Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[Jon G. Tidd]

The answer is simple. His theory is the government's theory.

The government's theory is simple. It appeals to those who prefer simplicity.

To challenge DVP is to challenge the U.S. Government.

Some here believe it's easier to deride DVP than to say the U.S. Government has lied and continues to lie.

DVP is a surrogate. I wonder if he understands his role.

[David Von Pein]

Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

The answer is simple. His theory is the government's theory.

The government's theory is simple. It appeals to those who prefer simplicity.

To challenge DVP is to challenge the U.S. Government.

Some here believe it's easier to deride DVP than to say the U.S. Government has lied and continues to lie.

DVP is a surrogate. I wonder if he understands his role.

Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) by the wicked United States Government! Please, God, no!! Anything but that!

Maybe you, Jon, can help me better understand my "role" in this confusing and complex swine-filled JFK-related labyrinthine underbelly.

Because I am, you see, nothing but a puppet on the string of an evil Government empire which is built on lies and deceit and treachery.

Can you help me escape this torturous dungeon, Jon?

For if Jon G. Tidd won't help me overcome the Dark Side, who will? Obi-Wan?

Thank you so much, Jon.

In reality, of course, the Government's theory is simple because this case, when boiled down to its basics, IS simple --- one man with one gun murdered the President from the murderer's workplace one day in November of 1963.

There's nothing complicated or complex about what Lee Harvey Oswald did that day in Dallas. He smuggled his own rifle to work in a paper bag and got extremely lucky when the perfect opportunity was presented to him at 12:30 PM on the vacant sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.

The above "simple" scenario is what the evidence shows happened, and is what the history books will record as the probable truth for centuries to come.

-------------

"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961

"What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963

Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Edited July 11, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Andrews]

Because Posner down with that plagy-izm shizzle, yo.

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

Either you are a surrogate for the U.S. Government. Or you speak the same as the government.

[David Von Pein]

Jon,

I agree with the Government's conclusions about Oswald's guilt if that's what you mean. But....so what? Millions of people agree with the Government's "Oswald Did It" conclusion. I'm just one of them.

Although, to hear Jim DiEugenio tell it, it would seem as if the "LN" club consisted of just a very few people on the whole planet --- myself, the late Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, and Gerald Posner....and that's about it. But there are a lot of other people in the world who think Oswald killed JFK (and probably did it alone). Those people just don't hang out on JFK Internet forums every day of their lives.

Edited July 11, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Emphasis added:

Jon,

I agree with the Government's conclusions about Oswald's guilt if that's what you mean. But....so what? Millions of people agree with the Government's "Oswald Did It" conclusion. I'm just one of them.

Although, to hear Jim DiEugenio tell it, it would seem as if the "LN" club consisted of just a very few people on the whole planet --- myself, the late Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, and Gerald Posner....and that's about it. But there are a lot of other people in the world who think Oswald killed JFK (and probably did it alone). Those people just don't hang out on JFK Internet forums every day of their lives.

And the walls come tumblin' down...

[Brian Schmidt]

Here's my take:

There are a lot of good people on this forum, with honest and nuanced views. But in the entire JFK CT universe, there are a lot of gullible people and some that just want to believe in a vast conspiracy and are eager to jump to dumb conclusions. David tends to be condescending and snarky, and in doing so, perhaps purposefully, groups the views of more honest researchers with stupid and over-the-top conspiratorial theories.

Furthermore, there are a lot of people here who have been at this case for decades and in some cases a majority of their life. I won't name names, but I've seen researchers past their prime, desperate to see their life's work substantiated somehow, grasping for straws towards the end and making wild and desperate claims. In this case, DVP can be salt in an open wound.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Brian Schmidt

[David G. Healy]

Here's my take:

... I've seen researchers past their prime, desperate to see their life's work substantiated somehow, grasping for straws towards the end and making wild and desperate claims. In this case, DVP can be salt in an open wound.

past their prime, Brian? I had no idea there was a "researcher(s) prime"? What IS a researchers prime, btw-lmao?

DVP has been simply having a rough go of it lately. His hero has stepped beyond, so he's depressed, out of sorts... understandable... Salt in a wound, first who's doing the wounding and who's the wounded... I, frankly, could care less about nutter's...

Lone nuts have a history of doing no, zero, zilch, nada research... they haven't a clue beyond the 1964 WCR summary and report. Hell man, they don't even realize the HSCA determined a "conspiracy" murdered JFK...

[Glenn Nall]

Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

The answer is simple. His theory is the government's theory.

The government's theory is simple. It appeals to those who prefer simplicity.

To challenge DVP is to challenge the U.S. Government.

Some here believe it's easier to deride DVP than to say the U.S. Government has lied and continues to lie.

DVP is a surrogate. I wonder if he understands his role.

Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) by the wicked United States Government! Please, God, no!! Anything but that!

Maybe you, Jon, can help me better understand my "role" in this confusing and complex swine-filled JFK-related labyrinthine underbelly.

Because I am, you see, nothing but a puppet on the string of an evil Government empire which is built on lies and deceit and treachery.

Can you help me escape this torturous dungeon, Jon?

For if Jon G. Tidd won't help me overcome the Dark Side, who will? Obi-Wan?

Thank you so much, Jon.

In reality, of course, the Government's theory is simple because this case, when boiled down to its basics, IS simple --- one man with one gun murdered the President from the murderer's workplace one day in November of 1963.

There's nothing complicated or complex about what Lee Harvey Oswald did that day in Dallas. He smuggled his own rifle to work in a paper bag and got extremely lucky when the perfect opportunity was presented to him at 12:30 PM on the vacant sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.

The above "simple" scenario is what the evidence shows happened, and is what the history books will record as the probable truth for centuries to come.

-------------

"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961

"What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963

Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

you are not "reasonable" enough to be a patsy. don't flatter yourself.

[Glenn Nall]

i owe DVP some thanks, by proxy of course, for making me study up on some of my old education - more solidify my positions on some things, and remember some others.

Ad Hoc hypotheses - rules of reasonable doubt - i reread Critical Thinking, about the many forms of fallacial argument, and saw DVP in so many of the case studies. the man is a walking study in ad hoc, ad populum,appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, causal irrationality.

"An unbiased appreciation of uncertainty is a cornerstone of rationality--but it is not what people and organizations want." -- Daniel Kahneman (this man wrote Thinking Fast and Slow, and is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, and as such has spent his whole life studying the way people think - one amazing book about how we think - and he's a man D. would steer well clear of...)

DVP has only as much power to divert as he is given. I engage him very minimally, at best, and encourage others to do the same.

when the kids don't pick the runt for kickball team, the runt quits showing up. and when a kid does pick him, the other kids wonder...

[Glenn Nall]

Here's my take:

There are a lot of good people on this forum, with honest and nuanced views. But in the entire JFK CT universe, there are a lot of gullible people and some that just want to believe in a vast conspiracy and are eager to jump to dumb conclusions. David tends to be condescending and snarky, and in doing so, perhaps purposefully, groups the views of more honest researchers with stupid and over-the-top conspiratorial theories.

Furthermore, there are a lot of people here who have been at this case for decades and in some cases a majority of their life. I won't name names, but I've seen researchers past their prime, desperate to see their life's work substantiated somehow, grasping for straws towards the end and making wild and desperate claims. In this case, DVP can be salt in an open wound.

well put, Brian. that's not offensive, it's just what people tend to do. like old doctors who are loath to take on new medicine, wizened researchers can get past their prime, i think.

DVP, on the other hand, is salt LOOKING for an open wound anywhere he can find one, and is not unwilling in creating some where he can.

///////////////////////////

he called us "swine". as in "swine filled". that's personal, a sign when someone knows he's beat in a debate.

that's effin' tacky, Davey.

[Glenn Nall]

Jon,

I agree with the Government's conclusions about Oswald's guilt if that's what you mean. But....so what? Millions of people agree with the Government's "Oswald Did It" conclusion. I'm just one of them.

Although, to hear Jim DiEugenio tell it, it would seem as if the "LN" club consisted of just a very few people on the whole planet --- myself, the late Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, and Gerald Posner....and that's about it. But there are a lot of other people in the world who think Oswald killed JFK (and probably did it alone). Those people just don't hang out on JFK Internet forums every day of their lives.

which is funny, because even some of the WCers disagreed with their own report eventually. so which is it? were they right and then they were wrong?

and as far as numbers go - the millions who think SBT are STILL a minority, while you're comparing. and getting smaller. so put your numbers to the test before you try to make them work for you.

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

The main point I wanted but failed to make yesterday goes to the title of this diary: why you rattle cages here.

IMO, it's not just that your theory is the U.S. Government's theory. It's that your theory is simple and provides a confirmed (confirmed by government officials, agents, or witnesses) answer to all questions pertinent to the assassination.

Your theory is simple in that it has few parts, which fit together.

That in my estimation is both the strength and the weakness of your theory. It is strong because it is compact and arguably durable. It is weak because, to use the language of digital signal processing, it samples an incomplete spectrum of data.

It's as if there is a set of data points. Some data points have good value; some have questionable value -- maybe they're just noise, not signal. You arbitrarily assign value to the data points and disregard those you deem to have low value. And guess what? CT-ers do the same thing.

So the problem, after all, is not your sampling. You know how to sample. You have a good sampling algorithm. The problem from my standpoint boils down to how you assign value to data points.

IMO all commenters on the JFK assassination have the same problem. Brennan's testimony, for example, is one "data point". Most here assign zero value to it. You assign a non-zero value to it. The question is (I'm thinking like a judge), who is more reasonable in assigning value to Brennan's testimony: DVP or some knowledgable CT-er?

I leave the answer to Thomas Graves, among others.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Glenn Nall]

a) i take umbrage to "CT-ers do the same thing," especially in the context of being compared to DVPs tendency to do so. ALL CTers do not mis-assign values, and not nearly to the extent that he does (few do). And those who do to any great extent are soon ignored by their own, as well as the dark siders. ALL cannot be spoken for to begin with. you're welcome to qualify that with "some" or "many" or "most," but CT-ers do the same thing is incorrect.

yep, most of us assign a 0 to Brennan's claim - the main reason is because we can afford to; there is an ocean of other more valuable evidence with which we can work. Not so with SBTers. They cannot afford to scoot aside such potentially valuable evidence, because they have so little to turn to. It's vital to them to overemphasise the empty casings and the rifle and LHO's dodgy behaviour because they need a lot of points.

They are in a point deficit.

I was waiting for you to break open some good old fashioned AND Gate and OR Gate stuff - i tend to view it, too, in a 1s or 0s fashion (if else statements) which is known as - wait for it - logic. It works better though for me when I have to go with "if this" then "probably that" or "definitely that" and "unlikely that" instead of just "if this" then "that"; which takes it all back around to your value system, the need to assign varying values...

On a 1 - 100 scale, i give the empty casings on the 6th about a 15, whereas DVP seems to give them about a 90. 95... 98... i guess. and the more i read about the circumstances on that floor, the way the Detectives mishandled things, the way LHO's whereabouts are MORE THAN questionable, the more my value assignation to these casings changes. It becomes quite a complex circuit board when you keep adding variables.

and as far as the thread goes, it's my opinion that DVP simply does so on purpose. i think his own personal JFK ass. philosophy is mostly secondary to his intent to keep others from theirs. it reminds me of some toddlers i've known.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Jon G. Tidd]

Glenn Nall,

You make my point. You assign a value to the shell casings. DVP does too.