I understand why people hate conspiracies

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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.

I'm sure we're boring everyone, including ourselves, but what is your point?  I don't believe that most conspiracy theorists live in the real world insofar as their pet theories are concerned.  I do believe that they have elevated dubious (and sometimes comical) theories to the status of fundamentalist religions to be defended at all costs.  Some Lone Nutters have done the same, although I'm always puzzled as to why anyone would have the same emotion invested in the Lone Nut explanation.  When I specifically addressed you, I respectfully said that your position was a reasoned one that I could understand someone holding, but the fact is that you are indeed a one-dimensional fundamentalist.  If you consider that an epithet, I won't twist your arm arguing with you.

I'm related to the world's leading textile conservator, a two time winner of the LA Drama Critics Circle Award for Costume Design.

I'm not sure I'd admit that, but congratulations.  Let us know his or her views on the Shroud of Turin.  I'm related to Sir Anthony Eden, the former Prime Minister of England, but I'm not sure how much mileage I can get out of it here.

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.

Yes, I am quite an attention-to-detail person, as I have demonstrated on these forums by exposing several embarrassing mistakes by conspiracy theorists with one hand tied behind my brain.  I am well-aware of everything you cited.  I did not just fall off the JFK turnip truck.  I simply don't share your conclusions.

 

 

[David Josephs]

Mr. Payette...

So many like yourself come here to test the waters of their insanity. 
It has become painfully obvious that you argue for the pure joy of it...  like so many self-delusional wanna-be "great" legal minds. 
Show off that Big Brain of yours...

If you actually had a legal mind you would make convincing arguments in support of your positions instead of waxing philosophical over terms you invent.

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

My contributions here stand or fall on their own merits, for anyone to judge as they see fit.

Ok, let's take a look at this "contribution"...

A total of 4 threads started by Mr. Payette Since 2015... the last one in Dec '17... the first 2 in 2015 got a total of 2 replies (both of them yours)
this first one sure seems to suggest you think Oswald was involved in a Conspiracy

Your wrote this - Posted September 23, 2015   
"Even if there had been no JFK assassination, the entire no-problem defection, marriage to the mysterious Marina ("This was no ordinary Russian girl," as my wife says), and no-problem return to the U.S. was so bizarre and near-inexplicable that it would be enough in itself to tell us LHO was involved in something much larger than himself"

You also mention your wife worked at the same factory in Minsk... followed by the post clarifying - "2 years after he left"...   real helpful Lance!

On March 8, 2016 you start a thread and in 3 pages of replies, you are involved in only 1 of them...
Since your initial view, you seem to have had a change of heart in 6 months

I’ve been struck by what a high percentage of those in the JFK assassination research community who accept the assassination as an elaborate conspiracy also seem to have left or far-left political leanings.

Some of the best minds in JFK research addressed your comment yet you go running off, tail between your legs...   Well done.

And Finally, to prove my point about this being purely a poor excuse for a way to pass your time, you start your last thread with:

I feel sure this has been discussed to death here, but for my own amusement I decided to take a look at yet another Harvey & Lee claim, to wit (from the H&L website):

You then go on to show off how your big brain hasn't the first clue on how to approach the subject matter, or the people working with it...  It is interesting that you choose one of the few conclusions within H&L that I do not support.  The real fact the records were heavily altered does not change the reality of who went where, when.

Is it normal for lawyers of your caliber to offer conclusions without doing any of the work involved... or is that just you?   

And then, since you haven't the ability to sway any of the jury here judging your offerings, it must be a cognitive problem related to how people understand conspiracies.
What a joke.  Looking thru these threads - you simply don't have the stick-too-it-ness to remain in a debate once you see you can't win the day or sway anyone's thoughts...  but then again, you're only here for your OWN AMUSEMENT...

And the best for last...   just a few hours ago:

As someone who practiced law for more than 35 years, 95% civil but about 5% criminal (prosecution), I really don't believe it is helpful to attempt to introduce evidentiary rules or burdens of proof into an Internet discussion.  Reasonable inferences from the evidence are always permitted. 

 

Now, why in the world would things like EVIDENTIARY RULES, or BURDENS OF PROOF be worth a bucket of warm spit here on the ole Ed Forum?

Oh, right, cause Oswald never stood trial and the evidence we discuss needs some basis for acceptance as REAL and AUTHENTICATED evidence.... 

Whereas your level of acceptance is "Reasonable inference" ...

-------

So here are 2 reasonable inferences from the evidence I'd like you to address with that Big Brain...

Oswald was being watched by FBI, US Postal Service, CIA and who knows who else... A report on Oswald was filed on April 21 in fact... that he sent a letter and gotten letters from NY's FPCC.

Reasonable inference - if Oswald was to receive a rifle and pistol in the mail at his PO Box, the US Postal Service and/or the FBI would be aware of said purchase and note it accordingly as they did with all the other Oswald reporting that was done in 1963

Why is there not a single report - or even cursory mention - of Oswald picking up a 5' carton with a rifle in it (or going to REA for the pistol), bringing it home (somehow), cleaning and practicing with it.... between receipt of said rifle on March 27, 1963 and the discover over November 22/23, 1963 that their man Oswald had indeed purchased this rifle in the name of A Hidell at Oswald's PO Box?

==

The other concerns the Summary Reports from MX City CIA station related to LIENVOY phone conversations with the Soviet compound in MX, of interest.

Reasonable inference - if Oswald was in Mexico City making phone calls to the Soviets on Sept 27th and 28th, the monthly summary report for Sept would discuss the implications of such a visit...

Why is there no mention at all of an American on the phone to the Soviet Military Attache AND the Embassy... in the summary report from Oct 8th, the day David Atlee Phillips begins his new position as Chief of the Cuban Desk in MX City.... Yet there is plenty of evidence of calls and travel etc... after the fact

 

So you see Lance, "Reasonable Inference" and the JFK assassination are oxymoronic...  the evidence was produced AFTER NOV 22 in such a way as to establish Oswald's guilt, yet it remained impossible to retrofit contemporaneous reporting to match manufactured conclusion...

Have fun...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by David Josephs

[Cliff Varnell]

35 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I'm sure we're boring everyone, including ourselves, but what is your point? 

That you used the word "fundamentalist" as a pejorative.

Then you tried to deny the connotation.

Quasi-slippery, barrister.

When I specifically addressed you, I respectfully said that your position was a reasoned one that I could understand someone holding, but the fact is that you are indeed a one-dimensional fundamentalist.  If you consider that an epithet, I won't twist your arm arguing with you.

You don't follow my work at all.

You are making assumptions prior to investigation.

When I specifically addressed you, I respectfully said that your position was a reasoned one that I could understand someone holding, but the fact is that you are indeed a one-dimensional fundamentalist.  If you consider that an epithet, I won't twist your arm arguing with you.

You can't factually challenge anything I've cited.

The evidence of the T3 back wound is irrefutable, but your True Belief will not allow you to acknowledge it.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

one-dimensional fundamentalist.

Original research, bey-otch.

Ellen J. Hammer, A Death in November, pg 156:

<quote on, emphasis in the original>

When [Diem and Nhu] had first claimed that Americans were active behind the scenes in the agitation spreading in Saigon, they had sounded paranoid – a favorite word among Americans for Diem and Nhu that summer.  But who could disbelieve [David] Halberstam, with his excellent sources in the Central Intelligence Agency, when he reported that the CIA had been openly sending its agents into the pagodas and making daily contact with Buddhist priests and “other participants in this crisis”?  These agents were acting under orders – and they did not go to the pagodas to discuss the finer points of Buddhism.

<quote off>

No, the CIA's Far East cowboys weren’t discussing the finer points of Buddhism – they were teaching American-style public relations.

Roger Hilsman:  Buddhists bit – tasted a little bit of political blood.  Bit harder – tasted more political blood -- and then finally began to use American television.  None of them spoke English but their signs were all in English.

(36.53)

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Mr. Payette...

David, your commitment to the cause of Harvey and Lee is the envy of the high priests of Scientology.  If I upset you that much, ignore me.

I do indeed have a fairly large brain.  I do indeed like to exercise it.  I do indeed find forums such as this intellectually challenging and amusing.  You couldn't upset me to the extent that I apparently upset you if you posted compromising photos of me and goat.  I am emotionally and intellectually bullet-proof and, moreover, who killed JFK is of strictly academic interest to me.

As I've clearly stated, I've been a gung-ho conspiracy theorist.  I never even considered the Lone Nut explanation until a few years ago.  I merely flitted from one conspiracy tome to the next with a gee-whiz naivete.  I even bought Harvey and Lee with great expectations at the recommendation of Walt Brown after reading every word of his massive chronology.  The conspiracy theories are as superficially appealing to me as to everyone else.  I can argue why a conspiracy HAS to be the answer as well as anyone else.

Alas for the conspiracy world, I decided to leave the world of superficiality behind and dive deeply into the life and psychology of LHO and the arguments of the Lone Nut community.  At the end of that quest, I clung to the possibility of a small-scale assassination conspiracy and then eventually could no longer even cling to that.  I would think that such a journey would give me a measure of credibility - but no, I am a TRAITOR!  I must be SHUNNED, even EXCOMMUNICATED if possible!

As I said, your particular cause, Harvey and Lee, was the last straw.  The scales fell from my eyes, as the saying goes.  For a Harvey and Lee True Believer to refer to my "insanity" - well, I may have that priceless gem embroidered on a doily and mounted on the wall.

I find the JFK case fascinating precisely because it does have evidence pointing in diverse directions and does provide the fodder for so many wild theories that have utterly nothing in common but are propounded with religious zeal by those who promote them.  The JFK conspiracy community is the mother lode for anyone interested in the conspiracy mindset.  If this weren't my primary interest, I probably wouldn't be here at all because I have only limited interest in all the assassination minutiae that has been beaten to death for five decades.  I think I've made pretty clear that this is where my interest really lies.

If I can contribute something substantive, as I did with the postal money order nonsense, the LHO birth certificate nonsense and your photo of the 5'-7" (not) Oswald stand-in, I'm happy to do.  Moreover, my wife is indeed from Minsk, does speak fluent Russian, and her sister did work at the radio factory and knew people who knew Oswald.  These substantive interactions likewise are opportunities to observe the conspiracy mindset in action.  But, no, I am certainly not a Serious Researcher in the sense of someone who is going to wade through 15,000 documents in the hope of finding an Oswald pay stub from the CIA.

The culture of this forum is, of course, exceedingly liberal and heavily dominated by conspiracy theorists.  I am neither liberal nor a conspiracy theorist, so inevitably I am going to provoke posts such as yours.  I welcome posts like yours because they serve to make my points about the conspiracy mindset.  If I have any "cause" here beyond exercising my brain and amusing myself, it is simply to expose the curious workings of the conspiracy mindset and perhaps give lurkers who may be on the fence a reason to approach the assassination from a perspective of logic and common sense rather than Conspiracy Logic and Conspiracy Sense.

Truly, I wouldn't let Lance upset me as much as he apparently upsets you.  The extent to which I apparently do upset you and others gives me hope that perhaps you recognize that lurkers are paying attention to my views.  If that isn't it, why DO I (or any other Lone Nutter) get under your skin to such an extent?

[Denny Zartman]

On 10/9/2018 at 12:01 AM, Cory Santos said:

I think that when we hear people vilify conspiracy talk or conspiracists even though there is logic, science, or facts to some extent supporting their belief, psychologically, its really simple.  Conspiracy talk makes them uncomfortable.  They cant handle it.  That people are out there conspiring to do something.

Psychologically, they want to go back to when they were children and feel safe. 

Hmm. I would guess that some of them can handle the talk about conspiracies. Why else would they return to debate the same set of facts again and again if it didn't hold some sort of appeal? Perhaps the appeal is in the game-like aspect of this debate that has been compared by some to "Whac-A-Mole." To me, the comparison is only apt if we realize that the person whacking the moles is also denying that there is a mole problem. When problems constantly come up for your case, perhaps that indicates your case has some problems.

I think part of people's general opinions on the JFK conspiracy theorists are is that they've been exposed to some of the more dubious theories, and assume that most if not all CT's are guided by a pre-conceived conclusion. Admittedly, some are, but not all. There are people out there who are genuinely trying to sort out this puzzle. You'd think that with all these people thinking about all this evidence for all these years, we'd be able to get close to some objective truth, but in reality we can't even agree if Oswald could drive or not.

While some CT's may be guided by a pre-conceived conclusion, there's no question that all LN's are also following their own pre-conceived conclusion: That Oswald did it all alone. CT's are often criticized for not having the same theory and not having all the answers, but the LN's can't even offer a credible and consistent motive for the accused assassin.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You don't follow my work at all.

You are making assumptions prior to investigation.

I have followed the substance of the Single Bullet Theory debate, here and elsewhere, and have seen numerous of your posts.  I recall even some of your fellow conspiracy theorists saying in effect "Cliff, either say something new or give it a rest."  To keep beating the same drum does get a little tiresome, don't you think - or is this what you mean by "weaponizing"?  Are you the Ninja Conspiracy Theorist?

The evidence of the T3 back wound is irrefutable, but your True Belief will not allow you to acknowledge it.

Then why waste your time here?  More specifically, why waste your time with me?  Publish your "irrefutable" work where it will do some good.  Get it endorsed by reputable members of the scientific community and published in a recognized, peer-reviewed medical or forensic journal.  Or have you attempted this and discovered that not everyone shares your view that it's irrefutable?

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

Then why waste your time here?  More specifically, why waste your time with me?  Publish your "irrefutable" work where it will do some good.  Get it endorsed by reputable members of the scientific community and published in a recognized, peer-reviewed medical or forensic journal.  Or have you attempted this and discovered that not everyone shares your view that it's irrefutable?

I have made this same suggestion repeatedly Lance to several members here. But you see, they can't because the "evil conspiracy" controls the media and academia and no one will listen to them.

[Cliff Varnell]

Lance, the format of your response with the blue text in my quote box makes reply difficult.

You haven't challenged anything I've written factually.

Anyone who thinks I should give the primacy of physical evidence in a murder case "a rest" can go fk themselves.

The reason I don't publish is because the evidence is obvious.

I don't believe in anyone trying to make a name for themselves pointing out the obvious.

There is a strong tendency to ascribe possession of the historical record to the one doing the research.

James DiEugenio once referred to JFK's coat dismissively as "Epstein's jacket" because Edward Epstein was the first guy to write up the clothing evidence (borrowed Salandria's research without attribution). 

I don't own the obvious.  If you or anyone else can't muster the cognition to observe the movement of your own shirt I could care less.

Your conclusion to the contrary isn't based on fact, it's purely an emotional response.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

50 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have made this same suggestion repeatedly Lance to several members here. But you see, they can't because the "evil conspiracy" controls the media and academia and no one will listen to them.

No, that's not how the cover-up went down, in my book.

Plan A was to frame Oswald as an agent of the Reds but when he was captured alive that plan imploded so they went to Plan B -- Oswald as Lone Nut.

In the summer of 1966 journalist Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence and the author of the Single Bullet Theory had an emotional breakdown.

Plan B lay in tatters.

Then in November of 1966 LIFE magazine published "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," a front cover presenting John Connally's micro-analysis of the Zapruder film and a call to re-open the case.  Seems to me LIFE Magazine was attempting to monetize off the controversy, but the practical impact of this bomb-shell was to establish the "Question of Conspiracy" Parlor Game, the back-and-forth debate which ignored the clothing evidence completely.

"A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" is a Big Lie.  There is no reasonable doubt that JFK's movements displaced a fraction of an inch of his shirt.  This fact preempts the Parlor Game, which is why so many people are hostile to the clothing evidence.

The Parlor Game became the prevailing group think in JFK research, and those in the journalistic and academic community were confronted with a field of study riddled with rabbit holes.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Lance, the format of your response with the blue text in my quote box makes reply difficult.

No it doesn't.  You just

reply in a different color.  I actually think it's easier to follow, but I will cease and desist if it makes you happy.

You haven't challenged anything I've written factually.

Anyone who thinks I should give the primacy of physical evidence in a murder case "a rest" can go fk themselves.

For someone who no longer does Fake Debate, you're doing a pretty good impression of someone who does Fake Debate.

The reason I don't publish is because the evidence is obvious.

I don't believe in anyone trying to make a name for themselves pointing out the obvious.

Right, gotcha.  That's basically why I don't write the Great American Novel.  I'd just be strutting my stuff and depriving others of the opportunity.  Come on, get real.  You generate 4,824 posts here, largely preaching to the choir, but publishing the "obvious" in a peer-reviewed journal would be unseemly.  Go ahead and try - then you can post the rejection slip saying "Come on, Cliff, this stuff is just too obvious for our readers."

There is a strong tendency to ascribe possession of the historical record to the one doing the research.

James DiEugenio once referred to JFK's coat dismissively as "Epstein's jacket" because Edward Epstein was the first guy to write up the clothing evidence (borrowed Salandria's research without attribution). 

I don't own the obvious.  If you or anyone else can't muster the cognition to observe the movement of your own shirt I could care less.

I know your modesty is holding you back, but "Cliff's Irrefutable Solution" has such a nice ring to it.  Can't we prevail upon you to throw modesty to the wind and submit your work to a peer-reviewed journal even if you must forever be burdened with the label of The Man Who Finally Put the JFK Controversy to Rest?  Come on, weaponize this thing big guy!

Your conclusion to the contrary isn't based on fact, it's purely an emotional response.

Oh, it is?  What are the emotions, and what are they responding to?

Well, I've had at least one too many cervezas and am shutting down the Lone Nut Nuclear Generator for the night and possibly even longer.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

When I hit the quote button nothing comes up.  Blank quote boxes.

I have no ambition other than to observe the obvious on newsgroups.

I'm not saying anything Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and Martin Schotz didn't say.

Why would I take credit for the ground breaking work of others?

If that disturbs you don't read my stuff.

If you write nonsense I'm going to call you on it.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Lance, if you think my discussions with you qualify as "debate," fake or otherwise, you're unduly flattering yourself once again.

[Cliff Varnell]

E. Martin Schotz

The Waters of Knowledge versus The Waters of Uncertainty:

Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_issue/schotz.html

<quote on, emphasis added>

THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo debate is a benign activity, that it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise; it is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise -- that there is uncertainly to be resolved -- seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions -- the media, the universities and the government-- once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.</q>

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Hmm. I would guess that some of them can handle the talk about conspiracies. Why else would they return to debate the same set of facts again and again if it didn't hold some sort of appeal? Perhaps the appeal is in the game-like aspect of this debate that has been compared by some to "Whac-A-Mole." To me, the comparison is only apt if we realize that the person whacking the moles is also denying that there is a mole problem. When problems constantly come up for your case, perhaps that indicates your case has some problems.

I think part of people's general opinions on the JFK conspiracy theorists are is that they've been exposed to some of the more dubious theories, and assume that most if not all CT's are guided by a pre-conceived conclusion. Admittedly, some are, but not all. There are people out there who are genuinely trying to sort out this puzzle. You'd think that with all these people thinking about all this evidence for all these years, we'd be able to get close to some objective truth, but in reality we can't even agree if Oswald could drive or not.

While some CT's may be guided by a pre-conceived conclusion, there's no question that all LN's are also following their own pre-conceived conclusion: That Oswald did it all alone. CT's are often criticized for not having the same theory and not having all the answers, but the LN's can't even offer a credible and consistent motive for the accused assassin.

Yes, some of them can just like some conspiracists can.  However, they return to the debate because they have to be right.  Note in my posts I concede things when appropriate.  I note I agree when appropriate.  What I see, and it probably occurs with conspiracists as well because this is all the same problem, is that many here refuse to even acknowledge anything.  Perhaps its the format.  I have deposed doctors and experts face to face, getting them to concede points when their written report is so confident.  Under deposition they have to either take outrageous stances from the norm or concede certain points.  I don't see anyone conceding anything here in the posts from the LHO did it group recently.  So, they must defend the idea that LHO did it.  To do otherwise would shatter their world view.

Again, I have heard this since the 1990's on tv.  Conspiracists cant handle LHO did it alone.  I always questioned that.  I could handle it.  Prove it to me.  Show me the best one piece of evidence that LHO shot JFK on 11/22/63.  Prove it to me.  Yet, what real evidence proves conclusively he did it?  A witness who could not identify him at first in a show up at the jail?  The palm prints on the rifle which were amazingly found after many tries?  A video which I believe shows the rifle going in and out of the window as it is fired-see I concede someone was firing from the 6th floor- but does not show the assassin?  What LHO's statements?  No, we don't have that conclusive evidence that he did it.  If you have it show it.  Explain Captain Westgates intuition to search a bus and why was he not back at his station?

But while some conspiracists see a conspiracy in everything, so to is the non conspiracist who will never ever accept that conspiracies do exist.  There are more of us in the middle who accept both sides.  I am waiting to see someone concede that indeed the closest man to the president sat down and looked at the grassy knoll and had a radio up to his face and then got up and tucked it into the back of his shirt.  I am waiting to see someone concede that there were three prior attempts on JFK within a short window of time.  Will they concede that an FBI report from I believe 1960 confirms 1) That the FBI knew of Oswald years prior to the assassination and 2) that someone other than him was using his identification in the USA.

I do not need to resort to a knows b and b knows c and c said a said.

I could go on but you get the point.

I also like your mole comment.  It is correct.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Cory Santos