Who supports/promotes the shills?

[Bruce Fernandez]

Ok, we (the CT'rs) believe that many of the LN'rs are shills for somebody. Who? For what purpose? Is their purpose nefarious?

[David Josephs]

Who? McAdams (6th Floor museum, Posner, Bugliosi & Myers followers a close second)

For what purpose? To slow, stop or simply interrupt discussion about new theories, evidence, corroboration, etc among Conspiracy Realist researchers and authors in favor of the Warren Commission Report conclusions which in themselves are laughable on their won, let alone the evidence which supposedly supports them.

Is their purpose nefarious? http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm depends on how you see it.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

This is one of the most effective LNer shill tactics employed followed by these two:

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Bruce... IMO, the reality of what occurred is beyond the understanding or comprehension of the ordinary person... even some of us have a hard time fathoming the extent of depravity required to do what they were doing starting in the late 30's and what the suggested consequences were for not "looking the other way" re:JFK - Just ask Bolden, Yates, Craig, and a host of others.

William Blum, http://williamblum.org/, presents these two laws, which, if you watch the news with #2 in mind, it certainly makes more sense... C.Rice - "no way we could imagine them using airplanes as missles" while the pentagon is conducting exercises regarding that specific thing against the same building that were hit"

For our purposes the reason behind all the shilling is to keep people away from #1 and wanting to uncover, stop the evil.

Sadly, from my POV, the time for revolt has come and gone... 9/11 was an " in your face, what are you gonna do about it anyway" event with its roots from the JFK killing and cover-up. Those that do these things do not reinvent the wheel each time. they take what works and repeat it over and over... the names and places change, but the operational details remain the same. 9/11 had 19 patsies, Kissinger, Zelikow, and NIST producing a report as fraudulent as the WCR ever was.

There are over 6 billion people on this little planet - some are simply not going to learn what they don't wanna know - no matter what.

The First "Watergate" Law of American Politics states: “No matter how paranoid you are,

what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”

The Second "Watergate" Law states: “Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially

denied.

[Glenn Nall]

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

This is one of the most effective LNer shill tactics employed followed by these two:

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

these are all basic arguments learned in any Critical Thinking class. I notice them a lot when I'm talking with Democrats.

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

Excellent comment.

[Dawn Meredith]

Ok, we (the CT'rs) believe that many of the LN'rs are shills for somebody. Who? For what purpose? Is their purpose nefarious?

The ones who haunt the forums are possible paid to infiltrate and spread lies. So yes their purpose is nefarious. Last week I was friended on fb by another atty - someone I do not know- and when I made my status about the assassination, he began posting stupid crap. So we got into an IM discussion for a few days, but his reasoning was circular. Warren was a good man, therefore there was no conspiracy. And argued that the media would never cover it up. So there are lots of lone nuts who remain ignorant on purpose. In my thirty years as an attorney I have seen much of this with people who have higher education. They are just so invested in the system and will not read anything that will rock their boat. Frustrating. I could not get this atty to even read an Amazon review of JFKU. It had to be a New York times review. So I gave up communicating with him. Waste of time.

Dawn

[Glenn Nall]

"They are just so invested in the system"

sometimes I think that's simply the bottom line - for whatever reason they're afraid to be "wrong", or unable to think because of this investment...

[Glenn Nall]

you're dead right - in here, even, sometimes it seems that having the "right" theory is the goal to winning. I'm chatting with another CTer at the moment in another thread whose CT theory is far from mine, but we've both respected each other, used reason, and i've learned much from his larger knowledge - and have been glad to do so. I just posted that i'll even listen to a LNer, until he (invariably) leaves reason behind.

there are CTers, too, who are closed minded. this is a contrary behavior to a desire for the truth, in my opinion. i don't get that.

and my joke about Dems was just friendly ribbing. I think most people in here are Dems (likely, anyway). Our common goal *should* supercede such other agendas. shouldn't it?

[Glenn Nall]

The Second "Watergate" Law states: “Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially

denied.

God I love that. :-)

[Glenn Nall]

Fair enough, but OTOH, I have seen CTs who will not view a video or read an article or a book by an LN.

I'm open to reasonable folk from either side - especially, Vince Bugliosi who's just passed - I have an enormous respect for his reasoning and tactical skills (after having just read And The Sea Will Tell).

[Steven Gaal]

Fair enough, but OTOH, I have seen CTs who will not view a video or read an article or a book by an LN.

I'm open to reasonable folk from either side - especially, Vince Bugliosi who's just passed - I have an enormous respect for his reasoning and tactical skills (after having just read And The Sea Will Tell).

yes good reasoning but a man with a agenda, IMHO GAAL

=============================================

see http://www.ctka.net/reclaim.html

=============

best part of above link (but all above in the link good)

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/reclaiming_parkland.html

Edited June 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Jon G. Tidd]

There have been individuals of great reasoning power who have been wrong. Einstein, for example, missed the mark when he said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

There have been individuals of good reasoning power who have missed the mark. For example, engineers whose knowledge has been overtaken by science or technology.

Bugliosi was a persuasive individual but not a deep thinker. His legacy is dust.

[Glenn Nall]

i'm fairly certain that there have never been individuals who have not ever been wrong, Jon. Never meant VB was not wrong, simply stated that I respected his brilliance despite his agenda. Kathy had discussed people who are not willing to listen to an alternate view, and I agreed with her, that I am not one of those unwilling to listen to the LNers, esp VB because of the respect for him I have. I've learned many things from people I'd never has suspected could teach me something.

where I lose respect is with persons who are just fishing for opportunities to find negative sides of people with whom they disagree.

Sole Assassin theory is ridiculous, we know it's ridiculous and we even scoff at its ridiculousness. I get that. I just chose to say something nice about one of them.

I've read that Einstein ended up a little bitter at the fact that he was wrong with a couple of things. I'm certainly hoping he was more able to allow for the room for error than the room you seem to be able to give him. Of course he missed marks. That particular one is a matter of opinion, tho. Not fact.

have you read And The Sea Will Tell? Vince was a serious good trial lawyer.

[Glenn Nall]

Fair enough, but OTOH, I have seen CTs who will not view a video or read an article or a book by an LN.

I'm open to reasonable folk from either side - especially, Vince Bugliosi who's just passed - I have an enormous respect for his reasoning and tactical skills (after having just read And The Sea Will Tell).

yes good reasoning but a man with a agenda, IMHO GAAL

=============================================

see http://www.ctka.net/reclaim.html

=============

best part of above link (but all above in the link good)

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/reclaiming_parkland.html

no doubt.

(here's a secret: i have an agenda, too...)

[David Josephs]

Fair enough, but OTOH, I have seen CTs who will not view a video or read an article or a book by an LN.

BTW,I have seen the same behavior CT to CT. So is it fair to say that some CTs promote a theory because they are not really CTs, but are just posting or writing because they wish to divide the community, or is it because there are a lot of various theories which folk believe?.

(PS to Glenn: I am a Democrat, and was not aware that what you wrote was the way we/they respond. Good to know. )

Kathy... what LNer book is better than the WCR and a reading of the WCDocs to learn and understand what the Lone Nut Theory is all about?

Just to be clear here... THESE 12 conclusions are what these LNer shills and authors have to work with along with 26 volumes and 1553 WCD totaling 10's of thousands of pages to support these conclusions...

Does Myers, Posner, Manchester or Bugs PROVE any of these points in any more depth or with any more dishonesty than the docs and references named above? (and those pages are only a drop in the proverbial bucket when it comes to the total doc counts....) They MUST use the same batch of evidence we do... I'm the "Evidence IS the Conspiracy" guy... how can anyone defend and use the evidence in this case to prove what happened when all it does is prove what DIDN'T and how it was covered-up ??

THE 12 CONCLUSIONS (abbreviated) of the Warren Commission Report. and some comments.

1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository.

(put Oswald in that window)

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.

(the HSCA proved that wrong plus there are numerous “marks” in DP from that day to prove well more than the 4 shots the HSCA found (they actually found 6, 2 were not fired from the only two locations they test- fired from… they were still gunshot sounds… just not from the GK or SE window)

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot. hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.

(please present said evidence – show how an 11 degree UPWARD angle needed to connect back to front can be accomplished from 70 feet above the target)

And then turn to WCD298 for the FBI's explanation to the Warren Commission in Jan 1964. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=26&tab=page

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald

(any evidence that shows he fired a rifle or THAT rifle was fired would be appreciated)

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination

(please connect this with the killing of JFK and the evidence presented by Markham and Bowley)

6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer.

(and this has to do with JFK how?)

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning

Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police :

(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald

was not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement

officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled

to give any information and that any statements made by him

might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right

to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of

his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar

Association, which he rejected at that time. (This is terribly untrue)

Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed

uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass

when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and

other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment

and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to

orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the

prisoner.

© The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to

the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this

period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have

presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for

Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or

misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in

the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen.

(explain what this has to do with Oswald's interrogation and the fact that one of the largest homicide departments in the county did not have a tape recorder or stenographer available to record this evidence which would need to be used at his trial... seems they knew there'd not be a trial, huh?)

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963

(this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK as opposed to indicating that there was a conspiracy for which he was silenced?)

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign,to assassinate President Kennedy

(it was right there, in a pile in the corner… they didn’t even bother to look at it… what exactly are Duran and Alvarado? What was he doing in Mexico or why was he FRAUDULENTLY placed in Mexico? please address the evidence that DOES indicate a connection and was presented in the WCR… it was found, it was ignored…. Just another FLAW?)

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official

(there’s “found” again do we really need to cover the mountain of evidence that DOES support this and the indutrial scale blinders these men wore?)

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone... (begging the question, what evidence was not placed before the commission?

Hoover on Dec 12, 1963: in a letter to his senior staff:

"I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man."

The FBI report from Dec 9^th:

On the contrary, the data developed strongly indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little advance planning.

This will address the "plan" which had to be in place for Oswald to have done this alone... check it out http://www.ctka.net/2014/Theevidenceistheconspiracy.html

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

with regards to this last one... Wouldn't GREER be the SS agent who was the agent "most immediately responsible for the President's safety?"

This is the WCR definition of "reacting promptly" 2-5 seconds after the first shot(s) had been fired... is Greer simply waiting and making sure here?

Edited June 19, 2015 by David Josephs

[Glenn Nall]

i know you addressed Kathy, but - well, since you put it THAT way... no wonder I'm convinced.

and to what "head turn" at 303 are you referring? Greer's? just curious...