My contribution to the discussion about the future of this Forum

[Paz Marverde]

In the past few days, I saw people here saying the solution to this Forum's problems is to give more space to the most astonishing theories on JFK assassination. The more a theory is astonishing, the more it has the right to be here. On the other side, I saw people saying just the opposite: the more a theory is near to what the WC said, the more it has the right to be here.

What about, instead, an obligation to give evidence of what someone says, just like Jim DiEugenio, John Kowalski, Paul Brancato, Steve Thomas, David Josephs and others already do every day? It would be so simple ...

[Ron Ecker]

Paz,

Good suggestion, though even with evidence there are those who would call a theory "crap."

One of the best books on the assassination is James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable. And perhaps the best sentence in the book is on page 42: "We have no evidence as to who in the military-industrial complex may have given the order to assassinate President Kennedy. That the order was carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency is obvious. The CIA's fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it."

Yet there seems to be those who think that to say "the CIA did it" is almost as loony as to say "Oswald did it." (And others who think that to say "Oswald did it" isn't loony at all!) That's the way it is. But I certainly agree that evidence is just as important as language here.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Well, that would be nice I think.

Since most of us would tend to think the most evidence one has for one's ideas then the more credible they would appear to be.

But if one is to have an open forum--unlike DPF--then one has to allow people like DVP on the one hand, and PT and Mike Rago on the other, even though their ideas simply lack any credible evidence, let alone proof, e.g. see my review of Caufield's book.

As they say, you have to maintain minority rights.  

Edited March 21, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paz Marverde]

4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I certainly agree that evidence is just as important as language here.

Ron,

Thanks indeed for your kind comment. Well, I notice a coincidence: the ones using a bad language here are the same almost always avoiding to give evidence of what they say 

[Paz Marverde]

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

As they say, you have to maintain minority rights.

Jim,

I do thank you too.

Well, the most important right of all is to defend the truth 

[Mike Rago]

It is not just about evidence. You have to know how to "weigh" the evidence. For instance, photographic evidence should hold more weight than any other type of evidence. Evidence from the scene of the crime should hold more weight as well.

[Trygve V. Jensen]

Evidence : "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Proof : "a fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true"

Fact : "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information"

Truth : "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

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

But as someone of relative (no pun) significance once said: 

"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed."

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."

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

Is everything relative ? 
Is "everything" dependent on the observer ?

Ironically , - perhaps it depends who you ask ? 

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

Still : 

Sometimes one can feel that being polite, --- to show courtesy, - and to practice common decency (no matter how much some disagree with eachother) ---- is an "old fashioned" way of thinking; That these are of value.  

But one can cling to the hope that these factors are still worth something in our many ways - cynical world, - and should prevail. For instance here,  within this forum. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Trygve V. Jensen

[Mike Rago]

Here is a Sherlock Holmes quote for Trygve...

Quote

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Oh no.

Get ready for Rago/RIngler and his policeman on the knoll with a handgun.

[Mike Rago]

Mr. DiEugenio, I think your post violates the rules but I am not sure.

Here is the rule that I think you are breaking....

Accusations of Member Credibility:-

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is

using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members

at forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this

forum:-

 

Also, it is completely off the topic of this thread.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Mike Rago

[Trygve V. Jensen]

Thanks for the input.  Rusty as I am within this subject - I of course - out of curiousity, -- had to google Rago / Ringler, even though it may not have much with the original topic of the thread.

My own input was just intended as the "two cents" from this subjective view, - and to try in some way, - illustrate that the original poster's suggestion of a way to solve this forum's problems, (which I have not been a witness to - the last 6-8-10 years in partial) -- in order to reach simplicity, -- may be somewhat good, - but that simplicity in itself, - in general,- and within this topic , --- is hard/impossible to achieve. Again depending on the observer. 

Perhaps the complexity itself, is one of many reasons that some are still here , after all these years. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Mike Rago said:

It is not just about evidence. You have to know how to "weigh" the evidence. For instance, photographic evidence should hold more weight than any other type of evidence.

Factually incorrect.

Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence.

Photos can be faked.

[Mike Rago]

Agree, physical evidence trumps photographic evidence, sometimes.

Why do I say sometimes?

Lets pretend we have a bullet hole in a shirt and we also have a video of the shooting.

Here is a picture of JFK's jacket hanging on a hanger. It shows the bullet hole in the back.

And here is a photograph of the President riding in his car seconds before he was shot in the back. The photo shows the jacket was bunched up in the back.

 

Which carries more weight, the actual jacket with the bullet hole or the picture which shows how the jacket was oriented when the bullet was fired?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Mike Rago

[Cliff Varnell]

31 minutes ago, Mike Rago said:

Agree, physical evidence trumps photographic evidence, sometimes.

Why do I say sometimes?

Lets pretend we have a bullet hole in a shirt and we also have a video of the shooting.

Here is a picture of JFK's jacket hanging on a hanger. It shows the bullet hole in the back.

And here is a photograph of the President riding in his car seconds before he was shot in the back. The photo shows the jacket was bunched up in the back.

Of course the jacket was bunched in the back!

Bullet defect in the jacket -- 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet defect in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8th of an inch.

 

Quote

 

Which carries more weight, the actual jacket with the bullet hole or the picture which shows how the jacket was oriented when the bullet was fired?

There is no contradiction between the clothing and the Dealey Plaza photos.

Quote

The jacket dropped!

Notice the normal amount of shirt collar visible in the Towner frame on the left -- the jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

Mike Rago and Jim DiEugenio would have us believe that multiple inches of shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above the top of JFK's back without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of his neck.

The absurdity of this view is egregious.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Mike Rago]

I didn't ask you if there was a contradiction, I asked you which carried more weight, the physical evidence or the photographic evidence? The discussion is about how do we "weigh" the evidence. "Weighing" the evidence is not microanalyzing the evidence. It is part of the process of finding the facts.