Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cory Santos

I understand why people hate conspiracies

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

That got under your skin, eh?

Cliff, sweetie, lighten up - you couldn't get under my skin with a crowbar.  I welcome these goofy exchanges.  I'm just weaponizing the Lone Nut explanation here, big guy.

You're a forced-birth guy, as I recall, which to me spells "fundamentalist."

Oh, my God - THAT's what this is all about?!?!  I'd forgotten that I'd ever dialogued with Cliff before, but there was a previous thread in which the topic of abortion was debated:  http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23375-infiltration-of-this-forum/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-344423  For those who are into this stuff, I thought I acquitted myself pretty well in terms of logic and common sense.  Clint has apparently been a festering boil waiting to pop, and I've unwittingly given him reason on this thread.  At least I now understand what's been going on here.  Apparently Cliff equates the pro-life position with Christian fundamentalism, which is completely fallacious - but we'll let it go.

Please, Cliff, have the last word.  And now that it's popped, put some peroxide on it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Cliff, sweetie, lighten up - you couldn't get under my skin with a crowbar.

The homo-erotic insinuation says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:
  1.  

You're mischaracterizing what has been stated.  This thread started with Cory's post attempting to describe the "non-conspiracy mindset" of those who reject conspiracy thinking.  I pointed out that in fact the only well-researched and well-documented mindset in this vein is a "conspiracy mindset."  I certainly didn't invent the body of research on this topic, and I quoted pieces from both Scientific American and Psychology Today.

Perhaps you personally don't have the conspiracy mindset.  Perhaps you approached the subject from a completely neutral perspective.  I have no idea.  Many other people who have approached the subject from a completely neutral perspective have reached completely different conclusions - even completely different conspiracy theories.  For that matter, people like myself and Fred Litwin evolved from gung-ho conspiracy believers to Lone Nutters, and we are by no means the only ones.

The JFK "research community" is rife with the conspiracy mindset and "conspiracy theorists" in the pejorative sense of "conspiracy loons."  There is no way on earth that this can be denied.  Find me an article on the conspiracy mindset where the JFK assassination isn't mentioned.  As I've stated, it's pretty much the mother lode for anyone who wishes to study the conspiracy mindset and conspiracy loons.

Are all proponents of every conspiracy ipso facto loons?  Obviously not.  I have no idea whether you're a conspiracy loon or not.  You do appear to have the foaming-at-the-mouth, humorless-as-hell, thin-skinned-as-hell, no-one-can-possibly-be-right-but-me, you're-stupid-if-you-disagree-with-me, I'll-attempt-to-shut-you-down-and-resort-to-personal-insults perspective of   I think it's 180 degrees removed from whom LHO actually was, anything he would have ever been involved in, or anything powerful Deep Politics forces would ever have involved a loose cannon like him in. 

....

Lance,

I disagree. Consider Ali Agca. He certainly was a "loose cannon", a completely deranged individual. He believed to be Jesus Christ himself. And yet, according to the latest evidence, he was hired by Bulgarian agents to kill the Pope, at behest of the KGB. And I think he was actually a very good choice, for several reasons:

- He was a right-winger NOT a Communist, so he had no obvious connection to the Eastern Bloc.

- He was deluded, a plausible "lone nut".

- Shortly before the assassination he'd traveled abroad, creating false leads that would lead the investigators astray.

 

Edited by Mathias Baumann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that last piece of fruitiness  by Payette, with "conspiracy loons" and all, I gladly  sign off of this thread.

He doesn't want to talk about the evidence, Bugliosi like, he wants to denigrate the process and the people.

 

Bye Bye Lancie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Yes, you are. Demonstrably.

You're a lawyer who fails to grasp the concept of "prima facie evidence."

Prima Facie

[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence). <q/ emph added>

The case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK is prima facie but your zealotry won't allow you to process the obvious.

I think that I perhaps can actually help you out here, O Muddled One.  You do realize, I hope, that prima facie evidence is never the end of the matter - right?  Prima facie means "on first appearance," which ought to be a clue for you.  It is used in two senses, the plaintiff's prima facie case and specific prima facie evidence.

The plaintiff never says, "I've established my prima facie case, your honor.  We're done, baby.  I refuse to engage in Fake Debate with the defendant."  The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case (for each element of whatever he is alleging, such as a conspiracy to defraud) before the trial can go forward.  If he can't do that, we are indeed done - the judge will tell him so.  If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, we go forward with the defendant's case.  The plaintiff has the overall burden of proof - typically to prevail by a preponderance of the evidence but sometimes to prevail by clear and convincing evidence.  The fact that the plaintiff has established a prima facie doesn't shift the burden of proof to the defendant.  It just allows the plaintiff's case to go forward.  GOT THAT?

When we're talking about specific evidence, some evidence may serve as prima facie evidence of something the plaintiff is attempting to prove.  Evidence that the plaintiff deposited a properly addressed letter with sufficient postage in the mail may serve as prima facie evidence that the defendant received it.  The defendant will then have the burden of showing he didn't receive it, which he may or may not be able to do.  For example, perhaps his secretary keeps a careful log of all mail received and the plaintiff's letter isn't listed.  Again, the plaintiff can never say "My prima facie evidence establishes the defendant's receipt of my letter.  We're done, baby.  I refuse to engage in Fake Debate with the defendant about the matter."  Prima facie evidence just shifts the burden to the defendant to rebut it and does not alter the plaintiff's overall burden of proof.  GOT THAT?

I believe you're utterly confused in regard to what you think you've established.  OK, the holes in the clothing require explanation.  OK, their relationship to the holes in JFK's back and throat requires explanation.  They don't prove anything.  They don't establish a prima facie case of anything.  If you were prosecuting a conspiracy case and tried to rely on Cliff's Irrefutable Solution as your prima facie case, the judge and the defense attorneys would laugh at you.  I don't believe you could even rely on what you have as prima facie evidence that one bullet didn't cause both holes in the clothing and the body.  And even if you found a very lenient judge who would allow this, the defendants would have their opportunity to rebut - precisely as those who disagree with Cliff's Irrefutable Solution have done (and had done before Cliff ever even thought of his irrefutable solution).  You may disagree with them, but you aren't the judge - you're merely the proponent of Cliff's Not Exactly Irrefutable Solution.

I think you may be confusing what you're calling prima facie evidence with the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself").  This doctrine applies to certain types of evidence that are so obvious and conclusive they are indeed dispositive, almost always in a negligence case.  See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur   As much as I love saying "res ipsa loquitur" and try to work it into at least one conversation a day, I don't recall ever citing it in a court filing.  Believe me, Cliff's Not Exactly Irrefutable Solution is NOT a candidate for res ipsa loquitur.

I'm resisting the urge to strut my academic and professional credentials here because I know that to do so would send you into a apoplectic frenzy - but believe me, dear, you aren't dealing with some dummy.  I was primarily a lawyer's lawyer in my practice - i.e., other lawyers came to me for their heavy-duty work.  You are SIMPLY EMBARRASSING YOURSELF - which is certainly your prerogative and admittedly kind of amusing to watch, but if nothing else I'd encourage you to take your "prima facie" nonsense to a qualified attorney of your own choosing whom you trust.  You won't like what you hear.

You're welcome.  That was 0.7 hours and will be $210.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe you're utterly confused in regard to what you think you've established.

I said the T3 back wound was prima facie case for conspiracy.  That involves a lot more than the clothing evidence.

2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

OK, the holes in the clothing require explanation.  OK, their relationship to the holes in JFK's back and throat requires explanation.  They don't prove anything.  They don't establish a prima facie case of anything. 

No, the bullet holes in the clothes and the wound in the back require observation.  It requires no narrative to make the correlation beween the holes in the clothes and the back wound.

And the corroborating evidence is unimpeachable -- the statements of more than a dozen back wound witnesses, the contemporaneous reports of 4 Federal agents, and two verified medical documents.

You're the one who'd get laughed out of court, Lance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Lance,

I disagree. Consider Ali Agca. He certainly was a "loose cannon", a completely deranged individual. He believed to be Jesus Christ himself. And yet, according to the latest evidence, he was hired by Bulgarian agents to kill the Pope, at behest of the KGB. And I think he was actually a very good choice, for several reasons:

- He was a right-winger NOT a Communist, so he had no obvious connection to the Eastern Bloc.

- He was deluded, a plausible "lone nut".

- Shortly before the assassination he'd traveled abroad, creating false leads that would lead the investigators astray.

 

Oswald wasn't a loose cannon in that sense.  More like unpredictable and unreliable perhaps.  I don't think I would have wanted to rely on him in any capacity.  But the larger issue for me is that ALL indications are that he had a sincere interest in Marxism from an early age, sincerely defected to the USSR for reasons that are entirely consistent with his beliefs and personality, returned to the U.S. for reasons that are entirely understandable, shifted his fantasies to Cuba for reasons that are entirely understandable, reached a stage of anger and frustration after the lack of success he had in Mexico City, and went out with a bang when a golden opportunity was handed to him on a platter.  The Deep Politics theories require a complete reinvention of Oswald.  But this is what conspiracy theorists do - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is what it seems, including Oswald.  I have not seen ANY evidence that warrants a complete reinvention of Oswald.  If there is some, I simply demand that it be hard, no-question-about-it evidence of a conspiracy in which he was no-question-about-it either a participant or a patsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Oswald wasn't a loose cannon in that sense.  More like unpredictable and unreliable perhaps.  I don't think I would have wanted to rely on him in any capacity.  But the larger issue for me is that ALL indications are that he had a sincere interest in Marxism from an early age, sincerely defected to the USSR for reasons that are entirely consistent with his beliefs and personality, returned to the U.S. for reasons that are entirely understandable, shifted his fantasies to Cuba for reasons that are entirely understandable, reached a stage of anger and frustration after the lack of success he had in Mexico City, and went out with a bang when a golden opportunity was handed to him on a platter.  The Deep Politics theories require a complete reinvention of Oswald.  But this is what conspiracy theorists do - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is what it seems, including Oswald.  I have not seen ANY evidence that warrants a complete reinvention of Oswald.  If there is some, I simply demand that it be hard, no-question-about-it evidence of a conspiracy in which he was no-question-about-it either a participant or a patsy.

I find it hard to believe that Oswald was ever really serious about Marxism. What we do know for a fact however is that he loved spy stories. So it would appear plausible that he might just have tried to appear as a Communist in order to play the hero from "I led Three Lives". According to his brother that was his favorite TV show. I think a lot of what he did makes sense if you view it in that context.

But I don't know if you really have to "reinvent" him to fit him into a conspiracy. People do everything for money, and that's another thing we know for sure about Oswald: He was always short of money. (Except of course when he had to hire people help him hand out leaflets...) A large sum of money would certainly have cured him from Marxism.

Concerning his "lack of success" in Mexico City: I think the events there are highly suspicious. He was clearly impersonated on the phone. And after meeting a KGB assassin he's taken off the watch list, gets a job at the book depository and rents a room under a false name... four weeks before the assassination.

To me that sounds like some sort of "spy game" was going on here... What do you think?

 

Edited by Mathias Baumann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The homo-erotic insinuation says otherwise.

Well, uh … er … Cliff, take a break.  Really, take a break.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

With that last piece of fruitiness  by Payette, with "conspiracy loons" and all, I gladly  sign off of this thread.

He doesn't want to talk about the evidence, Bugliosi like, he wants to denigrate the process and the people.

Bye Bye Lancie.

Now if I'd posted that there would be 12 knee-jerk responses within 60 seconds:  "Running away, can't take the heat … what a baby, can't deal with the issues … typical Lone Nut jerk … adios, crybaby."  Fortunately for Mr. Scowly Face, I am above this sort of thing.

To repeat:  THIS THREAD, which I didn't originate, ISN'T ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.  It is about the process.  When I attempt to address the evidence, you shift to personal attacks.  On this and other threads, I have either challenged your evidence or challenged you to explain how the undeniable evidence meshes with any conspiracy theory.  I have yet to see ONE substantive response.

Careful with calling me "Lancie" - Cliff may think you're being homoerotic.  I don't think either of us wants that.  Let's stick with Mr. Running Suit.

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're the one who'd get laughed out of court, Lance.

I will defer to your vast legal expertise and courtroom experience.  I mean, really, what do I know?  I assume you did at least sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

This is life in Conspiracy Land, dear readers.  A lawyer with impeccable academic credentials and 35+ years of professional experience is lectured on a first-year law school topic by someone who … well, I'm not sure who he is, other than that he "helped weaponize rocknroll … helped weaponize collectors' trading cards and [is now] helping to weaponize the salient fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK."

I'm not sure how you "weaponize" baseball cards, or for that matter the salient fact of conspiracy, but I suppose it might substitute for a law degree - but only if you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Well, uh … er … Cliff, take a break.  Really, take a break.

Now if I'd posted that there would be 12 knee-jerk responses within 60 seconds:  "Running away, can't take the heat … what a baby, can't deal with the issues … typical Lone Nut jerk … adios, crybaby."  Fortunately for Mr. Scowly Face, I am above this sort of thing.

To repeat:  THIS THREAD, which I didn't originate, ISN'T ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.  It is about the process.  When I attempt to address the evidence, you shift to personal attacks.  On this and other threads, I have either challenged your evidence or challenged you to explain how the undeniable evidence meshes with any conspiracy theory.  I have yet to see ONE substantive response.

Careful with calling me "Lancie" - Cliff may think you're being homoerotic.  I don't think either of us wants that.  Let's stick with Mr. Running Suit.

I will defer to your vast legal expertise and courtroom experience.  I mean, really, what do I know?  I assume you did at least sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

This is life in Conspiracy Land, dear readers.  A lawyer with impeccable academic credentials and 35+ years of professional experience is lectured on a first-year law school topic by someone who … well, I'm not sure who he is, other than that he "helped weaponize rocknroll … helped weaponize collectors' trading cards and [is now] helping to weaponize the salient fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK."

I'm not sure how you "weaponize" baseball cards, or for that matter the salient fact of conspiracy, but I suppose it might substitute for a law degree - but only if you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I love it how you don't face the evidence I posted.

You've spent 35+ years in court but you think the contemporaneous reports of two FBI agents and two Secret Service agents, backed by another dozen eye witnesses, a verified death certificate, verified autopsy face sheet, and the bullet holes in the clothes aren't en toto dispositive.

You're getting your ass kicked by an amateur.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

I find it hard to believe that Oswald was ever really serious about Marxism. What we do know for a fact however is that he loved spy stories. So it would appear plausible that he might just have tried to appear as a Communist in order to play the hero from "I led Three Lives". According to his brother that was his favorite TV show. I think a lot of what he did makes sense if you view it in that context.

But I don't know if you really have to "reinvent" him to fit him into a conspiracy. People do everything for money, and that's another thing we know for sure about Oswald: He was always short of money. (Except of course when he had to hire people help him hand out leaflets...) A large sum of money would certainly have cured him from Marxism.

Concerning his "lack of success" in Mexico City: I think the events there are highly suspicious. He was clearly impersonated on the phone. And after meeting a KGB assassin he's taken off the watch list, gets a job at the book depository and rents a room under a false name... four weeks before the assassination.

To me that sounds like some sort of "spy game" was going on here... What do you think?

 

Where is the EVIDENCE that Oswald was paid one dime???  He and Marina were chronically DESTITUTE.  Do you know the extent to which the Russian community in Dallas took pity on them and tried to help them?  The notion that he was on anyone's payroll just doesn't wash.  I'm not talking just about a lack of documentation.  I'm talking about the fact that they were objectively, observably DESTITUTE.  (He paid his leaflet helpers a grand total of something like $4.)  He scraped to pay back Robert $200 and the $400 loan from the State Department.  I don't believe a large sum of money would have dissuaded him from his genuine Marxist ideals - but WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THIS LARGE SUM OF MONEY?

I believe that Oswald was 100% sincere in his simplistic Marxism.  He went to the USSR expecting Marxist ideals and a workers' paradise.  He found the same old, same old and came crawling back.  He shifted his fantasies to Cuba as the "real" Marxist state and was distraught when he was turned away.  Notwithstanding all the theorizing, I don't believe that Mexico City insofar as Oswald was concerned was any more complicated than the Warren Commission version.  The CIA may have been stumbling all over itself, but I don't believe that this had anything to do with Oswald per se.  Perhaps I'm jaded from long experience, but a fair portion of my legal career was predicated on federal agencies being inept, lazy, bureaucratic fools, and they seldom disappointed me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

I find it hard to believe that Oswald was ever really serious about Marxism. What we do know for a fact however is that he loved spy stories. So it would appear plausible that he might just have tried to appear as a Communist in order to play the hero from "I led Three Lives". According to his brother that was his favorite TV show. I think a lot of what he did makes sense if you view it in that context.

But I don't know if you really have to "reinvent" him to fit him into a conspiracy. People do everything for money, and that's another thing we know for sure about Oswald: He was always short of money. (Except of course when he had to hire people help him hand out leaflets...) A large sum of money would certainly have cured him from Marxism.

Concerning his "lack of success" in Mexico City: I think the events there are highly suspicious. He was clearly impersonated on the phone. And after meeting a KGB assassin he's taken off the watch list, gets a job at the book depository and rents a room under a false name... four weeks before the assassination.

To me that sounds like some sort of "spy game" was going on here... What do you think?

 

In the military, he was reading Animal Farm.  Another soldier asked him, "you do know that book is about communism right?"  

Yes, it is really strange.  But he did appear to have Marxist views, except for when he was getting paid by the U.S. government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

In the military, he was reading Animal Farm.  Another soldier asked him, "you do know that book is about communism right?"  

Yes, it is really strange.  But he did appear to have Marxist views, except for when he was getting paid by the U.S. government.

He joined the Marines because that is precisely how his siblings had escaped from the Mother From Hell - Pic to the Coast Guard, Robert to the Marines.  His experience in the Marines, especially his time in the brig, exacerbated his dissatisfaction with America.  He gobbled up Russian propaganda intended for Americans, such as "Soviet Life," and it all helped crystalize his vision of a Soviet utopia.  You pretty much have to buy into something like Harvey and Lee to take the position that Oswald didn't have genuine Marxist sympathies.  I don't know how many people here actually know anything about Marx, but he prided himself on being difficult to understand - try finishing Das Capital if you haven't.  But certainly Oswald understood that "Marx is for the common working man, the American system isn't."  If he was "being paid by the U.S. government" other than his time in the Marines and the State Department loan he repaid, that needs to be established by hard evidence.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

He joined the Marines because that is precisely how his siblings had escaped from the Mother From Hell - Pic to the Coast Guard, Robert to the Marines.  His experience in the Marines, especially his time in the brig, exacerbated his dissatisfaction with America.  He gobbled up Russian propaganda intended for Americans, such as "Soviet Life," and it all helped crystalize his vision of a Soviet utopia.  You pretty much have to buy into something like Harvey and Lee to take the position that Oswald didn't have genuine Marxist sympathies.  I don't know how many people here actually know anything about Marx, but he prided himself on being difficult to understand - try finishing Das Capital if you haven't.  But certainly Oswald understood that "Marx is for the common working man, the American system isn't."  If he was "being paid by the U.S. government" other than his time in the Marines and the State Department loan he repaid, that needs to be established by hard evidence.

Could you look into that and get back to us only when your done?

That is, find that hard evidence.  It must be hard though, no soft evidence.  Stiff maybe ok, but prefer hard.  Cliff are you ok with stiff evidence or do you demand hard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×