David Josephs Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) There were a number of authors who Dulles saw as instrumental in our understanding of our world role... During the 50's and 60's the WORLD seemed to be running spy operations in every hot bed city... The CIA tried and became good at killing foreign leaders and/or influencing policy... But for a few fateful months in 1963 this world wide organization of "policy makers" STOPPED what they were doing to watch an amazingly connected man shoot and kill JFK all by his little self... or that's the story we've been SOLD... For those of the LNer ilk here... no item of evidence designed to establish Oswald's guilt has ever been offered which can authenticated as REAL EVIDENCE... the challenge remains in place to this day... LNers.. offer up AND AUTHENTICATE any item of evidence in the entire case... good luck Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen. The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality. The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing. The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony. ====== Yes... the entirety of US history and politics is about SELLING THE LIE AS TRUTH TO THE BEWILDERED HERDS All of these books/papers are available in PDF... For a true picture of the history of control exercised on the world's population by those with the means.. I can't recommend these enough. How We Advertised America, Propaganda, Modern Corp (highly recommended to understand the consolidation of wealth over the last 80 years) and the paper which becomes the impetus for Military PsyOps... Paddock's Psych and Unconventional.... Edited October 10, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 10, 2018 Author Share Posted October 10, 2018 18 hours ago, Lance Payette said: I've read a great deal about the conspiracy mindset. This is one of my pet interests. I don't believe that the above statements about the non-conspiracy mindset are true at all and have never read anything suggesting they are. Prosecutorial offices in which I was employed as a lawyer routinely charged conspiracies of all sorts. No one, including jurors, had any problem grasping what had taken place or was psychologically troubled by the fact that it had taken place in their community. The issue was simply, "Is there sufficient evidence to support what is being charged?" As previously stated, I've been deeply involved in many areas of Weirdness. In some of these, typically involving certain areas of science, the paranormal and theology, there are indeed conspiracies to suppress evidence and theories in order to preserve a particular paradigm. In some of these areas, the evidence that I find compelling and believe is being suppressed points toward Reality being far less tidy and secure than the governing paradigm. Most people who don't have the conspiracy mindset (and this is the large majority of people) are savvy enough to distinguish between an alleged conspiracy that is consistent with logic, common sense and the best evidence and one that is not. If the alleged conspiracy is consistent with logic, common sense and the best evidence, these people don't run from it even if accepting it arguably makes their world less tidy and secure. Many areas in which conspiracy thinking predominates are simply not of interest to many people. As unbelievable as it may seem to those of us neck-deep in ufology, many people simply don't care if the government is suppressing UFO evidence or the truth about the supposed crash at Roswell. It isn't that a UFO crash at Roswell would make these folks' world less tidy and secure or shred their childhood security blankets; they truly are more interested in day-to-day living than in whether a UFO crashed at Roswell. If the death of JFK were attributable to some deep, dark conspiracy, I wouldn't be troubled in the slightest. I don't think most people would. We'd love to know about it. Who, in this day of utter corruption throughout all levels of government and business and massive technological intrusion into every area of our lives, lives in this tidy childlike cocoon that you're talking about? Anyone? When it comes to JFK conspiracy theories, there are two fundamental problems: (1) There have been SO MANY diametrically opposed conspiracy theories, over SO MANY years, involving COMPLETELY DIFFERENT motivations and casts of characters, that it is difficult to take any of them seriously even if one has a completely open mind. The whole ball of wax tells us far less about the assassination of JFK than about the conspiracy mindset. (2) I at least have not encountered a conspiracy theory that stood up to logic, common sense and the best evidence. Ergo, as I would do with any issue, whether it involved an alleged conspiracy or not, I go where logic, common sense and the best evidence lead me. I don't find the Lone Nut scenario particularly tidy or comforting, but it does square with logic, common sense and the best evidence. I'm not going to be dissuaded by Conspiracy Logic or Conspiracy Sense, neither of which bears any relation to logic or common sense, but only by hard, no-question-about-it EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY. Some conspiracies achieve the level of a meme. Even people who really don't care about UFOs or JFK know from the noise that there is a huge amount of speculation about Roswell and JFK and "lots of evidence that isn't easily explained." They may actually know nothing about either incident except what they've gleaned from the noise around them. 97% of the noise, of course, is generated by those who promote non-mundane explanations and conspiracies. So I'm never surprised if some poll says 71% of Americans believe a flying saucer crashed at Roswell or Oswald didn't act alone. It means nothing. I wouldn't expect those who are in the grip of the conspiracy mindset to understand the conspiracy mindset. I would expect them to try to portray the non-conspiracy mindset as abnormal. The fact is, no one writes books about "Why Don't People Believe Harvey and Lee?" They do write books like "Why People Believe Weird Things?" (by Michael Shermer, whom I cite even though I do believe some things that Shermer thinks are weird). Google "Why do people love conspiracy theories?" and you'll find an abundance of credible evidence that precisely what you would like to believe about non-conspiracists is actually true of those with the conspiracy mindset. This is from Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/: Encouragingly, Uscinski and Parent found that education makes a difference in reducing conspiratorial thinking: 42 percent of those without a high school diploma are high in conspiratorial predispositions, compared with 23 percent with postgraduate degrees. Even so, that means more than one in five Americans with postgraduate degrees show a high predisposition for conspiratorial belief. As an educator, I find this disturbing. Other factors are at work in creating a conspiratorial mind. Uscinski and Parent note that in laboratory experiments “researchers have found that inducing anxiety or loss of control triggers respondents to see nonexistent patterns and evoke conspiratorial explanations” and that in the real world “there is evidence that disasters (e.g., earthquakes) and other high-stress situations (e.g., job uncertainty) prompt people to concoct, embrace, and repeat conspiracy theories.” Or from Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories, talking about a different research study: The researchers found that reasons for believing in conspiracy theories can be grouped into three categories: The desire for understanding and certainty The desire for control and security The desire to maintain a positive self-image One of the reader comments on the above article is remarkably perceptive: "My theory of why people like (love) conspiracy theories is - they get a physical rush from them … and they get addicted to that rush. Reasoning and believability go out the window once that addiction sets in hard, people just want that buzz - over and over and over. All they want to do is feed the conspiracy beast." Unless someone is so utterly naïve as to be living in a Leave It to Beaver world where all is still clean, tidy and good, I can't believe that anyone would be psychologically or emotionally driven to the Lone Nut explanation. "Yes, I need the Lone Nut explanation to preserve my Pollyanna vision of the world." Really - who has a Pollyanna vision of the world these days? Conspiracy thinking, however: Is emotionally satisfying - the Great Man was taken out by a Grand Conspiracy commensurate with his greatness. Helps explain to those who think America has gone to hell why it has gone to hell - the Grand Conspirators have been in control since 1963. And, of course, those who think America has gone to hell are often precisely those who idolize JFK and worship his memory. Conspiracy thinking helps make sense of a world that otherwise doesn't make sense to these folks. Is fun and can be a consuming hobby - way more fun than the Lone Nut explanation. It provides a sense of community that many people crave. Provides an opportunity for ordinary folks to become big fish in the conspiracy pond - to strut their stuff as "experts" on sites such as this, perhaps even to write books, produce videos and speak at conferences. In short, the JFK assassination provides almost the perfect arena for someone with the conspiracy mindset. I respectfully disagree. Sure you can point to research on why conspiracists are crazy nut jobs, I have read academic writings on this, but, is there research to show the anti conspiracists are any less sane? Admitting that conspiracies happen does disturb the mind that the world is not as neat and safe as they would like it to be. Your point that conspiracy thinking is "emotionally satisfying" can just as easily be said about anti conspiracists who have a superiority complex that they know better than the uneducated conspiracy nuts. Who wants to be put into that group right? Your point that it helps explain why America has gone where it has... I actually agree to some extent that there is a good amount of people who believe this and do worship JFK. No debate there. But, to an anti conspiracist, it can be said that the failure to see events like Fast and Furious, Iran Contra, JFK, RFK, MLK, The Gulf of Tonkin- you have to admit this, etc. for what they were has also caused disillusionment with our government within our society. Yes, it is now approaching French Revolutionary times. I am often amazed how many people are LHO did it thinkers yet think everything our President does is a conspiracy. Your point it is fun and a hobby, more so than lone nut (which I rarely use I am quoting you) is just absurd. When I wrote about Posner's amazing book while I was in Law School, I was amazed at the psychological tactics employed to portray any thinking outside the w.c. theory as being ilogical and nonsensical. This was intellectually dishonest as in so many parts of the book Posner either points out incorrect information or fails, intentionally or negligently, to discuss evidence to the contrary. I realized the, clearly, saying you are in the correct side and not the wacky conspiracists gives one a sense of superiority to look down on the crazies. For many who take it seriously, I do not think it is fun. Being on the side of the crazies is difficult for people with good reputations. I have discussed this case with a physician, dentist, and physicist. When I asked them to go on the record (as they disagreed with the w.c. findings and had important information to present) and be taped for a documentary, they all said they could not risk their reputations. I often feel the same way. Think about that. Does it provide an arena for a conspiracist mindset? Sure. So does Monroe, UFO's etc. So does the Lincoln assassination, Julius Caesar, the Gulf of Tonkin, etc. which were real conspiracies. To live life denying that conspiracies exist is just as much as a delusion as someone who thinks everything that happens to them is caused by a conspiracy. In summation, calling all LHO did it nuts is just as wrong as calling all conspiracists nuts. Some people, such as myself, do not believe everything that happens is a conspiracy. But, we are open to evidence pointing to such. When the CIA admits it was part of a coverup regarding the investigation, and the CIA was in a conspiracy with the mafia to kill Castro, and there is past precedent for conspiracies to kill a U.S. President, why is it so hard to believe a conspiracy to kill JFK happened? This is not a crazy leap to put these things together as you suggest. Last point, 40-50 years ago, people like you would be calling people crazy for suggesting the government worked with the mafia to get Castro. People like you would be saying all these same things you are saying now. Except, history has proven one side right and one side wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: history has proven one side right and one side wrong. Over and over, ... and over again... Vietnam was not escalated to prevent the spread of communism but to foster the rise of the USA & SE Asia as the center for Heroin production in the world.. 40 years later we did the same exact thing with Afghanistan... and the Taliban leaders ... all to maintain control over the world drug supply... President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war. FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by - denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI) on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet. And most recently, try this experiment related to motion and physics: Take an aluminum airplane sitting on the ground, and drop a 100 story steel-framed and reinforced building on it at 500mph... We going find a squished plane.... or will the plane be mostly intact but now on the inside of this building? What does happen when a softer object hits a harder one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 26 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: I respectfully disagree. Sure you can point to research on why conspiracists are crazy nut jobs, I have read academic writings on this, but, is there research to show the anti conspiracists are any less sane? You were the one who broadly characterized those who reject conspiracies as "psychologically wanting to go back to when they were children and feel safe." I simply pointed out that serious studies have demonstrated that what you and others are saying about the non-conspiracy mindset is in fact precisely what is true of the conspiracy mindset. Certainly there are real conspiracies. Certainly some theories of all types that once seemed wacky are now accepted as true. I've never met anyone who rejects all conspiracy theories out of hand. I don't know anyone whose perspective on conspiracies suggests a psychological desire to go back to when they were children and feel safe. I've never read any research that supports this. Certainly the notion that JFK was the victim of a massive conspiracy that continues to this day, or that the government is concealing the presence of aliens in our skies and on our planet, is more frightening than the notion that six druggies are conspiring in San Diego. I don't believe, and I don't know of any research to suggest, that the mere fact that these notions are more frightening causes those who don't share the conspiracy mindset to hide from them. The conspiracy mindset is a well-documented phenomenon that exists in a minority of people for well-documented reasons. It doesn't mean they are crazy or delusional (likewise, it doesn't mean they aren't). There is no corresponding "non-conspiracy mindset" such as you are attempting to suggest. Those who have the conspiracy mindset are prone to see conspiracies where others aren't. "Conspiracy" is their preferred explanation for events such as the Kennedy assassination. This doesn't mean that they are always wrong. It merely means that while those without the conspiracy mindset are able to view the same events without the "conspiracy bias," those with the conspiracy bias view everything through this lens. Those without the conspiracy bias evaluate conspiracy theories according to logic, common sense, evidence and reasonable inferences. The conspiracy mindset does skew one's thinking. Those with this mindset may be quicker to recognize real conspiracies, but they are also the only ones who embrace conspiracies theories that other people recognize as lacking logic, common sense, solid evidence and reasonable inferences. How many times on these forums is the tone COMPLETE ASTONISHMENT and INCREDULITY that someone such as myself CAN'T SEE HOW OBVIOUS the conspiracy is??? How dense and blind can I be??? Am I delusional or part of the conspiracy or what??? Yet the reality is that I am highly intelligent, highly educated, highly analytical, psychologically sound according to all the tests, and well-acquainted with the evidence. The answer is simply that I am in the majority of people who lack the conspiracy mindset and those who are incredulous are in the minority who have the conspiracy mindset. If and when a conspiracy theory comes along that is more consistent with logic, common sense, evidence and reasonable inferences than the Lone Nut explanation, I'll adopt it without regard to any psychological desire to go back to childhood and feel safe. I don't believe that most conspiracy theorists can say the same. They are so completely in the grip of the conspiracy mindset that the Lone Nut explanation is off the table. (You do realize that Lone Nut refers to Oswald, not to the people who accept this explanation? I take no umbrage at being called a Lone Nutter.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 10, 2018 Author Share Posted October 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: You were the one who broadly characterized those who reject conspiracies as "psychologically wanting to go back to when they were children and feel safe." I simply pointed out that serious studies have demonstrated that what you and others are saying about the non-conspiracy mindset is in fact precisely what is true of the conspiracy mindset. Certainly there are real conspiracies. Certainly some theories of all types that once seemed wacky are now accepted as true. I've never met anyone who rejects all conspiracy theories out of hand. I don't know anyone whose perspective on conspiracies suggests a psychological desire to go back to when they were children and feel safe. I've never read any research that supports this. Certainly the notion that JFK was the victim of a massive conspiracy that continues to this day, or that the government is concealing the presence of aliens in our skies and on our planet, is more frightening than the notion that six druggies are conspiring in San Diego. I don't believe, and I don't know of any research to suggest, that the mere fact that these notions are more frightening causes those who don't share the conspiracy mindset to hide from them. The conspiracy mindset is a well-documented phenomenon that exists in a minority of people for well-documented reasons. It doesn't mean they are crazy or delusional (likewise, it doesn't mean they aren't). There is no corresponding "non-conspiracy mindset" such as you are attempting to suggest. Those who have the conspiracy mindset are prone to see conspiracies where others aren't. "Conspiracy" is their preferred explanation for events such as the Kennedy assassination. This doesn't mean that they are always wrong. It merely means that while those without the conspiracy mindset are able to view the same events without the "conspiracy bias," those with the conspiracy bias view everything through this lens. Those without the conspiracy bias evaluate conspiracy theories according to logic, common sense, evidence and reasonable inferences. The conspiracy mindset does skew one's thinking. Those with this mindset may be quicker to recognize real conspiracies, but they are also the only ones who embrace conspiracies theories that other people recognize as lacking logic, common sense, solid evidence and reasonable inferences. How many times on these forums is the tone COMPLETE ASTONISHMENT and INCREDULITY that someone such as myself CAN'T SEE HOW OBVIOUS the conspiracy is??? How dense and blind can I be??? Am I delusional or part of the conspiracy or what??? Yet the reality is that I am highly intelligent, highly educated, highly analytical, psychologically sound according to all the tests, and well-acquainted with the evidence. The answer is simply that I am in the majority of people who lack the conspiracy mindset and those who are incredulous are in the minority who have the conspiracy mindset. If and when a conspiracy theory comes along that is more consistent with logic, common sense, evidence and reasonable inferences than the Lone Nut explanation, I'll adopt it without regard to any psychological desire to go back to childhood and feel safe. I don't believe that most conspiracy theorists can say the same. They are so completely in the grip of the conspiracy mindset that the Lone Nut explanation is off the table. (You do realize that Lone Nut refers to Oswald, not to the people who accept this explanation? I take no umbrage at being called a Lone Nutter.) I agree that some conspiracists feel that way and the research applies to a "minority" of people as you suggest. My problem is you are lumping anyone who believe a conspiracy existed in Dallas that day as one of these people with conspiracy derangement syndrome or whatever you would like to call it. There are people, like myself, who view the evidence as supporting this conclusion, yet, your statements suggest that this is not due to the evidence but a disorder of some kind. I personally do not believe aliens are on this planet. There are many instances I do not believe in conspiracies. One of the reasons I came to this site was to dispel many of the conspiracy theories which have no academic, legal, or scientific basis. I wanted to add to the quality of the discussion, not merely bring it down with insane ideas that Jackie did it. Nonetheless, my point remains about your oversimplification of the research on this subject. Moreover, you have proven another point I have. Some people simply cannot acknowledge psychologically that conspiracies exist. This is also a disorder which has not been studied. I wonder why? Perhaps that is a conspiracy to control the masses? Who knows? I can say this, however, to dispel evidence by using parlor psychology simply is not intellectually honest. Debate disputed facts, argue motive, means, etc. My original point in this was that one hears over and over, that conspiracists cant accept that a single lone nut (thank you, I know what it means) killed this great president. I am saying, the reverse needs to be looked at as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 “Much of someone's real character lies in what they don't say about themselves.” “Self-praise is the first sign of insecurity.” "A fool flatters himself, a wise man flatters the fool." 7 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: Yet the reality is that I am highly intelligent, highly educated, highly analytical, psychologically sound according to all the tests, and well-acquainted with the evidence And you've done such a fine job applying these attributes too... 23 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: Certainly there are real conspiracies. Certainly some theories of all types that once seemed wacky are now accepted as true. And therein lies the problem Lance.... but I'm sure your big brain will have no problem following... A THEORY is either PROVEN true or not... BELIEFS are "accepted as true" despite there being no evidence to support them... You BELIEVE that LHO killed JFK despite numerous investigations' inability to prove so... and one of them concluding the death was the result of a conspiracy... (oops) You, "accept as true" the belief LHO is guilty despite the evidence for such conclusion being not only woefully inadequate but provably wrong. So really, all you need do in your little proof is to get Oswald to his rifle in the bag where he stowed it that morning.... .... to the window, assembled and sighted and ready to fire when all the public information puts him there.... You never wonder why, if JFK is expected at the Trade Mart at 12:15, and passing by the TSBD 5-10 mins before that, our little shooter is not even up put on the 6th floor until after 12:15? You see Lance, since you can't PROVE anything, theories like the Silly Bullet go UNPROVEN and therefore live in the world of BELIEF inside your head... It is truly a sad state when highly intelligent people like yourself are so easily fooled by simple propaganda and sleight of hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 10, 2018 Author Share Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, David Josephs said: “Much of someone's real character lies in what they don't say about themselves.” “Self-praise is the first sign of insecurity.” "A fool flatters himself, a wise man flatters the fool." And you've done such a fine job applying these attributes too... And therein lies the problem Lance.... but I'm sure your big brain will have no problem following... A THEORY is either PROVEN true or not... BELIEFS are "accepted as true" despite there being no evidence to support them... You BELIEVE that LHO killed JFK despite numerous investigations' inability to prove so... and one of them concluding the death was the result of a conspiracy... (oops) You, "accept as true" the belief LHO is guilty despite the evidence for such conclusion being not only woefully inadequate but provably wrong. So really, all you need do in your little proof is to get Oswald to his rifle in the bag where he stowed it that morning.... .... to the window, assembled and sighted and ready to fire when all the public information puts him there.... You never wonder why, if JFK is expected at the Trade Mart at 12:15, and passing by the TSBD 5-10 mins before that, our little shooter is not even up put on the 6th floor until after 12:15? You see Lance, since you can't PROVE anything, theories like the Silly Bullet go UNPROVEN and therefore live in the world of BELIEF inside your head... It is truly a sad state when highly intelligent people like yourself are so easily fooled by simple propaganda and sleight of hand... I would add, whenever I was on the fence regarding JFK... all I needed to do is look at Lee Bowers testimony about the cars in the parking lot and it looked like they had their hands up to their mouths as if they had radios, and then see the DCM sitting on elm street- the closest man outside the car to the President when he is shot, who had his hand raised and closed in a "stop" signal- then take what clearly appears to be a radio with a long antenna and look up in the direction of the grassy knoll. As a college student I was aware of this. Now as a trial attorney, it is more evidence. There is other evidence also, but, that is another time and another story. The DCM. That is not a strange coincidence. Not at all. Edited October 10, 2018 by Cory Santos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) David and Cory, I think you're unwittingly making my points for me. This thread seemed to be about something other than Whac-A-Mole, but in the hands of conspiracy zealots every discussion devolves into Whac-A-Mole. "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" I decline to play. I rest my case. (David, I'm sorry you're offended but I am not strutting my stuff - which, believe me, I could do. My contributions here stand or fall on their own merits, for anyone to judge as they see fit. Perhaps you're the one who is insecure, having ended up with egg on your face on more than one occasion? I am simply making the point that anyone who disagrees with those who possess the conspiracy mindset is immediately ridiculed as a hopeless dolt - pretty much just as you are doing here - without regard to the obvious reality. This zealotry is characteristic of - yes, that's right - the conspiracy mindset. When Cliff Varnell of all people accuses me of being a Lone Nut "fundamentalist" and a Harvey and Lee True Believer like David accuses me of being "fooled by simple propaganda and sleight of hand," let the record reflect that my day has been made.) Edited October 10, 2018 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 The JFK assassination is a very very odd subject for the application of Conspiracy theories because of the uncertainty over what the 'Official' version of events is. Is there any other disputed piece of history where officialdom has attempted to improve the original findings of fact (HSCA) and have Less supporters than the original (Warren)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: When Cliff Varnell of all people accuses me of being a Lone Nut "fundamentalist" Think it thru here, Lance...You were the first to fling that epithet, and I shoved it right back in your face. I wouldn't say you're a dolt for not grasping the significance of physical evidence in a homicide -- I'd just guess you're a lousy lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 10, 2018 Author Share Posted October 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: David and Cory, I think you're unwittingly making my points for me. This thread seemed to be about something other than Whac-A-Mole, but in the hands of conspiracy zealots every discussion devolves into Whac-A-Mole. "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" I decline to play. I rest my case. (David, I'm sorry you're offended but I am not strutting my stuff - which, believe me, I could do. My contributions here stand or fall on their own merits, for anyone to judge as they see fit. Perhaps you're the one who is insecure, having ended up with egg on your face on more than one occasion? I am simply making the point that anyone who disagrees with those who possess the conspiracy mindset is immediately ridiculed as a hopeless dolt - pretty much just as you are doing here - without regard to the obvious reality. This zealotry is characteristic of - yes, that's right - the conspiracy mindset. When Cliff Varnell of all people accuses me of being a Lone Nut "fundamentalist" and a Harvey and Lee True Believer like David accuses me of being "fooled by simple propaganda and sleight of hand," let the record reflect that my day has been made.) Lance, you are making my point. . . again. You refer, apparently, to David and I as a conspiracy zealots. No clue why. Other than JFK you have no idea what I believe other than what I stated above, that I do not believe in aliens visiting our planet. You might but I don't. My points above were as clear as they can be. Conspiracists are branded by people like you who then claim you are the victims of conspiracists attacking you. Maybe you are. But, my point is it goes both ways psychologically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 10, 2018 Author Share Posted October 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said: The JFK assassination is a very very odd subject for the application of Conspiracy theories because of the uncertainty over what the 'Official' version of events is. Is there any other disputed piece of history where officialdom has attempted to improve the original findings of fact (HSCA) and have Less supporters than the original (Warren)? Titanic Inquiry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Think it thru here, Lance...You were the first to fling that epithet, and I shoved it right back in your face. I wouldn't say you're a dolt for not grasping the significance of physical evidence in a homicide -- I'd just guess you're a lousy lawyer. Being a fundamentalist is not an epithet. Many people proudly wear the label. I would say without any derogatory connotation that you are the ultimate fundamentalist on these forums. You have a reasoned basis for your fundamentalism, unlike those I characterize as True Believers. I don't happen to be a Lone Nut fundamentalist or True Believer. I have simply found the Lone Nut explanation to be the most convincing at this point in time. To a conspiracy zealot, anyone who argues on behalf of the Lone Nut explanation must by definition be a fundamentalist in a derogatory sense; it's part and parcel of the conspiracy mindset. The one thing that I as a trained and experienced lawyer have that you don't is the ability to think and analyze like a lawyer. Despite your illusion that your position is based solely on the physical evidence, it is in fact not. It is a myopic position based on a single piece of physical evidence and what you interpret that evidence as demonstrating on the basis of what certain persons say they observed. This is quite different from, say, a handgun that has been scientifically identified as the murder weapon and as having the accused's fingerprints on it. Others more qualified than you or I do not focus solely on this piece of physical evidence and, moreover, do not share your interpretation of it. Based on the evidence as a whole and the alternative explanations for the physical evidence on which you myopically focus, I simply do not share your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Lance Payette said: Being a fundamentalist is not an epithet. That's bullshed, barrister. Here' s what you wrote on the Freak thread: In the main, conspiracy theorists just don't live in the real world when it comes to their pet theories. The theory has become essentially a fundamentalist religion. Quote Many people proudly wear the label. I would say without any derogatory connotation that you are the ultimate fundamentalist on these forums. Bingo! Here's a word not just for Lance Payette but all the posters who've given me shed the last 21 years for stressing the primacy of physical evidence in a murder case -- and you are legion, "LN" and "CT" both. Y'all a bunch of poseurs who'd do the world a favor and find another pastime! Quote Others more qualified than you or I do not focus solely on this piece of physical evidence and, moreover, do not share your interpretation of it. -- No one is more qualified than I to speak on the clothing evidence. I'm related to the world's leading textile conservator, a two time winner of the LA Drama Critics Circle Award for Costume Design. Quote Based on the evidence as a whole and the alternative explanations for the physical evidence on which you myopically focus, I simply do not share your position. Not much of "an attention to detail" man, are you, Lance? I cited the consensus T3 back wound witnesses, the contemporaneous reports of 4 Federal agents, and two verified medical documents. You can't process that information because you are in denial of your True Belief. Edited October 10, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now