Out of Step

[Stephen Roy]

I'm feeling increasingly out of step with the discussions in the Education Forum. In the old days, the discussion was approached in the most objective and academic way possible, with clear distinctions between things that were suspected and things that were proven. Today the discussions are dominated by a relatively small group with strong and inflexible opinions, more interested in preaching than in exchanging, and attempts to nudge the discussion closer to reality are not really welcomed. In any discussion group, there needs to be a faction who grounds it in reality. Forum rules prevent me from too much specificity, but there are some ideas being advanced here that are completely unrealistic.

I wish we could get the EF closer to its original mission, the one that drew me here in the first place, to seek some level of academic consensus from the combined talents of the members.

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm feeling increasingly out of step with the discussions in the Education Forum. In the old days, the discussion was approached in the most objective and academic way possible, with clear distinctions between things that were suspected and things that were proven. Today the discussions are dominated by a relatively small group with strong and inflexible opinions, more interested in preaching than in exchanging, and attempts to nudge the discussion closer to reality are not really welcomed. In any discussion group, there needs to be a faction who grounds it in reality. Forum rules prevent me from too much specificity, but there are some ideas being advanced here that are completely unrealistic.

There are no forum rules which prevent one from going after unrealistic ideas.

I go after unrealistic ideas all the time and no one is giving me any static.

Back when you were posting as Dave Blackburst on usenet you plumped for the validity of Bunch Theory, which has always left me the impression you only paid lip service to objectivity.

After all, if clothing cannot be objectively and accurately observed, nothing can.

I'd be happy to stand corrected if I got this wrong.

I wish we could get the EF closer to its original mission, the one that drew me here in the first place, to seek some level of academic consensus from the combined talents of the members.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Parker]

In the old days, the discussion was approached in the most objective and academic way possible, with clear distinctions between things that were suspected and things that were proven.

I think we all remember that day rather fondly...

These days it's all "I question ANYONE's zeal to dismiss JA's work. Be it Parker, XXXXX, and now most recently XXXXXX XXXXXX, (he called me the other day).

Motives?"

This was posted on another forum by a member here. So are my motives questionable? Or is the Two Oswald Theory lacking credibility and worse, is it fraudulent? I have put my case, but the poster of this is unable to put his/her case.

The problem would appear to be, in an effort to protect personal friends, as well as those who are "credible" (okay, so the two groups aren't necessarily exclusive, though they have been in the past) rules were put in place to ban any member from questioning the integrity or the motive of any other member. The net effect of this is, that you have to put up with a lot of questionable posters and questionable theories. The flip side is, who gets to decide who and what is credible and who and what is questionable.

If you rely upon community based co-operative research, you should also have enough trust in that same community to find it's own feet; it's own level of tolerance.

The rules here remain the underlying issue. What is needed are less rules - especially those where posters can find ways to exploit them to their own ends. What is also needed is more guidance and leadership by example.

just my 2 Oz pesos worth.

[Cliff Varnell]

Stephen,

I agree. There is a significant difference between the proven and the asserted to be proven.

Cliff,

Indeed there are no rules against unrealistic ideas,

No, I said there were no rules about going after unrealistic ideas.

but are they not just a waste of time if they are not grounded in verifiable evidence? What precisely is the point of an idea if not to generate progress in the case, not agendas, not politics, and not the benefit of one group over the many. The answers are not in unrealistic speculation, but verifiable evidence.

Yeah? The SBT fails on its trajectory -- the back wound too low to be associated with the throat wound.

I don't understand why anyone would say anything else about the obviously fallacious SBT...but that's just me...

I know some eschew this, however if you want to prove something it is required. Ideas and deduction are helpful, just not when they are called proven without substantial evidence.

[Cliff Varnell]

Stephen,

I agree. There is a significant difference between the proven and the asserted to be proven.

Cliff,

Indeed there are no rules against unrealistic ideas,

No, I said there were no rules about going after unrealistic ideas.

Indeed, so did I, no rules about it, just seemingly little point. To each his own.

I enjoy the back and forth. And when I see witnesses bashed overtly or covertly I feel compelled to stick up for them.

[Cliff Varnell]

I wish we could get the EF closer to its original mission, the one that drew me here in the first place, to seek some level of academic consensus from the combined talents of the members.

There is consensus Parkland witness testimony to JFK's throat entrance wound.

But there is no consensus regarding the throat wound in the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

There is consensus Bethesda witness testimony consistent with the low back wound (T3).

Lots of "top JFK assassination researchers" opine about a high back wound and a throat exit.

Looks to me like the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community has a deep seated aversion to the basic facts of the case.

[Mark Knight]

I have trouble with the basic H&L premise: that 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, a pair of kids are going to grow up and become intertwined in the assassination of a President....a President who could've been taken out in that 10, 15, or 20 years prior to his becoming President without causing nearly as many waves. And since this President was elected by a then nearly-unprecedented thin margin of votes, who could have guaranteed 10, 15, or 20 years before that he would have even been elected President in the first pace?

Were Marty McFly and Dr. Emmett Brown even mentioned in Armstrong's book?

[Ron Ecker]

I have trouble with the basic H&L premise: that 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, a pair of kids are going to grow up and become intertwined in the assassination of a President....a President who could've been taken out in that 10, 15, or 20 years prior to his becoming President without causing nearly as many waves. And since this President was elected by a then nearly-unprecedented thin margin of votes, who could have guaranteed 10, 15, or 20 years before that he would have even been elected President in the first pace?

Is it Armstrong's premise that these two kids were groomed as they grew up to assassinate John F. Kennedy? Him and him alone? I've always assumed, if there were indeed two kids who were groomed to be Harvey and Lee, that it was done just in case such a pair of people were ever needed for whatever. I mean, that at least makes sense. Preparing such pairs of people could even be routine. For all we know, there are Harveys and Lees walking around today for when needed though they don't even know it. If that sounds rather silly, well that's the CIA for you.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Carmine and Lee,

If you are Humes examining JFK's remains, what do you observe?

I ask because you are dedicated students-researchers. Apart from your logical dispute, are there facts, facts to which you agree?

[Mark Knight]

In my role as a moderator, I kept this thread locked for 24 hours, as a "cooling-off" period. Now that the thread is unlocked, I expect that the [now-deleted] personal attacks will cease and desist, and that the discussion will remain on topics related to the JFK assassination, and not to the personal grievances of various members of the forum who post here.

Returning to topic...In a way, I understand Mr. Roy's lament. Since the 50th anniversary of the assassination, many of our more experienced members have posted less and less. Has the quality of the discussion suffered? After doing a huge "cleanup on aisle three" on this very thread, I am inclined to agree. BUT...the fact that we have some of the old crew still contributing, members of the quality of Larry Hancock [to cite just one example], I'm encouraged in believing that we can regain the "quality" that Mr. Roy indicates has been lacking of late.

[Stephen Roy]

Sorry, Mark. I didn't mean to be whiny. I was saying that I feel out of step with those now dominating the discussion. I guess I was hoping that a few more like-minded people would broaden the discussion a bit.

[Mark Knight]

I don't think you were whining.

I understand your feeling. Right now I'm in the midst of a "discussion" with someone who has a problem with me pointing out that the foundation of his "solution" to the JFK assassination has assumption, rather than fact, as its basis. While I think there is value into exploring theories, theories based upon assumptions not supported by fact are the realm of novelists, rather than researchers...in my opinion.

But I have faith that the re-emergence of some of the old cast here will encourage the level of the discussions to rise. Even where you and I may disagree on interpretations, I still respect your insistence that we begin with the facts, as we are able to ascertain them.