Jump to content
The Education Forum

A World Gone Mad


Recommended Posts

Again: To try and frame a discussion as "My side is legitimate and your side is not legitimate" is anti-intellectual.

I don't recognize "sides."

I'm not on anyone's "side," except for the first day witnesses.

I'm looking at non-debateable fact.

Fact: The bullet hole in JFK's jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

Fact: The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Fact: JFK rode thru Dealey Plaza with his right arm elevated.

Fact: Every time Stephen Roy raises his right arm the fabric along his right shoulder-line indents.

Stephen, what "side" does one need to be on, here?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not on anyone's "side," except for the first day witnesses.

This this how I divide the JFK Assassination Research Universe: those who acknowledge the T3 back wound/throat entrance and those who don't.

As for conspiracy theories, I divide those between theories rendered prior to the assassination of Oswald (Salandria/Feldman, the autopsists, Gary Underhill) and those theories rendered after the murder of Oswald.

With notable exceptions like Fletcher Prouty's work -- I find conspiracy theories rendered after the murder of Oswald to be useless.

I hope this makes it obvious that I'm on nobody's "side."

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Josephs @ post #26:

The Warren Report conclusions are couched in the language of lawyers but are deceitful. The Commission neither took nor received "evidence". In order for testimony to be admitted into evidence (lawyer language), it must be subject to cross examination and meet certain other requirements. None of the Warren Commission witnesses were cross-examined. It's fair to say, therefore, that all of the testimony is worthless as a matter of law. Utterly worthless.

So when the Warren Report says "there is very persuasive evidence" or says "the weight of the evidence", it makes meaningless statements. Deceitful. misleading statements.

DVP @ post #22:

Thanks for your response. You're more persuasive on the "why question" than on the "how question" in my view. I agree no one can say with certainty why Oswald, if he did kill JFK, wanted to kill him. The mechanical part, the "how" part, is less a matter of speculation. He would have had to squeeze into a cramped position with a crappy rifle and just four bullets. A rifle he would have had to assemble hurriedly with a dime as his only tool. Was it possible for him to fire two rounds from the crappy rifle into JFK? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I know how Las Vegas would stack the odds of success on his part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I hope someday you see things differently. I'm not taking a side here, I'm debating an abstract point of discourse. A weapon that we use unfairly today can be turned around and used unfairly on us tomorrow. Sometimes you make very good points, sometimes not. Sometimes David Von Pein makes very good points, sometimes not. The world is not as black and white as some think. In fact, the intensity with which one presses their viewpoint (and tries to limit debate) often affects how their arguments are received. In a real sense, everybody benefits by give and take. I suspect you may not fully agree, but I respect your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree that since this section of the EF is titled "JFK Assassination Debate" then it is perhaps appropriate for those who wish to "debate" to post here. However, it is also appropriate, in my view,

for the owner of a forum to limit the scope of what is debatable on their own forum else it will become a free-for-all.

For instance, would it be appropriate, simply because this forum is titled "JFK Assassination Debate," to allow a debate on "whether or not" JFK was assassinated? What to do with those who claim that

JFK was never murdered, but rather faked his own death and then retired south of the Cliffs of Dover? Should we entertain all sorts of "debate" so long as they relate to JFK? Of course, most would agree

that my sample "debate" would not be allowed as it is way too far fetched, that there is overwhelming evidence of his death, and that to entertain such unbridled argument would be a farcical waste of time.

Gee, I've just described the Single Bullet Theory, the alleged timing of the shots from that weapon, the negative for nitrates on the cheeks paraffin test, and I'll even throw in the bunched up jacket for good

measure, and so much more.

But that's just me.

I do understand the frustration in wanting to debate/discuss conspiracy particulars but being sidetracked into debating conspiracy itself, yet again. What concerned me about the original post was that a couple of people actually wanted von Pein prosecuted or banned from the Internet. Surely you don't agree with that.

But even within the community, there is disagreement over certain concepts: H&L, USSS complicity, extent of mob involvement, heck, even the extent of Oswald's involvement. I'd hate to see debate arbitrarily limited on any of those topics. Most of us are savvy enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent points Jon... in our discussion though we ought to at least try to authenticate the evidence which was offered or else why bother having the discussion (which is where the DVPs of the world fall all over themselves).... The WC did indeed take evidence, physical evidence, and did provide its authentication by means of testimony which was, as you pointed out, never crossed and therefore never really authenticated... all by means of avoiding having to establish a chain of possession...

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen.

The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality.

The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing.

The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony.

Stephen - I get the abstract aspect of your argument completely.

Should I be insisting upon the right to debate, or present a POV, for something that has been proven demonstratively wrong just becasue I have yet to accept its wrongness?

In certain cases I can see where that stifles intellect and progress... when there are actually 2 sides to a topic.

I have to say though that in this case, where not even the basic rules of debate or discussion (or common decency) are adhered to by the offending party, where logic and reason can be dismissed based on faith and speculation,

and where evidence authentication and corroboration takes second seat to unsupported hypothesis - there comes a time when enough is enough.

I asked you before if you had ever been convinced by a presentation from DVP that we/you were wrong about a lie the WCR told and supported - and you say he's made some good points...

Reiterating the evidence and then subverting it from some agenda does not qualify to me as debate or discussion...

How many times does the entire Rifle sequence need to be presented before those of DVP's POV understand that our Ozzie did not have a rifle, never had a rifle and all the evidence that can be found does not support his ever having a rifle in the US...

Let's realte a story close to my current home - Sept 23 1963. When Ruth and Marina leave New Orleans with the children, the WCR claims Oswald takes a bus from NOLA to Houston. There is no record of this and those who were asked say he left with two small suitcases about 18" across. Ruth and Micheal relate that no rifle was removed from the car when unpacking in Irving. Oswald did not take a rifle to Mexico.

Yet magically a rifle appears on the 6th floor on the right day... this entire discussion and debate revolves aroung the authenticity of the evidence.

If you can point to a single statement posted by DVP where he authenticates any single piece of evidence he offers as FACT, please let us know.... to me he sounds like Arlen Specter...

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion

I'd imagine you'd Give Arlen the time of day as well to present such nonsense and call it debate/discussion as opposed to the wholesale rejection of moral and physical law. The problem here is that the dabate is not two sides of the same coin but instead a denial that the coin even exists.

How does one debate or discuss that ...?.

"We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

edit: I should add that the analysis of the evidence can be fruitful when looking to uncover the conspiracy... but not to discover the details of the assassination... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... so by default, defending the evidence is basically defending the conspiracy.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Roy @ post #35:

The arena of opinions is black and white.

It certainly is not. There are many shades of nuance in opinion. Take the JFK matter, for example, and limit it to CTs: Some think Oswald was involved, some not. Some think CIA (or US intelligence) was involved, some not. Some think the mob was a major player, some not. Some think Garrison was right, some not. Some have differing opinions on the number of shots. Many shades of nuance. I'm sure there are some among us who wish things were more black and white, but they're not.

Just my nuanced opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand the frustration in wanting to debate/discuss conspiracy particulars but being sidetracked into debating conspiracy itself, yet again. What concerned me about the original post was that a couple of people actually wanted von Pein prosecuted or banned from the Internet. Surely you don't agree with that.

But even within the community, there is disagreement over certain concepts: H&L, USSS complicity, extent of mob involvement, heck, even the extent of Oswald's involvement. I'd hate to see debate arbitrarily limited on any of those topics. Most of us are savvy enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Surely not.

Disagreement does not equate to defense of the Unspeakable. Within any subject there is evidence. present and authenticate the evidence and you've made an argument. Disagreeing on the details of the conspiracy is not the same as denying the conspiracy.

The man Ruby killed has been shown not to have been involved in the death of JFK... that ALL of the evidence which attemtps to do so can be mitigated away with authenticated evidence.

Should he or anyone else be allowed to deny the holocaust? Does the possiblilty of there never having been a holocaust demean the memory and lives who know for a fact it was real and be allowed simply because of free speech... ?

People are not supposed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater for fear of the response, regardless of free speech, a line is drawn related to acceptable behavior.

Isn't one of the expectations of debate that an outside entity judge a winner? I'd suggest that step one be that all debators play by the same rules...

1. Authenticate the evidence you present

2. Attack the Evidence not the messenger

If we are to have a speculative discussion, fine... opinions are all correct until the evidence on which the opinion is based needs authentication... then we return to rule #1.

I don't have to agree with Cliff, or Greg or you - yet it is a bit difficult to argue against the evidence or the manner in which it has been authenticated.... or conversely... how badly it is misrepresented and defended.

BowronandGrodensF4_zpscdecaf7c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David J: We may just have to agree to disagree on this, as you've indicated a desire to move on.

Our brief discussion here, I think, illustrates my point: You have some very strong opinions on the authenticity of the evidence, and you press those opinions with great vigor. But in an earlier post, you take it further and suggest that smart people can only see it your way. If I disagreed with you, you'd require that I accept your opinions on the authenticity of the evidence. You might be right on some but wrong on others, but how are we to arrive at that?

Anyway, we can drop it at that.

I just think we all need to respect each others' opinions more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My strong opinions are on the process and result of authentication.

I never suggested anything about smart or dumb people that I can see... My only point is that a debate or discussion must include evidence and authentication unless we are having a speculation party.

In a debate or discussion the "other side" presents their evidence and authentication to make an argument. I've been convinced by many. many presentations of this Evidence with authentication... and none of it so far supports the WCR conclusions.

I contend Mr. P does neither. that a discussion with him is about his incredulousness over others not seeing how Oswald did it and then offering inauthentic evidence, speculation and insults. He can't believe we don't see it and yet offers air over and over as proof....

If you feel he delivers on the goods... enjoy his work, please.

All I;ve ever seen is the repeating of the same tired disproven "facts" that Ozzie had a rifle and he was a sharpshooter so he MUST have done it...

There is simply nothing of DVP, Posner or Bugliosi to respect. When they finally make a coherent and authentic argument, we'll all know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E. Martin Schotz (emphasis added):


THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE

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

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

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

The Waters of Knowledge versus The Waters of Uncertainty:

Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

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

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is simply nothing of DVP, Posner or Bugliosi to respect. When they finally make a coherent and authentic argument, we'll all know.

I'm often told that I and other "LNers" are "in denial" when it comes to the true facts surrounding JFK's murder. But I truly think it's the other way around--it's conspiracy theorists like Mr. David Josephs who are always "denying" what the evidence clearly indicates---and that evidence is all pointing in one single direction--to Lee H. Oswald. (How can anyone possibly deny that the evidence DOES, indeed, all point directly at Oswald and his guns and his shells and his bullets and his prints and HIS BLATANT LIES?)

Conspiracy theorists don't agree with each other on much of anything when it comes to the details of the assassination and the question of "WHO DID IT?"

Conspiracists are all over the map. No coherent theories whatsoever from what I have seen. And they certainly haven't disproved the Single-Bullet Theory to even the slightest degree -- although most CTers on the Internet THINK they have successfully demolished the SBT to the point where they don't even want to debate it with lowly "LN disinfo agents" like myself anymore.

But they've disproved nothing. They merely try to explain away all of the perfectly logical and factual elements of the SBT. And ANY alternate theories that have been suggested that would HAVE to replace the SBT always fall by the wayside via the weight of their absurdities and implausibilities alone (plus that pesky lack of ANY other bullets other than CE399 to explain the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally).

LNers, on the other hand, don't need to explain away every last piece of evidence in the entire case in order to make a logical and sound argument to answer the "WHO DID IT?" question. LNers can rely on the actual evidence in the case, which all hangs Lee H. Oswald. And the probability of ALL of the evidence against Oswald (which I discuss at the link below) being phony or planted or created from whole cloth by a band of conspirators who wanted to frame Oswald as the resident patsy is about as likely to be true as the nonsensical belief that many people have of no airplanes striking the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

In short -- LNers have the physical evidence to back their claims. Conspiracy theorists have their belief that all of that evidence is as phony as a nine-dollar bill.

And since I reside here in the real world, where miracles don't happen very often, I don't think there's much of a chance of the conspiracists being right when many of them keep insisting that Lee Oswald was innocent of the murders of BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

XX.+Oswald+Is+Guilty+Blog+Logo.png

Edited by David Von Pein
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...