Jump to content
The Education Forum

A conspiracy theory even a Lone Nutter can love ...


Guest

Recommended Posts

I think that’s my point, exactly proven . There were horrible human beings involved , especially at the highest level. Does that mean that a Warren commission junior staffer who ignores a statement on order from Dulles is tarred with the same brush ? 

 The whole cover up of the initial evidence and the DPD’s hand in that could be seen as a simple determination to get the cop killer Oswald and simple unprofessional ineptitude. Does that mean Westbrook, Mather, Ohlson, Hill, Croy et al  are innocent ... No ! 

 It continues to stagger me how researchers cannot separate issues and do not understand mutual exclusivity . Two apparently opposing things can run simultaneously ! Dulles can be an evil psychopath whilst simultaneously a person he interviews could give some amazing evidence. The two are mutually exclusive events. Or my favourite .... the magic bullet - 399 can have been planted AND the one bullet can have passed through both men. Why people continue to conflate one with the other is genuinely a puzzle to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

I think that’s my point, exactly proven . There were horrible human beings involved , especially at the highest level. Does that mean that a Warren commission junior staffer who ignores a statement on order from Dulles is tarred with the same brush ? 

 The whole cover up of the initial evidence and the DPD’s hand in that could be seen as a simple determination to get the cop killer Oswald and simple unprofessional ineptitude. Does that mean Westbrook, Mather, Ohlson, Hill, Croy et al  are innocent ... No ! 

 It continues to stagger me how researchers cannot separate issues and do not understand mutual exclusivity . Two apparently opposing things can run simultaneously ! Dulles can be an evil psychopath whilst simultaneously a person he interviews could give some amazing evidence. The two are mutually exclusive events. Or my favourite .... the magic bullet - 399 can have been planted AND the one bullet can have passed through both men. Why people continue to conflate one with the other is genuinely a puzzle to me. 

Jake, I do appreciate your perspective.  Just a few comments.  Apologies in advance to all who regard any post over 80 words as a "diatribe."  The Twitter approach isn't my thing.

  • You'll eventually see that John Armstrong's research actually doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  On at least four or five occasions here, I've demonstrated specific instances where it did not.  "Four or five" might seem to be no big deal, but those were the only occasions on which I attempted to do any fact-checking.  After that, I abandoned Harvey & Lee as a resource.  The John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University (fully available online) is a worthwhile resource, but I at least would not place faith in anything stated in Harvey & Lee.  80% of what is stated may indeed be accurate, but after my experience I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out which 80% it is.
     
  • The work of Armstrong and his acolytes typifies to me what I see throughout the conspiracy community:  Examine the assassination, and every person and event even remotely connected with it, with an electron microscope until you completely lose any rational perspective and are drowning in a sea of irrelevancies and unfounded speculation.  I keep coming back to what Tink Thompson suggested in the Umbrella Man clip:  Do this with any major historical event and you eventually enter into some quantum realm where the damnedest weirdness pops up all over the place.  These electron-microscope folks dazzle themselves and wow the unsophisticated with their "serious research” and “depth of knowledge," but the joke is that it’s largely irrelevant and much of the speculation it fuels is laughable.  Basic questions like “Does this make any sense at all?” are unasked and unwelcome by these folks and their acolytes.
     
  • JFK was despised by so many individuals and groups, and so many others stood to benefit from his death, that concocting 20 different but plausible conspiracy scenarios is child’s play.  (Exercise a little more creativity and you can devise a completely implausible scenario like Harvey and Lee, Jackie did it, a Secret Service agent accidentally did it, or MJ-12 did it because JFK knew too much about the alien presence.)  Within this cast of characters were surely some pretty evil human beings and some agencies engaged in some pretty horrible things.  This doesn’t inevitably mean, however, that they were involved in the assassination.  As I said in my original post, there may well have been conspiracies in the talking or planning stages – and yet Lee Harvey Oswald may have acted alone.  As I keep saying like a broken record, the analysis has to be based on common sense, logic, the best available evidence and the most reasonable inferences.  Much conspiracy theorizing is the exact opposite of this – they adopt as an axiom that Oswald was a mere patsy, identify all of the most likely conspiracy suspects from the available cast of characters, and work backwards from there, letting unwarranted speculation, unreasonable inferences and dubious evidence drive the bus.  Never, ever do they step back and ask “Does this make any sense?” or “Could any conspiracy this elaborate and convoluted, involving this many people, ever actually succeed or be concealed?”
     
  • I am patiently awaiting ONE PIECE of bona fide photographic, documentary or physical evidence that seriously calls into question the Lone Assassin scenario.  ONE PIECE.  I’m not talking about something like the magic bullet, which is perhaps problematical but nevertheless has been explained.  I’m talking about ONE PIECE of evidence that clearly and unequivocally ties Lee Harvey Oswald (the man, not some cardboard figure) to a conspiracy as either a knowing participant or a dupe, ONE PIECE that clearly demonstrates that the events in Dealey Plaza cannot have occurred as the Lone Assassin scenario posits they occurred.  When I see that ONE PIECE of evidence (which satisfies my lawyerly standards, not the standards of 100 wild-eyed conspiracy zealots), I will cheerfully put my conspiracy beanie back on my head.  This is what the conspiracy community needs:  ONE PIECE of clear and unequivocal evidence that simply cannot be denied by any reasonable person.  To give the Weaponizer his due, this is at least the path he is on, even if his assessment of the “irrefutability” of his evidence is factually and legally incorrect (as it is).
     
  • Check out the currently active “Number of shots” thread.  There were at least nine, you’ll be interested to learn.  Teams of shooters with advanced-technology military weapons and silencers stationed all over the plaza.  As I recall, the Corsican team was on the South Knoll.  Ya think?  And the aliens performing all these abductions have "mastered the technique of invisibility," too.  I rest my case.
Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

I have weaponized the mini experiment from yesterday in a new topic .

You'll see that I fleshed out my "To be continued …" post above.  For some reason, time and again I hit some key that causes what I'm working on to be posted while I'm in the middle of writing it, whereupon I have to remove it and put something like "To be continued" as a place-holder while I finish my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

As I keep saying like a broken record, the analysis has to be based on common sense, logic, the best available evidence and the most reasonable inferences. 

I would take issue with what you say above but I have to agree with much of what you say. I was completely turned off the JFK case when I realised that the whole Horne / Lifton route of major body manipulation , then autopsy forgery and then of course Z film manipulation was a load of rubbish. It really annoyed me that I'd gone down that route and wasted energy. As regards JA I must come back to previous inferences . .. You don'y have to be a fundamentalist or zealot to read a book, Just because i'm reading Harvey & Lee doesn't mean I am a fanboy of JA. What the book does is set a challenge to anyone to figure out why there are so many discrepancies and why the FBI consistently avoid certain people and issues yet engage with others. One that comes to mind is when two separate people who state to the FBI and  WC that 'LHO' was always talking about Cuba and Communism are completely ignored by the Warren Commission report when they are desperately looking for this sort of evidence. The issue is that these people were with LHO when they shouldn't have been. This happens a lot it seems around ' 57-59. 

 Anyway, back to the quote. I would oppose what you have said there quite strongly. The truth is not about 'best available evidence' and 'most reasonable inferences' at all, it has nothing to do with that. Although those two criteria can and always should be applied you cannot make the truth fit them, nor should attempt to. To ( badly ) paraphrase the literary detective Hercules Poirot ...' Once you have stripped away all of the impossible, what you re left with is the truth, regardless of how UNLIKELY it may seem'. Unlikely is in bold because likeliness should hold no value in an objective investigation.  Poirot's approach is especially true when dealing with people who's day job it is to deceive the public , the CIA and the media, to apply likelihood and common sense doesn't really work I've found. It also of course limits you to what you already know. Which then sucks you into a Vortex of your own and you become Bugliosi. 

 As a real world example that happened to me last year. Awaiting a parcel that was late I used common sense to think that the parcel was posted late, the best available evidence was that the parcel had been sent and dropped off but not signed for. My inference then was that this courier, who have a habit of leaving things on doorsteps or behind bins were inept and the parcel had gone missing. Do you know what had happened ? The parcel had been in the garden of a neighbour for three days. It had been taken by foxes, ripped open and used as a toy. The neighbour didn't return it because it was covered in poo. 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

The parcel had been in the garden of a neighbour for three days. It had been taken by foxes, ripped open and used as a toy. The neighbour didn't return it because it was covered in poo. 

Right - and at some point, that unlikely scenario became the one established by essentially dispositive evidence.  The previous but wrong scenario was, until you had better evidence, the one that was consistent with common sense, logic, the then available evidence and the most reasonable inferences from that evidence.  You didn't immediately theorize that the package had slipped through a portal to another dimension (as I would have!) or been dematerialized by aliens (my fallback position!).  My point is that at any given point in time, a rational person must be guided by common sense, logic, the best evidence then available, and the most reasonable inferences from that evidence, while remaining open to the possibility that better evidence may change everything.  What else can a rational person do?  This approach doesn't inevitably point toward the most "likely" solution; the Lone Assassin scenario in some respects seems considerably less likely than some conspiracies.

The best evidence and most reasonable inferences are always going to drive the bus for a rational person.  Common sense and logic are used in a more negative way:  If the scenario you posit makes no sense from the standpoint of common sense or logic, this is a pretty good clue that the inferences you're drawing from the evidence aren't reasonable.  In my posts here, I believe that I've asserted common sense and logic exclusively in this way, as a challenge to others to think about what they are saying.

My wife is a huge fan of Poirot, and we've watched many episodes together.  They are a little maddening because the solution is seldom anything you could have seen coming.  Occasionally I'll take a stab at some minor, seemingly marginal character who appears in the first 60 seconds, and a fair percentage of the time I'm right.  My wife thinks I'm a crime-solving genius.  But I really don't think that "stripping away the impossible" was Poirot's approach to crime-solving.  I don't see how that even could be a legitimate approach.  It seems to me that what he did was follow the approach I've outlined, nevertheless accepting what had previously seemed highly unlikely when the best evidence pointed toward it.

As I've suggested, I will be more than willing to reassess the Lone Assassination explanation if even one piece of photographic, documentary or physical evidence that clearly and unequivocally points away from it ever surfaces.  Just one piece.  As I said on the goofy Prayer Man thread, the notion that Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination strikes me as laughably preposterous under any conceivable scenario - but show me one clear photo and I'll become a raving conspiracy theorist overnight.  (Sandy assured me that this wasn't preposterous at all - the conspirators were so brazen and confident that the patsy being on the steps of the TSBD in full view of the crowd was a bold, ironic, in-your-face statement as to just how brazen, confident and in-control they were.  Once again, I rest my case.)

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

As I said on the goofy Prayer Man thread, the notion that Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination strikes me as laughably preposterous under any conceivable scenario

I'm so glad we agree here. What you have to realise with JFK is that there is a massive motivation to prove LHO inncoent and so ' Oswald in the doorway' is a home run. The fact that several films and images shows quite clearly show a man wearing a boldly checked red shirt, who looks identical to Billy Lovelady, Frazier, Lovelady and Truly all place him there, Altgens 6 clearly shows Lovelady standing there not Oswald, several people put Oswald inside the building before and after the incident, no witnesses identified oswald there and most importantly... it is irrelevant ! It is potentially possible though so ignoring it as unlikely would be a mistake, as with any potentiality. 

 Can I ask a quick question ? how do you rationalise the swarm of people charging up to the corner of the grassy knowl/ fence ? the smoke coming from that area in photographs, all the witnesses who said they saw smoke in that area, all the witnesses who said they heard shots from there, the witnesses who said that the bullets came over their shoulder ( on grassy knowl) and the piece of bone ending up by Charles Brem ?

 Second Q. without any explanation, which of JA's 'discrepencies did you demystify ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Ecker, Mr. Super Member Guy with nearly 6,000 posts, has just responded to a short and innocuous post by me on another thread, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25352-bush-not-in-dallas-he-is-dead/?page=25, with this:

Arguing with lone nutters is like arguing with young-Earth creationists.  I had enough of that years ago.

Once more, I rest my case.

Over and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I'm so glad we agree here. What you have to realise with JFK is that there is a massive motivation to prove LHO inncoent and so ' Oswald in the doorway' is a home run. The fact that several films and images shows quite clearly show a man wearing a boldly checked red shirt, who looks identical to Billy Lovelady, Frazier, Lovelady and Truly all place him there, Altgens 6 clearly shows Lovelady standing there not Oswald, several people put Oswald inside the building before and after the incident, no witnesses identified oswald there and most importantly... it is irrelevant ! It is potentially possible though so ignoring it as unlikely would be a mistake, as with any potentiality. 

 Can I ask a quick question ? how do you rationalise the swarm of people charging up to the corner of the grassy knowl/ fence ? the smoke coming from that area in photographs, all the witnesses who said they saw smoke in that area, all the witnesses who said they heard shots from there, the witnesses who said that the bullets came over their shoulder ( on grassy knowl) and the piece of bone ending up by Charles Brem ?

 Second Q. without any explanation, which of JA's 'discrepencies did you demystify ?

OK, I'll weigh in once more, but then I have to go:

  • The current Prayer Man craze isn't Lovelady but the far more shadowy figure (who indeed may be a lovely lady) in the corner behind him.  It makes the Lovelady stuff pale in comparison.  If you think Cliff's Irrefutable Solution is a vortex, dive into Prayer Man.
     
  • Lee Bowers, based on his extensive experience, said that loud construction noises and whatnot from the TSBD often seemed to be coming from the area of the underpass.  I had my own little experience that really startled me.  The way my house sits is (you'll have to take my word for it) a crude but uncanny approximation of Dealey Plaza.  I was increasingly furious with some neighbors to the right (my grassy knoll) and their damn raucous parties and barking dogs.  I had stood in the middle of my back yard and would have SWORN the noises were coming from my grassy knoll.  One night, my wife said "I went over there and walked through the alley.  The party is at [the neighbors' to the left, my TSBD]."  So that's my explanation.
     
  • Oh, God, just find the threads about the Postal Money Order that Oswald sent to Klein's - Armstrong's bogus claim that a bank official named Wilmouth had established the need for "bank endorsements" that aren't there, my dumb-luck discovery of a File Locator Number that should have put the entire matter to rest, Sandy's insistence that he is a better interpreter of statutes and regulations than a lawyer with 35 years of experience, etc. - and you'll quickly get the idea.  Asking me to relive my experiences with the Harvey & Lee folks is like asking me to take you through the details of some ghastly brain surgery that went horribly awry.  They are intelligent and dedicated folks who have made worthwhile contributions, but I now just ignore them.  I simply close with my favorite maxim, which I invented after long and bitter experience in many different areas of my life:  "Never assume that just because someone is intelligent, seems to be sane, occupies a responsible position, and functions at a high level in all other areas of his life that he is not COMPLETELY INSANE is some weird little corner of it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2018 at 12:26 PM, Cory Santos said:

Are you crazy?

Am I crazy?

Cory, I am curious to know how my forum defending post directed at Lance Payette and his forum criticism inspired you to ask this specific three word question of me?

Lance responded to my post by saying I bend over backwards to an extra-ordinary degree to be fair and kindly but my overly optimistic take is jaw dropping to him. He wonders what "happy pills" I am taking.

Is it my overly optimistic and praising take of the forum that bothered you too? Too syrupy maybe?

Cory, Lance's criticism of the forum is often blunt, very sharp and even insulting and seems to me to be his main topic of discussion as much as his specific point arguments against the conspiracy take.

In another posting just hours ago Lance says this new criticism about the forum:

"Slightly off-topic, but: When I look at threads from years ago, it seems to me that the level of discourse has deteriorated significantly.  Not that it wasn't always The Church of Conspiracy Thinking, but it seemed to have much more substance.  Many of the participants who seemed to me to have the most substance to contribute (including even some wild-eyed conspiracy zealots) seem to be gone.  I'm not sure why that is, but I can guess.  From the feedback I get, I wonder how many lurkers there even are.  If I thought my posts were only viewed by the same 15 people again and again (whose responses are so predictable that I could pretty well write them myself), I'd question whether continued participation were even worthwhile."

Cory, Lance above is talking about ... YOU AND I ... in his group of 15 people that are reading his postings and responding to them that if it's just us alone,  make him question whether his participation here is even worthwhile.

You must also assume Lance is stating we 15 ( you included ) make up a large part of the forum posting participants that he feels lack any real substance value and that constitute the significant deterioration of the level of discourse here now versus a few years ago.

In contemplating Lance's deterioration of discourse comments on this forum now versus the Simkin era and trying to honestly evaluate whether his criticism has any validity, I of course considered my own participation on the forum and which has increased to an almost daily affair.

And guess what...I agree!

I have always known that my personal input here is not one of very informed deep research value.

I do feel I deserve the charge of dillution of hard research fact discussion on this "education" forum.

I know and admit I'm here mostly because of my passionate life long concern for the 11,22,1963 truth, which well intended, is too emotion based versus hard research based.

My jumping into actual forum participation like I have the last two years was simply a selfish, even desperate older age bucket list whim to personally engage with some of the most truly erudite, accomplished and credentialed icons of the JFK assassination research community.  Mark Lane himself was posting here when I first joined the forum!

Jim D., Joseph McBride, Larry Hancock, Walt Brown, Vince Palamara, Steve Thomas, Kirk Gallaway, Ron Buhlman, newbie Denny Zartman and so many others ... and of course in his own special category...Doug Caddy.

Yes, Lance's deterioration of discourse point hit me as probably being true ...  in my case anyway. A true wake up call I needed.

I'm sure I was aware of this reality ( again in just my case ) for most of my posting time here. And I think it's high time to quit pretending my emotion based postings add to the solid research based value of the forum versus dilluting it.

Being asked "are you crazy?" in response to one of my postings here is just another wake up call in facing this reality.

I will not be posting here anymore ( with one last response to Lance Payette regards the Earlene Roberts story ) but I am absolutely staying on as a non-posting member because I have never learned so much about not just the JFK event, but many, many other areas of our nation's true history that one cannot easily find in typical historical venues.

Thanks for the ride and your tolerance fellow JFK Debate Forum members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Am I crazy?

Cory, I am curious to know how my forum defending post directed at Lance Payette and his forum criticism inspired you to ask this specific three word question of me?

Lance responded to my post by saying I bend over backwards to an extra-ordinary degree to be fair and kindly but my overly optimistic take is jaw dropping to him. He wonders what "happy pills" I am taking.

Is it my overly optimistic and praising take of the forum that bothered you too? Too syrupy maybe?

Cory, Lance's criticism of the forum is often blunt, very sharp and even insulting and seems to me to be his main topic of discussion as much as his specific point arguments against the conspiracy take.

In another posting just hours ago Lance says this new criticism about the forum:

"Slightly off-topic, but: When I look at threads from years ago, it seems to me that the level of discourse has deteriorated significantly.  Not that it wasn't always The Church of Conspiracy Thinking, but it seemed to have much more substance.  Many of the participants who seemed to me to have the most substance to contribute (including even some wild-eyed conspiracy zealots) seem to be gone.  I'm not sure why that is, but I can guess.  From the feedback I get, I wonder how many lurkers there even are.  If I thought my posts were only viewed by the same 15 people again and again (whose responses are so predictable that I could pretty well write them myself), I'd question whether continued participation were even worthwhile."

Cory, Lance above is talking about ... YOU AND I ... in his group of 15 people that are reading his postings and responding to them that if it's just us alone,  make him question whether his participation here is even worthwhile.

You must also assume Lance is stating we 15 ( you included ) make up a large part of the forum posting participants that he feels lack any real substance value and that constitute the significant deterioration of the level of discourse here now versus a few years ago.

In contemplating Lance's deterioration of discourse comments on this forum now versus the Simkin era and trying to honestly evaluate whether his criticism has any validity, I of course considered my own participation on the forum and which has increased to an almost daily affair.

And guess what...I agree!

I have always known that my personal input here is not one of very informed deep research value.

I do feel I deserve the charge of dillution of hard research fact discussion on this "education" forum.

I know and admit I'm here mostly because of my passionate life long concern for the 11,22,1963 truth, which well intended, is too emotion based versus hard research based.

My jumping into actual forum participation like I have the last two years was simply a selfish, even desperate older age bucket list whim to personally engage with some of the most truly erudite, accomplished and credentialed icons of the JFK assassination research community.  Mark Lane himself was posting here when I first joined the forum!

Jim D., Joseph McBride, Larry Hancock, Walt Brown, Vince Palamara, Kirk Galloway, Ron Buhlman, newbie Denny Zartman and so many others ... and of course in his own special category...Doug Caddy.

Yes, Lance's deterioration of discourse point hit me as probably being true ...  in my case anyway. A true wake up call I needed.

I'm sure I was aware of this reality ( again in just my case ) for most of my posting time here. And I think it's high time to quit pretending my emotion based postings add to the solid research based value of the forum versus dilluting it.

Being asked "are you crazy" in response to one of my postings here is just another wake up call in facing this reality.

I will not be posting here anymore ( with one last response to Lance Payette regards the Earline Roberts story ) but I am absolutely staying on as a non-posting member because I have never learned so much about not just the JFK event, but many, many other areas of our nation's true history that one cannot easily find in typical historical venues.

Thanks for the ride and your tolerance fellow JFK Debate Forum members.

And just one last reality confession to share here.

That member photo of me here was when I was in my mid-thirties? I submitted this photo instead of a current age one out of pure insecure vanity. I may re-submit a current photo as part of my new facing reality conversion.

But I warn you...it is not a pretty sight. 

Even I can't believe how one's physical appearance can be so extreme in change for the worse over 30+ years.

Imagining Charles Laughton in "The Hunch Back Of Notre Dame" before hand may help ease the shock of seeing a current photo of me. 

Sincerely, JB.

 

 

 

 

I will private message you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Am I crazy?

Cory, I am curious to know how my forum defending post directed at Lance Payette and his forum criticism inspired you to ask this specific three word question of me?

Joe, that made no sense to me either.  The way your post was formatted, it may not have been clear to someone who skims posts as fast as Cory seems to do that the first part was a quote from my post.  He may have read the whole thing as being you, and thus it may have seemed a little schizophrenic.

My point really wasn't that you or anyone else is unworthy.  As far as I can tell, some version of Joe, Lance, Cory, etc., has always been here, and I think we do all have something to contribute.  My point was just that the older discussions seemed to have more substance.  This may be because most of the issues have been beaten to death and beyond (gee, ya think?) and people eventually just became bored and moved on.

I do sometimes dive into the nitty-gritty and do my own fact-checking and research - and when I do, I discover (as I have reported several times here) that many supposed "conspiracy facts" simply don't stand up to scrutiny.  This has been a real eye-opener to me.  If one of the self-appointed Big Guns says something now, my attitude is "Just show me the original sources, pal - your name and reputation carry no weight with me."

I do like to focus on "epistemological" issues because this approach is badly under-represented here, is anathema to the conspiracy community and is essential to the development of a sound theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Jim D., Joseph McBride, Larry Hancock, Walt Brown, Vince Palamara, Kirk Galloway, Ron Buhlman, newbie Denny Zartman and so many others ... and of course in his own special category...Doug Caddy.

Sorry to intrude, but I had to say that I'm damn honored to be included on that list of names.

And I should say that in my opinion you enhance the forum and don't detract from it at all.

Much appreciated, Joe.

Edited by Denny Zartman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, don't go, please don't stop posting, you have a lot to contribute.  I get some new knowledge from you, and you refresh my memory about some things I forget about, and every once in a while, you elucidate what I think much better than I could have. But  get the spelling of my name right. He heh. Just joking.

You should preface your comments a bit Lance. (which you did) Joe is one of the most genteel people here. I would remind you as a Christian, "Blessed are the meek". But I'm sure being an expert on Christianity, you'll come up  with some interpretation of misinterpretation of that 2000 year old "he said he said", because certainly you're not in that mold. That's fine, neither am I.

I remember what brought that "are you crazy Joe" J retort was Joe's response to your post where you describe that being anti conspiracy here  as very hostile environment in so many words. I agree with Joe I think you're being treated pretty civilly by in large. Of course you engage in anything more than mild jousts (which are fair game in my mind) with some members, don't be surprised that they'll insult right  back. You really don't have a right to feel persecuted.

There is a lot of home turf considerations here.  When a LNer challenges a traditional CT territory,  the usual response is for the CT community to defend the home territory, even involving matters that have been rehashed here 1000 times. As I think you're probably currently doing Lance. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think a majority of arguments involving certain topics here that always draw attention can't really be absolutely conclusively solved either way. But when some cockamamie theories or  particular mindsets are put forward by the CT community here, they're fair game and I'll go after them as well.

Lance, Just I think yesterday, DVP responded I believe to your comment about DVP's and Jim Di's arguments, by providing a link to his website of arguments he's had on this forum with Jim Di.   Certainly their exchanges is good theater particularly to newbies. Though I'm growing tired of them, because particularly with DVP, they are always about the same topics. But this could be an unspoken conspiracy between the two to promote Jim Di's books and traffic to DVP's website which certainly fits in with Jim Di's  grand conspiracy theories where he certainly has never met a conspiracy he didn't like.  Hehheh I couldn't resist that. More grist for the conspiracy mill!

Lance, I didn't know what to expect in your response to me about your outlook on current affairs.  But I do find it pretty funny, and since you're such a political agnostic, I don't feel any particular need to weigh in on matters, but I might comment on it sometime in the future.

 

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...