Eject! Eject! Eject!

[John Simkin]

That's an interesting post, Craig. I'll read through the whole of it later (I dislike long posts) but a friend recently did a talk on Conspiracy Theories, and came up with 10 tests to apply. I think it is relevant to this thread so I'll post it here:

This makes no sense unless you define what a conspiracy theory is? Is seems that your friend defines it as anything he disagrees with.

[Richard Pullen]

Whoa! "Peter, "Me bad.

I was going to say that for years you were a hero of mine, especially Peter for this specific quote of yours re Grand Juries:

Peter Lemkin says >>>...... “The public generally would welcome this (court/trial), but are dis-involved with politics and passive, scared by the growing police state, distracted by the increasing struggle just to survive, and cynical. Without a huge public movement behind it it will be thwarted and endlessly delayed by a variety of means.”

The Paragon Paragraph to obtaining Justice…I call it.

I owe Mr. Lemkin a huge apology and I want get my peters mixed-up anymore, I PROMISE!

But now that Im here let’s talk... I'll attempt to be EXTREMLY wordy also.

>>>Lamson>>>>This whole ball of earwax got started when a French author (by way of gratitude, I presume, for the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed defending his country from a tyranny they themselves were unwilling to fight) claimed that the hole in the Pentagon was far too small to have been caused by a jet. It must have been a missile!<<<

So the French were unwilling to fight? It seems to me the French were the First to Declared War on Germany along with Poland and another brave Country. This, while another big country hid in pure fear from the Nazi's. (i forget their name? Can you help Mr. Lamson?) I believe it was the French who gave over 30,000 dead to hold off the enemy while other brave countries troops survived the onslaught at a beach called Dunkirk to fight again. And fight again THEY DID! (All this while another country hid in fear.) It appears to me, the French were willing to fight, and were not a coward country like some others (that i can't think of w/o your help Mr. Lamson.)

>>> Lamson >>>> ........ the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed defending his (FRENCH) country ....... <<<<

GEZZ! Now I need help with math! Can you help with that too Sir?

Lets see, 200,000 GI'S died in France? Now we know we lost more men on other fronts than France. We know it wasn’t the Japan front that the U.S. took the most casualties. We do know that, right Mr. Lamson? I believe it was a country that we went into--and never came out of. (i wonder why we don’t brag about that more.)

Anyway, we did arrive, like you say, in Europe proper, 10 months before the end of the war. But since the fascist had been already been basically stopped by brave countries until they had their surrender shoes on, how do you figure they killed 200,000 GI's??

>> Lamson >>> Posner, by contrast, devotes almost half his book to Oswald. This is the heart of it, because once you fully appreciate what a pathetic loser Oswald was, the entire day makes crystalline sense. <<<

Yep, what a pathetic loser Lee was;

At age 9 -- IQ OF 120

Age 14-- member of Civil Air Patrol

Age 16-- Speaks Russian

Age 17--Marine

Age 19-- Radar operator at spy base.

Age 21-- Foreign CIA spy-- or defector

Age 24 -- Infamous

How pathetic can ya get!!

Now me, when I was a kid-- I did things--I was exciting.

Lets me and you write a wordy expose to the forum on what we accomplished by his age. Then they'll know what pathetic really is!! (you first, OK?)

>>> Lamson >>>> What I am trying to do here is to build a chain of evidence to show a progressively deteriorating epidemic of world-wide insanity, of truly diseased thinking -- <<<

In the words of another brainiac:

MISSION ACCOPLISHED!

LEMKIN-lamson

Bet I don’t make that mistake again!

[Mark Stapleton]

My my my Mark, your panties are a bit twisted I see. Now how many forum rules have you broken in this one post alone? I'll leave that for the mods to sort out.

I don't have to agree will all aspects of with all aspects of every article I post Mark...do you. I do agree with the authors assesment of how the CT mind works. He nailed yours to a tee.

Please try again .

I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear.

I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there.

Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile.

Nice thread, Craig.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Craig Lamson]

My my my Mark, your panties are a bit twisted I see. Now how many forum rules have you broken in this one post alone? I'll leave that for the mods to sort out.

I don't have to agree will all aspects of with all aspects of every article I post Mark...do you. I do agree with the authors assesment of how the CT mind works. He nailed yours to a tee.

Please try again .

I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear.

I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there.

Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile.

Nice thread, Craig.

Oh My Mark, I've never embraced ANY theory when it comes to the murder of JFK, LN or otherwise because I simply don't really care who did it or why. I enjoy working on the photographic aspects of any number of subjects. So you see I'm not 'backing away" from anything.

I suggest you take a close look at the last sentence of your post to find your rule breaking. I need no help from the mods dealing with you, but if there are to be rules they need to apply to everyone...you included.

Nice try.

[Craig Lamson]

Whoa! "Peter, "Me bad.

I was going to say that for years you were a hero of mine, especially Peter for this specific quote of yours re Grand Juries:

Peter Lemkin says >>>...... “The public generally would welcome this (court/trial), but are dis-involved with politics and passive, scared by the growing police state, distracted by the increasing struggle just to survive, and cynical. Without a huge public movement behind it it will be thwarted and endlessly delayed by a variety of means.”

The Paragon Paragraph to obtaining Justice…I call it.

I owe Mr. Lemkin a huge apology and I want get my peters mixed-up anymore, I PROMISE!

But now that Im here let’s talk... I'll attempt to be EXTREMLY wordy also.

>>>Lamson>>>>This whole ball of earwax got started when a French author (by way of gratitude, I presume, for the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed defending his country from a tyranny they themselves were unwilling to fight) claimed that the hole in the Pentagon was far too small to have been caused by a jet. It must have been a missile!<<<

So the French were unwilling to fight? It seems to me the French were the First to Declared War on Germany along with Poland and another brave Country. This, while another big country hid in pure fear from the Nazi's. (i forget their name? Can you help Mr. Lamson?) I believe it was the French who gave over 30,000 dead to hold off the enemy while other brave countries troops survived the onslaught at a beach called Dunkirk to fight again. And fight again THEY DID! (All this while another country hid in fear.) It appears to me, the French were willing to fight, and were not a coward country like some others (that i can't think of w/o your help Mr. Lamson.)

>>> Lamson >>>> ........ the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed defending his (FRENCH) country ....... <<<<

GEZZ! Now I need help with math! Can you help with that too Sir?

Lets see, 200,000 GI'S died in France? Now we know we lost more men on other fronts than France. We know it wasn’t the Japan front that the U.S. took the most casualties. We do know that, right Mr. Lamson? I believe it was a country that we went into--and never came out of. (i wonder why we don’t brag about that more.)

Anyway, we did arrive, like you say, in Europe proper, 10 months before the end of the war. But since the fascist had been already been basically stopped by brave countries until they had their surrender shoes on, how do you figure they killed 200,000 GI's??

>> Lamson >>> Posner, by contrast, devotes almost half his book to Oswald. This is the heart of it, because once you fully appreciate what a pathetic loser Oswald was, the entire day makes crystalline sense. <<<

Yep, what a pathetic loser Lee was;

At age 9 -- IQ OF 120

Age 14-- member of Civil Air Patrol

Age 16-- Speaks Russian

Age 17--Marine

Age 19-- Radar operator at spy base.

Age 21-- Foreign CIA spy-- or defector

Age 24 -- Infamous

How pathetic can ya get!!

Now me, when I was a kid-- I did things--I was exciting.

Lets me and you write a wordy expose to the forum on what we accomplished by his age. Then they'll know what pathetic really is!! (you first, OK?)

>>> Lamson >>>> What I am trying to do here is to build a chain of evidence to show a progressively deteriorating epidemic of world-wide insanity, of truly diseased thinking -- <<<

In the words of another brainiac:

MISSION ACCOPLISHED!

LEMKIN-lamson

Bet I don’t make that mistake again!

Oh yes..the French...fought right up until they surrendered....

Far be it for me to question your ability at math...but...

The US lost 180,000 plus in battle deaths in the Atlantic/Europe. Add in the non-combat deaths and "hundreds of thousands" is just about right.

Did the US "Hide in Fear" I think not. Indifference is more like it.

Despite Oswalds "accomplishments" he ended up a common laborer living in a small rented apartment. I think loser fits.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

My my my Mark, your panties are a bit twisted I see. Now how many forum rules have you broken in this one post alone? I'll leave that for the mods to sort out.

I don't have to agree will all aspects of with all aspects of every article I post Mark...do you. I do agree with the authors assesment of how the CT mind works. He nailed yours to a tee.

Please try again .

I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear.

I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there.

Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile.

Nice thread, Craig.

Oh My Mark, I've never embraced ANY theory when it comes to the murder of JFK, LN or otherwise because I simply don't really care who did it or why. I enjoy working on the photographic aspects of any number of subjects. So you see I'm not 'backing away" from anything.

I suggest you take a close look at the last sentence of your post to find your rule breaking. I need no help from the mods dealing with you, but if there are to be rules they need to apply to everyone...you included.

Nice try.

For someone who claims not to need moderator assisstance, you sure spend a lot of time denouncing others for breaking the rules.

I'm glad you've stated your position on the JFK assassination. You don't care who did it or why. Very patriotic. I've known very few Americans who feel this way. You have no opinion, except that you take exception when film alterationists express theirs. Correct? And despite the fact that you don't care who killed JFK, you have a strong distaste for those who suggest there was a conspiracy. Right?

There's probably a word to describe those who feel this way. Can't think of it at the moment.

[Sid Walker]

My my my Mark, your panties are a bit twisted I see. Now how many forum rules have you broken in this one post alone? I'll leave that for the mods to sort out.

I don't have to agree will all aspects of with all aspects of every article I post Mark...do you. I do agree with the authors assesment of how the CT mind works. He nailed yours to a tee.

Please try again .

I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear.

I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there.

Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile.

Nice thread, Craig.

Oh My Mark, I've never embraced ANY theory when it comes to the murder of JFK, LN or otherwise because I simply don't really care who did it or why. I enjoy working on the photographic aspects of any number of subjects. So you see I'm not 'backing away" from anything.

I suggest you take a close look at the last sentence of your post to find your rule breaking. I need no help from the mods dealing with you, but if there are to be rules they need to apply to everyone...you included.

Nice try.

For someone who claims not to need moderator assisstance, you sure spend a lot of time denouncing others for breaking the rules.

I'm glad you've stated your position on the JFK assassination. You don't care who did it or why. Very patriotic. I've known very few Americans who feel this way. You have no opinion, except that you take exception when film alterationists express theirs. Correct? And despite the fact that you don't care who killed JFK, you have a strong distaste for those who suggest there was a conspiracy. Right?

There's probably a word to describe those who feel this way. Can't think of it at the moment.

Spooky?

[Craig Lamson]

My my my Mark, your panties are a bit twisted I see. Now how many forum rules have you broken in this one post alone? I'll leave that for the mods to sort out.

I don't have to agree will all aspects of with all aspects of every article I post Mark...do you. I do agree with the authors assesment of how the CT mind works. He nailed yours to a tee.

Please try again .

I don't know how many Forum rules my previous post broke. None I think. But maybe you can point them out for me? And I see you're already calling for moderator assisstance. Oh dear, oh dear.

I assume the first sentence of your second paragraph, despite all its grammatical errors, means you're backing away from the lone nut theory. Good choice. It's a cold and lonely place. Even moderators can't help you when you're sitting out there.

Like I often say, if a thread can save just one person from falling for the lone nut theory, then it's all been worthwhile.

Nice thread, Craig.

Oh My Mark, I've never embraced ANY theory when it comes to the murder of JFK, LN or otherwise because I simply don't really care who did it or why. I enjoy working on the photographic aspects of any number of subjects. So you see I'm not 'backing away" from anything.

I suggest you take a close look at the last sentence of your post to find your rule breaking. I need no help from the mods dealing with you, but if there are to be rules they need to apply to everyone...you included.

Nice try.

For someone who claims not to need moderator assisstance, you sure spend a lot of time denouncing others for breaking the rules.

I'm glad you've stated your position on the JFK assassination. You don't care who did it or why. Very patriotic. I've known very few Americans who feel this way. You have no opinion, except that you take exception when film alterationists express theirs. Correct? And despite the fact that you don't care who killed JFK, you have a strong distaste for those who suggest there was a conspiracy. Right?

There's probably a word to describe those who feel this way. Can't think of it at the moment.

I actual hate having the mods decide whats right or wrong, but its here and we ALL have to abide by the rules of the house. You have a problem with that?

Don't like my position on JFK fine. You feeling like chasing your tail another 40 years be my guest. Chances are you will end up right where you are now...which is nowhere. Even if there is some big 'break" in the case, so what? Think anyone will really care? Think the future will change? We know tha past will not. JFK's death is old news. The world prefers watching Big Brother. You don't know enough Americans.

I study the photography of the JFK case among others because its entertaining. It sharpens my skill set. And I do love watching what passes for "photography experts" and the head nodders and back slappers that follow them. Again its great entertainment. The wonderful thing about photography is that its a pretty hard science, very little "opinion" needed. The fact of the matter is that I love it when the ct photo "experts" express their opinions...its a target rich environment.

CT's are an entertaining bunch. Do I have a strong distaste for them? No way...I love watching them! Its my comedy central.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I do have to give Stephen credit where credit is due. He at least attempted to refute the author with a counter argument before resorting to an ad hom. The rest of you.....

Thanks for the credit Craig, but, I didnt ATTEMPT to refute the author over his crowing about Mr Posners work, I chewed him up, and spat him out, and if you care to read through the thread youll see how, Case closed has been bulldozed, raised destroyed, all Posners sham research and partial reporting has been throughly exposed for the overhyped HAMFISTED, COMICALLY AMATURE job that it is. Still I dont expect you, or anyone else to come to his aid, if the Author himself doesnt possess the conjones why should you bother. All of this, of course doesnt prove Oswald didnt shoot Kennedy, just that as a unbiased guide to those events Posners book is worthless, and in truth about as far from "the best reseached book I have ever read, bar none"as it is possible to be.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Stephen Turner
to remove an offending word.

[Craig Lamson]

I do have to give Stephen credit where credit is due. He at least attempted to refute the author with a counter argument before resorting to an ad hom. The rest of you.....

Thanks for the credit Craig, but, I didnt ATTEMPT to refute the author over his crowing about Mr Posners work, I chewed him up, and spat him out, and if you care to read through the thread youll see how, Case closed has been bulldozed, raised destroyed, all Posners sham research and partial reporting has been throughly exposed for the overhyped shill job that it is. Still I dont expect you, or anyone else to come to his aid, if the Author himself doesnt possess the conjones why should you bother. All of this, of course doesnt prove Oswald didnt shoot Kennedy, just that as a unbiased guide to those events Posners book is worthless, and in truth about as far from "the best reseached book I have ever read, bar none"as it is possible to be.

Maybe you are right about Posners book and then again maybe not. I don't know because I've not read the book nor do I have any intention of doing so. I suggest that if you have a beef with the author of the article I posted about his comments on the book you take it up with him. His contact information is listed at his webite.

Oh and just a quick question...since its been used quite a few times in this thread and now by a mod...is shill now off the bad word list or what?

Edited April 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Oh and just a quick question...since its been used quite a few times in this thread and now by a mod...is shill now off the bad word list or what?

Craig, I used the word in conjunction with Gerald Posner, who,(although he has been invited to defend his work many times) is not a member of this Forum. Still, on reflection your probably right, I withdraw the word shill, and insert hamfisted, and comically amature.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Stephen Turner

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Lamson writes:

"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."

Not quite.

The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.

The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."

Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.

The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?

Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?

Charles

[Richard Pullen]

>>> Lamson >>> Despite Oswalds "accomplishments" he ended up a common laborer living in a small rented apartment. I think loser fits. <<<

Fine then, but if Lee killed JFK ONLY because he earned minimum wages and had a small Apartment, then say that. Don't try to sell his fine accomlishments as bad.

Mr. posner and yourself might want to be aware of some new info just in from Americas #1 Brainiac;

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."

So see, even our prezetent says Lee is innocent!

>> Lamson >> The US lost 180,000 plus in battle deaths in the Atlantic/Europe. Add in the non-combat deaths and "hundreds of thousands" is just about right. <<

Yeah, but you said France. Like we did so much "defending" France. I suspect we lost at most, 10,000 before we reached Belgiam. I don't think they owe us, and seems they agree. And laying all that non-textile carpet on the civies because of Von-Lucks little 21st panzers that wouldn't move for 6 weeks, -- that didn't win much appreciation.

..Lamson >>>> Did the US "Hide in Fear" (from ww2) I think not. Indifference is more like it.

Oh we were just indifferent- Thanks for the info, I didn't know! So we were in the neighborhood of 50/50 between axis & allies. OK, sure.

And please don't say, ''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—"

Thats already been said.

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Lamson writes:

"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."

Not quite.

The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.

The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."

Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.

The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?

Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?

Charles

What 'intelligence operation"? Or did it Oswald really do it?

Thanks for adding even more evidence to the authors position.

Can ANY of you deal with the real thrust of this article? It appears not.

[Craig Lamson]

>>> Lamson >>> Despite Oswalds "accomplishments" he ended up a common laborer living in a small rented apartment. I think loser fits. <<<

Fine then, but if Lee killed JFK ONLY because he earned minimum wages and had a small Apartment, then say that. Don't try to sell his fine accomlishments as bad.

Mr. posner and yourself might want to be aware of some new info just in from Americas #1 Brainiac;

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."

So see, even our prezetent says Lee is innocent!

>> Lamson >> The US lost 180,000 plus in battle deaths in the Atlantic/Europe. Add in the non-combat deaths and "hundreds of thousands" is just about right. <<

Yeah, but you said France. Like we did so much "defending" France. I suspect we lost at most, 10,000 before we reached Belgiam. I don't think they owe us, and seems they agree. And laying all that non-textile carpet on the civies because of Von-Lucks little 21st panzers that wouldn't move for 6 weeks, -- that didn't win much appreciation.

..Lamson >>>> Did the US "Hide in Fear" (from ww2) I think not. Indifference is more like it.

Oh we were just indifferent- Thanks for the info, I didn't know! So we were in the neighborhood of 50/50 between axis & allies. OK, sure.

And please don't say, ''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right."—"

Thats already been said.

Who said Oswald killed JFK ONLY because he earned minimum wage? I simply stated that for all of his supposed "accomplishment"s he sure failed to make much of himself. Unless you count allegedly killing JFK an accomplishment. I don't.

Wow, we did not do much to "defend" France. What an amazing statement. I wonder what a vet from D-Day might say to you if you said the same to his face? France was not free from Germany until Germany was beaten...and that cost the US "Hundreds of Thousands" of lives. Oh yea. They owe us.

It was not America's war. It was thousands of miles away. We had no compelling reason to fight. We were indifferent.

And please let me know when you find a d-day vet, I would love to witness you telling him he did nothing to defend France.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson