Jump to content
The Education Forum
Lance Payette

Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

Thanks for playing. You get a home version of our game, and a $35 gift certificate for [from?] Spiegel...

Chicago 60609???? Great! Thanks.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

David, you do have a sense of humour...

Thanks, Geoff.

I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists. For, I ask, how can a reasonable person not bust out laughing when confronted with the proverbial "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" conspiracy theory being discussed in this thread? It's just too laughable for words. Especially when we add in the following layer of absurdity which has been crammed into the theory by this forum's very own Mr. David S. Lifton of Orange County, California....

"It was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." -- David Lifton; May 5, 2013

Now, I think all sensible persons with their wits about them can fully agree with me when I say that a robust sense of humor is certainly required after reading the above paragraph.

Would you not concur, Mr. Heinricks? :)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

What a waste of electricity and bandwidth.

I bloody well agree.  However, let me point out that:

Shooting JFK full-frontal on Houston Street and succeeding first obviates the triangulated-fire ambush pattern, and its values of mortal certainty and subterfuge; second, it draws direct attention to a shooter in the TSBD, instead of creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious; third, there is enough circumstantial evidence from film and witness reports to determine that the first shots from various positions occurred as the limo turned from Houston onto Elm, which calls Bollocks! on the thematics of your argument (not meaning you, Geoff).

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

So very silly. Here's why (culled from a discussion hosted by this forum in June of 2015)....

 

 

Ballistics dictate a different result.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I’m clearly upsetting you folks and promise to go on an extended hiatus, but here is why I giggle at 98% of conspiracy theorizing:

1.       You’re planning a Presidential assassination.

2.       Your chosen patsy will be on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

3.       You have no way of knowing or controlling how many people will be in Dealey Plaza or where they will be, how many will have TV, film or still cameras, or how many will be astute observers.

4.       If you placed the real shooter(s) elsewhere in the TSBD and/or in the Dal-Tex Building, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to prove the shots had not been fired by your patsy.

5.       You could easily complicate the issue of proof (and enhance your chances of a successful assassination) by shooting at JFK both as he came down Houston Street toward your patsy and as he went up Elm Street away from your patsy.

6.       Instead, you choose not to shoot at JFK at all as he comes down Houston Street but to place shooter(s) on the Grassy Knoll, in a manhole, on the overpass or at other location(s) in front of JFK as he moves away from your patsy.

7.       Because you have made this choice, you must confiscate or alter films and photos, intimidate and murder witnesses, alter the body, fake the autopsy photos and x-rays, terrorize the doctors at Parkland, and do the myriad of other extremely high-risk things conspiracy theorists believe were done; the conspiracy outlined in steps 4 and 5 would have required none of this.

8.       Because you have done this, your conspiracy must involve a vast network of seemingly unrelated people and agencies, whereas the conspiracy outlined in steps 4 and 5 would have required no more than a handful of people.

9.       Despite confiscating and altering films, intimidating and murdering witnesses, altering the body, faking the autopsy photos and x-rays, terrorizing the doctors at Parkland, and doing the myriad of other extremely high-risk things conspiracy theorists hypothesize were done, you allowed the patsy to walk out the front door of the TSBD.

 

Lance is an intelligent person who probably could figure out (with the help of those more knowledgeable) answers to the questions he laid out in his OP and quoted above. Unfortunately his bias against conspiracy theories prevents him from doing so.

A good example of this is that he still doesn't realize that there were two conspiracies... one to kill Kennedy (and blame it on the Russians and Cubans), and the other to cover up the first. Which, along with other factors, has him puzzled as to why the conspirators would devise a plan that would require so much cleanup afterward. The rest of us (well, most of us) know that the assassination conspirators had no intention of post-assassination cleanup.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread! It's fun to watch the conspiracists flop around as they try to convince themselves that the alleged (and insane) Multi-Gun, Solo-Patsy plot was a plan that a band of JFK-hating assassins would have actually wanted to put into action in 1963.

My favorite part of David Andrews' last post of utter desperation is this....

"...creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious."

In other words --- Why make this a fairly simple crime and shoot the target from the location of our lone patsy, when we could make things ultra-complicated and run the risk of exposing the multi-gun plot immediately by firing at Kennedy from God knows how many non-"Patsy" locales, thereby "creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious" ?

Is it "obvious" to you, Lance?

Yeah, me neither.

But, like I said to Geoff earlier --- "I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists." :)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O, rocks! DVP.  Go read the back threads, where this stuff was hashed a long time ago.  You're counting on the membership forgetting that we won these arguments. when the quick and the dead took the moral and factual high ground long ago.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...there were two conspiracies... one to kill Kennedy (and blame it on the Russians and Cubans), and the other to cover up the first.

And---incredibly!---BOTH "conspiracies" had one very important thing in common --- Frame Lee Harvey Oswald!

What remarkable like-mindedness on the part of the TOTALLY DIFFERENT PEOPLE involved in each of your two make-believe "conspiracies".

Wouldn't you agree with my "remarkable" comment, Sandy?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

You're counting on the membership forgetting that we won these arguments...

So you say. But I say your "Conspiracy" side hasn't won an argument yet.

And you're not even close to winning the "common sense" side of the "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" argument. That one went to the "Lone Nutters" in the first round.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

One way, of course, is to separate the assassination conspiracy from the cover-up conspiracy.  Never mind what the assassination conspiracy was, the cover-up conspiracy was to destroy all evidence of more than one gunman in furtherance of the Lone Nut explanation.  But this would have required an elaborate, convoluted, multi-agency effort beginning almost instantaneously after the assassination and continuing for decades thereafter - scarcely more plausible than a unified conspiracy theory.


Okay, this shows that Lance actually DOES understand that there had to have been two conspiracies. The fact that he already knew the explanation for his original problem shows that's he's not being serious.

But now, upon revealing the he knew all along the explanation for his own first question, he poses doubts about that explanation. Of course there's a reasonable explanation for these doubts as well that I could easily explain here. But I'm certain that Lance is an ideologue whose mind cannot be changed. So I will take Cliff's advice and leave it at that.
 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

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

×
×
  • Create New...