Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Harper

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Robert Harper

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http//: www.RobertHarper.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
  • Interests
    JFK, the arts, Bach

Recent Profile Visitors

1,104 profile views
  1. Robert  Harper

    Logic seems to suggest...

    I haven't a clue..I assume they were all in on it. I remain bothered that Dr. Burkley seemed to attach more loyalty to military service than to truth. His cryptic note during the Church committee and his failure to expand during his oral testimony ("I would not like to be quoted on that") puts him in my do-not-trust dept. In Manchester's book, Burkley "knelt" next to Jackie on the plane and suggested that since JFK was a Navy man, perhaps Bethesda was preferable to Walter Reed. The only doctor who was at Parkland and Bethesda could have opened the proverbial can of worms if he had had the inner strength to do so; he didn't.
  2. Same with me and I appreciate that Mr Hancock didn't blow anyone off by asking whether or not they read his book; he gives an explanation that can be followed more in depth by reading his book which I intend to do. My first readings of the USS Liberty, mentioned earlier, hit me like a ton of bricks and remains seared on my memory.
  3. Robert  Harper

    A Lie Too Big To Fail by Lisa Pease

    Gene, I thought of this passage when I came across a sentence recently that expressed the notion that there was a glorious week of hope between the March 31 announcement of LBJ not running and the murder of MLK. Watching Johnson give that speech is still vivid in my mind; I ran upstairs at our home in Monmouth County NJ yelling "Bobby Kennedy will be the next president! Bobby Kennedy will be the next president!" A week later, further violence and 8 weeks later, the end of hope.
  4. Robert  Harper

    The Mind of JFK

    I thought the same. A lovely synopsis of the intellectual JFK was.
  5. Robert  Harper

    What is disinformation in the JFK case?

    The following was a recent post left by Mr. DiEugenio: (bold is my emphasis) "Rich, please read those articles. This is called the Education Forum for a reason. Over at Duncan McRae's all they do is share their own prejudices. Here, we actually try and surface information and debate it." This post stuck out for me since it was left a week or so after James decided to cut short any debate by not playing by the rules of debate. He offered a proposition: Farewell America equals a “tome of disinfo.” He did this on another thread and I took it to be a pejorative dismissal of something I recalled being other than a “tome of disinfo” and when I asked him to elaborate, he chose not to respond. Consequently, I started this thread in an attempt to debate the merits of that assertion. I actually was more engaged with reading and composing some thoughts on the continuation of a thread on witches and Salem, but I chose to rebut the assertion by returning to the book Farewell America and offered ten (10) examples of facts that defied the use of the word disinformation when applied to them.(listed in previous post). In the rules of debate, the affirmative makes a proposition and defines the terms of the debate. The negative rebuts, and defines the terms if not presented by the affirmative. The affirmative then rebuts the negative and the next rebuttal is from the negative. This is as far as the debate progressed on this thread. Since the affirmative – like the prosecutor – opens and closes the debate – the affirmative must rebut the last negative, while closing out the proposition. Mr. DiEugenio decided to pass on that final chore. Thus, the debate was unfinished and/or it was a victory for the negative as a sort of TKO. Mr DiEugenio’s original rebuttal struck me as strange to say the least. Declaiming that he has asked “for about the 9th time” whether anyone read his books doesn’t really answer any question, and mentioning an index in Joan Mellen’s book or the shoe leather worn down by Harold Weisberg’s search for the author, also skirts the issue at hand. The issue was, was this book a “tome of disinfo” or not? The issue isn’t who wrote it, but what it says. Frankly, it wouldn’t matter if Mickey Mouse and Allen Dulles wrote it. What matters for arguments sake is whether or not the book is intentionally deceptive. Saying that he puts “a lot of work into them and you will find information there you will not find anywhere else” seems out of place as well. Who is the “you” addressed here? And, how does his efforts – laborious or not – illuminate a defense of the proposition that A=B? In my first post on this Forum I quoted Aquinas’s formulation of a definition: " that by which, or in virtue of which, a thing is what it is" ( id quo aliquid est). Any research I’ve done on the word “disinformation” includes a deliberate attempt to deceive, to point one away from the truth. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. If one says A=B then one also asserts that the consequences of A will equal the consequences of B. Definitions are important. Recently I suffered through listening to a podcast from UVA about "microaggression" which managed to mangle any concept of free speech by suggesting that even joking about "ethnicity, gender etc" would be a form of aggression which should be halted. A student aptly asked if one had to be a member of a "marginalized group" to be a victim of "microaggression" since the slide presentation stated such. Amazingly, the speaker replied that such was just a "generalized definition" and that she extended it to "any" marginalized group (based on height, weight, regional birth) and that indeed one needn't be a member of a marginalized group to be microaggressed upon. As a response to this obvious contradiction, the student asked how do you define marginalized group, since it seemed "non-specific" and the answer offered was that it was "intentionally" non-specific" as if that was a value worth prioritizing when trying to define a term. A colleague of the lecturer then offered the anecdote that people would say "you don't sound like you're from West Virginia" or "oh you wear shoes" and she found that people looked down on those from a rural state, and that such was "hurtful" even if its intent was not. The student wondered how such was determined. If "hurt" isn't intended, how can one be "hurt?" The answer was a broad-based conglomeration of sensitivities that would be out of place even in a Freudian session on being sensitive to the unconscious. It went on like this for an hour. My guess is that Thomas Jefferson was turning rapidly in his grave a few yards from where this "class" was taking place. Perhaps the most aggressive act of all - and in my book a macro-aggressive act at that - was done by the University itself, whose leaders suspended the student asking the questions for being "aggressive" and for taping the discussion. One can't make this stuff up. Like the UVA student, I would like to have a definition of "disinformation" that is more than anecdotal and is specific. I offered such in my first rebuttal to the proposition that Farewell America = "a tome of disinfo." I suggested an intent to deceive was paramount in the definition. I specifically distinguished it from the limited hang-out form or the gray propaganda form. I agree with those who replied that the Warren Commission was a work of disinformation and I don’t disagree with Mr. Andrews’ assertion that the book had some purple writing in it. In a recent conversation with a JFK author, we both recalled reading years ago that Edward Kennedy and Danial Patrick Moynihan had assisted putting together a group to investigate the killing and their conclusion—a deep state killing using a CIA patsy with multiple shooters - couldn’t find a publisher in the USA and thus was printed first in Belgium. He agreed with me that “disinformation” was not an applicable term to describe Farewell America. “I understand there are so many crappy books out there that the market is glutted with baloney. But still, if you know me, I am not that kind of writer.” When I read this part of Mr DiEugenio’s rebuttal, I recalled Augustine’s phrase that “What we know, therefore, we owe to reason, what we believe, to authority.” It seems to me that Mr. DiEugenio is relying on his self proclaimed “authority,” rather than on reason, to defend his proposition that Farewell America = a “tome of disinfo.”
  6. Robert  Harper

    Logic seems to suggest...

    Any attempt to define the culprits of the assassination has to include Bethesda. The military is usually involved in a coup and they were most definitely needed. When I first read Finck's testimony that there were "admirals and generals" in the autopsy theater, giving instructions to the Lt Col who was performing the job, I felt revulsion and then anger. It hasn't stopped.
  7. Robert  Harper

    Epistemology and the JFK Assassination

    from an essay linked by Steve Thomas in the strategy of tension thread: "...throughout my time in Swiss high schools we never learned anything about secret warfare; our history teachers never broached the subject. Even when I pursued my University degrees, the subject never came up. It was only at the end of my studies, while doing my Master’s, that I had my first glimpse into secret warfare: that secret services exist; that the United Nations, and its Security Council, and governments lie to each other. I was baffled. I was twenty-five years old at the time,... Epistemology, referenced in the thread, is the philosophy of knowledge - (or how we know what we know) - especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
  8. Robert  Harper

    Strategy of tension

    Just left a post on the USS Liberty and this thread and quote apply.
  9. Robert  Harper

    Final Consensus-Shooters

    This is also my feeling FWIW. I recently read the Noyes book and apparently he was the one to 'discover' who Braden was which certainly shouldn't have taken 10 years to discover if we had real journalists working. The second half of the book, is an all out attack on Jim Garrison, which was shared by the NY Times that used to employ Noyes.
  10. In an ADL statement paper, which uses the term "anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist" at least 50 times in its 32 page screech, the following apropos: Conspiracy-oriented material also pointed to previous "treacherous" acts allegedly carried out by Israel as proof that the country has a history of clandestine terrorist operations against the U.S., and that its alleged actions on 9/11 were nothing new. The example cited most often is the 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, an American naval vessel that Israel mistakenly targeted in the Six Days War. Over 30 American servicemen stationed on the ship were killed in what official inquiries determined was a tragic accident. Couple of thoughts came to mind. Why not the exact number killed? You can bet you a-- that an "attack" by the Palestinians under occupation would get the number of Israelis killed, "right" since "every life counts", right? And, what "official inquiries " do they mean? I hope the oft repeated reference to the "Elders of Zions" in this tax-deductible funded "study" finds its resting place because it gets boring; and I'm not even convinced it wasn't "disinfo" in the first place.
  11. Robert  Harper

    Epistemology and the JFK Assassination

    There is a passage in Augustine’s Confessions when he says: ..'What we know, therefore, we owe to reason, what we believe, to authority.' Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1500 years later, replied:“…. it remains true that in the proper acceptation of the term we know only what we owe to firm reasoning of the mind….When a true belief is justified by sense perception or trustworthy testimony, the plain man calls it knowledge, the philosopher belief. For I take it that the important difference between knowledge and understanding is that knowledge can be piecemeal, can grasp isolated truths one by one, whereas understanding always involves seeing connections and relations between the items known.” For myself, Augustine's way of "knowing" was prevalent at the time of JFK's murder. Authority provided what I wanted/needed/chose, so the Warren Report sufficed. As years went by, and revelations about corruption and abuse and mendacity in the people and organizations I had trusted came into focus, I reasoned my way to belief; I couldn't accept it on any "authority." Also, FWIW, I think the term "conspiracy theorist" is meaningless. There are theories of many things both seen and unseen; there are conspiracies involving many things on a daily basis. Without individuation--and a clear sense of meaning - it serves no communicable need. it reminds me of the use of the word "buff" used pejoratively.
  12. Ditto. The inclusion of the BDS laws clip was for two reasons: 1) "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" is often attributed to Voltaire and the idea applies here because there is a "special alliance" - formed by whomever - that restricted an inquiry into this awful attack. Why? 2) Dulles said that the American people don't read; now I think it might be said they don't care to read. How could 26 States have passed such a law? Why? Is it "unspeakable" and not reported; is it reported but no one cares? The very thought of this law turns my stomach. Why the free pass with the USS Liberty? Why this first amendment attack as law?
  13. www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dOfQYBXJOI Why has it taken so long to even hear of this latest snow job
  14. I have the book from 1979 - Assault on the Liberty by James Ennes Jr. and the 2009 book, Attack on the Liberty by James Scott, and wonder if Joan Mellon's book offers more information than was covered in these. It is an outrage to read about of course and I intend to secure and read Ms. Mellon's book , but I am curious to know if she uncovered new information.
  15. Robert  Harper

    Merry Christmas

    Fellow Forumites, I join with others in wishing all a Merry Christmas (LNs &CTs in DVP's formulation). Biggest demonstration in Holland this year was over Zwarte Pete--"Black Pete" - a chimney sweep and companion to St Nicholas for centuries. Image 1 is of protesters on the great Erasmus Bridge yelling that Black Pete is racist. Meanwhile, down below, kids gather around various versions of black Pete--male and female, black or white with black marks. They give out cookies to kids and take pics with them. Peace on Earth. Goodwill to Mankind.