in particular, who might be interested in shutting down this forum-- using the pretext of "copyright infringement?"
Just asking for a friend. 🤥
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.
-
14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Mark,
You still haven't answered the basic science questions about the NIST Report that I posted for you on Saturday (above.)
Honestly, I fully expected you to duck those questions and change the subject, and you did.
I'll address your distorted argument about my objections to the oil industry propaganda denying climate change, but first be so kind as to answer my questions about the NIST Report.
Let's deal with one pseudo-science propaganda problem at a time. 🤥
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.
-
On 7/26/2021 at 3:13 PM, W. Niederhut said:
Exactly right, and I was actually going to bring up the case of Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez and his cellophane-wrapped Exploding Melon as an example of the way that the U.S. government has used scientific "experts" to endorse bogus explanations of black ops.
The bogus NIST Report is a Luis Alvarez Exploding Melon type snow job used by the Bush-Cheney administration to confuse the public about the obvious explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11. They developed an alleged computer simulation of the WTC demolitions, then used secret, undisclosed parameters to "explain" the demolitions-- while refusing to publish their numbers!
And I will add that Mark Stevens is not really talking about the scientific data I posted (above) which debunks the NIST Report. Instead, he continues to duck the basic science data while repeating the same talking points about mainstream media "scientific opinions" endorsing the NIST. His is merely an Argument From Authority-- the same propaganda technique that was used in Luis Alvarez's bogus Exploding Melon theory of the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63.
To illustrate the science facts, I would like Mark to answer a few basic questions, without changing the subject by referring back to his Argument From Authority.
1) What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7?
2) What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11?
3) How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero?
4) How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?
5) Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives?
6) If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?
The irony of all of this...
QuoteAnd I will add that Mark Stevens is not really talking about the scientific data I posted (above) which debunks the NIST Report. Instead, he continues to duck the basic science data while repeating the same talking points about mainstream media "scientific opinions" endorsing the NIST. His is merely an Argument From Authority-- the same propaganda technique that was used in Luis Alvarez's bogus Exploding Melon theory of the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63.
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.
QuoteTo illustrate the science facts, I would like Mark to answer a few basic questions, without changing the subject by referring back to his Argument From Authority.
1) What was the NIST Report's explanation for the observed abrupt, symmetrical, free fall collapse of WTC7?
2) What was the NIST's explanation for the observed explosive pulverization of 900,000 tons of concrete (and office furniture, human bodies, etc.) into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan on 9/11?
3) How did they explain the observed liquefied steel that was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero?
4) How did they explain the observed (and audible) serial explosions during the free fall collapses of WTC1 and WTC2?
5) Did the NIST conduct a forensic/arson investigation of the WTC debris for evidence of explosives?
6) If steel skyscrapers collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration, what is the resistance (r) to collapse caused by their steel substructures?
Sure, I've answered it here...
QuoteBut, your beef isn't with me....it's with the scientific community. I'm pretty removed from 9/11 debate, and it would take me some time to refamiliarize myself with these topics if I am going to speak intelligently about them (at least in providing my own opinions).
And here...
QuoteThis 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.
And again...
QuoteYou know what I'm saying. This isn't about my 9/11 beliefs or whether I believe the NIST report.
And again...
QuoteAgain, this is not about my personal beliefs on 9/11 or even climate change.
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)
-
On 7/24/2021 at 5:32 PM, W. Niederhut said:
Mark,
The NIST report is not accepted science. In fact, it has been thoroughly debunked.
Read the scientific references I posted for you (above.)
It's not a matter of opinion or mainstream media spin (and truly astonishing censorship.) It's a matter of scientific fact.
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.
-
-
6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Mark,
You, obviously, haven't studied, or understood, the bona fide scientific research on the 9/11 WTC demolitions.
Let's talk about the scientific data after you've actually studied it.
Here are some quality references.*
Meanwhile, if you're sincerely concerned about censorship in our media, perhaps you can explain to us why the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence about what really happened on 9/11 has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years!
*https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/beyond-misinformation
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
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.
-
14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Mark,
Please. Thousands of scientists and engineers who have actually studied the WTC demolitions overwhelmingly reject the NIST report, which was nothing more than an expensive, pseudo-scientific cover up by the Bush-Cheney administration. It was intended to bamboozle people who don't understand basic physics.
It's analogous to the Warren Commission's Single Bullet Theory.
Are you aware that the Bush-Cheney NIST guys refused to even publish the data they used for the parameters in their bogus computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions?
That they didn't even attempt to explain the observed, symmetrical free fall collapse of WTC7? Instead, they described a possible model for an initial partial upper story collapse-- as if that alone could explain the abrupt demolition of the massive steel sub-structure of the entire building.
Look at the GIF (below) of the collapse of WT7. Notice that the distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire structure descends at the acceleration of gravity! There is no gravitational pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors. It was an expert explosive demolition.
Albert Einstein one said, "If you can't explain something straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it."
Re-read what I wrote (above) about Newtonian physics and the free fall collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.
It's not rocket science. Free fall collapse = zero resistance to collapse. Ergo, the massive steel girders were abruptly demolished. And if you study the film, you can easily observe the serial explosions that pulverized the WTC towers.
Below: The distance between the upper floors of WTC7
remains constant as the building collapses in a free fall.
[gif removed from reply]
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.
Any regrets or missed opportunities regarding witnesses and evidence?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.