Martin Hay on Ayton and Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

The Malignant Nature of Pseudo-Debate

by E. Martin Schotz

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html#s5

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 uncertainty 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.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Glenn Nall]

the Martin Schotz philosophy is all well and good, but it's a smoke screen while it describes a smoke screen. I'll not STOP debating the mystery because some people fall prey the smoke screen.

the best i can do is AVOID debate with idi--- with people who purposely confuse and muddy this water. The mystery exists, a solution exists, and it will not be found without dialog.

the division is the mature dialog versus the malignant dialog.

[Kenneth Drew]

Two points Ken:

1.) I am glad you noted how slippery the authors are. See the legal standard in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt. Not, by the preponderance of evidence. Did they really think nobody would notice that?

2.) The Commission did have the autopsy materials. But that fact appears to have been kept from the staffers. In one of the declassfiied executive session hearings McCloy asks Rankin about this and Rankin said they did have them in a special room.

James, from "Extraordinary Evidence" by Craig Finley location 1745 "The Warren Commission did not publish actual autopsy photos in their report. In fact, they never even saw the actual autopsy photos. Instead, they commissioned drawings from Medical Illustrator H.A. Rydberg. Rydberg himself never saw the autopsy photos and had to work from descriptions by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell who themselves did not have photos but relied on memory. Theorists claim the Warren Commission did this on purpose because the actual photos would be damning to their case. Time has proven the drawings to be damning to their case."

[Kenneth Drew]

the Martin Schotz philosophy is all well and good, but it's a smoke screen while it describes a smoke screen. I'll not STOP debating the mystery because some people fall prey the smoke screen.

the best i can do is AVOID debate with idi--- with people who purposely confuse and muddy this water. The mystery exists, a solution exists, and it will not be found without dialog.

the division is the mature dialog versus the malignant dialog.

Glenn, there's certainly nothing wrong with your philosophy, most of the discussion on this forum (and most forums) deal with 'what if' or 'yes, but' . As polls show, most people, I think about 85% accept that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Probably half think LHO might have been involved. Most people now recognize what the Warren Report actually is. It is a guidebook of talking points to mislead, for the Lone Nutters. It is clear that the objective was to convince as many as possible, that there was no conspiracy. Everything that points to conspiracy is not included in the Report. I, and you, and, I assume, most theorists wonder how Nutters can continue to argue the points they do when they obviously know that no one is buying what they're pushing. There is not one sane person in the world that believes that Brennan actually saw what he said he saw that day, including Brennan. Yet the Nutters will argue it forever. There are many other points that are completely impossible but it doesn't slow the nutters.

The tactic seems to be to bog everyone down in minute details about things that don't matter. My example of that is; all the discussion about the shots from the sniper's nest, how much space he had, how many shots were fired, the empty shells, the rifle, the lunch bag, the finger prints, etc, etc. A total waste of time. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any shots were fired from that spot, there is no evidence that LHO was ever at that spot, and there certainly is no evidence that a Manlicher Carcano rifle was fired on that day. I think all discussion about the snipers nest should be put on hold until it has been proven that a shot was fired from there. But, of course, that's not gonna happen because CTer's allow themselves to be distracted.

[Glenn Nall]

Mr Finley's explanation doesn't work for me, i don't think. i just read SA Roy Kellerman's description of the head wounds to the WC, and the location of the large opening was very clear and precise; as well, the descriptions by these same doctors placed the large wound in the same spot. we all know this. It doesn't seem to me that the drawings I've seen depicted the wounds that Kellerman or these doctors described.

has time proven the drawings damaging to the WR? i don't think so. to me they seem to be just ambiguous drawings with varying ambiguous interpretations, nothing people turn to in defense of any theory - they just turn to the words of the witnesses themselves. right?

as well, the statement that the WC would act to prevent actual photos from damning their case is an awfully irresponsible assertion. If the Warren Commission is guilty of more than just allowing itself to be fed Bullxxxx, and is guilty of conspiracy, it would not have been the entire Warren Commission - it would have been certain members of the Warren Commission - Ford, Dulles, Specter - and at that, having to work around the others. I don't doubt the likelihood of these men's complicity, but to have been so complicit would require some real juggling of evidence. The odds of the entire group of men and investigators being "involved" are highly against, in my opinion.

If I were to want to sound convincing, I think I'd choose my words more carefully.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Autopsy materials? What autopsy materials? Besides no W.C. member or staff member was competent to judge autopsy materials.

The fact is, the Warren Commission members did not want the public to see the autopsy materials.

The argument at the time is that individuals would have exploited them for profit in a disrespectful way.

Against which the cry was never trumpeted: Facts can't be exploited for profit in a disrespectful way. They can be exploited sometimes. But never in a disrespectful way.

[Glenn Nall]

the Martin Schotz philosophy is all well and good, but it's a smoke screen while it describes a smoke screen. I'll not STOP debating the mystery because some people fall prey the smoke screen.

the best i can do is AVOID debate with idi--- with people who purposely confuse and muddy this water. The mystery exists, a solution exists, and it will not be found without dialog.

the division is the mature dialog versus the malignant dialog.

Glenn, there's certainly nothing wrong with your philosophy, most of the discussion on this forum (and most forums) deal with 'what if' or 'yes, but' . As polls show, most people, I think about 85% accept that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Probably half think LHO might have been involved. Most people now recognize what the Warren Report actually is. It is a guidebook of talking points to mislead, for the Lone Nutters. It is clear that the objective was to convince as many as possible, that there was no conspiracy. Everything that points to conspiracy is not included in the Report. I, and you, and, I assume, most theorists wonder how Nutters can continue to argue the points they do when they obviously know that no one is buying what they're pushing. There is not one sane person in the world that believes that Brennan actually saw what he said he saw that day, including Brennan. Yet the Nutters will argue it forever. There are many other points that are completely impossible but it doesn't slow the nutters.

The tactic seems to be to bog everyone down in minute details about things that don't matter. My example of that is; all the discussion about the shots from the sniper's nest, how much space he had, how many shots were fired, the empty shells, the rifle, the lunch bag, the finger prints, etc, etc. A total waste of time. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any shots were fired from that spot, there is no evidence that LHO was ever at that spot, and there certainly is no evidence that a Manlicher Carcano rifle was fired on that day. I think all discussion about the snipers nest should be put on hold until it has been proven that a shot was fired from there. But, of course, that's not gonna happen because CTer's allow themselves to be distracted.

Yes, i feel the same way - i watched that particular thread go on and on and on, and it was a thread that I started about that damn camera on 6 and wondered when I did it if it would get any replies at all. little did i know...

I was amazed that the thing went the direction it did, and stayed there, in an entirely useless and frustrating spin. i'm too new to really have said something - but i wasn't going to stay stuck to this guy who has such an obvious agenda to irritate and antagonize and "bog down." no offense to my friends in here, but this guy is a complete waste of time and surely needs to be ignored. the most mundane and fundamental rationale has been offered him and he still persists in pretending he doesn't understand.

[Glenn Nall]

Autopsy materials? What autopsy materials? Besides no W.C. member or staff member was competent to judge autopsy materials.

The fact is, the Warren Commission members did not want the public to see the autopsy materials.

The argument at the time is that individuals would have exploited them for profit in a disrespectful way.

Against which the cry was never trumpeted: Facts can't be exploited for profit in a disrespectful way. They can be exploited sometimes. But never in a disrespectful way.

with all due respect, i disagree with so much of that i'm not going to bother...

[Kenneth Drew]

Yes, Glenn, of course I cite Brennan. Should I just PRETEND he didn't positively identify Oswald as the assassin (albeit belatedly)?

Like it or not, Howard Brennan's testimony is part of the record of this case. If you don't think he is credible, fine. But I see no really good reason for tossing Mr. Brennan under the White House press bus.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

You see Dave, the real problem here is not whether Brennen is credible... it's that he claims to see what he says he saw and provides a description of the man which is impossible given the circumstances.

So if we are going to take him at his word at the earliest possible time, his affidavit describes:

early 30's

165-175 lbs

light colored clothing

could not confirm a scope even though he sees over 70% of the rifle

see him take aim and fire yet changes this story in testimony

You see Dave... the problem remains that regardless of the lack of corroboration and his failure to ID the man, Brennen is THE BEST WITNESS and the source for Oswald's description at 12:45 even though it is about as far off a description of Oswald as can be... we can forgive Brennen since he supposedly said what he saw, the problem is not Brennen per se, but what is done with his information by the WC lawyers and how he isrepresented in the Report.

WCR Summary/Conclusions p5.

Several eyewitnesses in front of the building reported that they saw

a rifle being fired from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor

of the Texas School Book Depository. One eyewitness, Howard L.

Brennan, had been watching the parade from a point on Elm Street

directly opposite and facing the building. He promptly told a

policeman that he had seen a slender man, about 5 feet 10 inches, in his

early thirties, take deliberate aim from the sixth-floor corner window

and fire a rifle in the direction of the President’s car. Brennan thought

he might be able to identify the man since he had noticed him in the

window a few minutes before the motorcade made the turn onto Elm

Street. At 12 :34 p.m., the Dallas police radio mentioned the Depository

Building as a possible source of the shots, and at 12:45 p.m., the

police radio broadcast a description of the suspected assassin based

primarily on Brennan’s observations.

12:45 Dispatcher Attention all squads, the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle, - repeat, unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build. No further description at this time or information, 12:45 p.m.

Oswald was 24, 130 lbs, wore dark clothing and supposedly fired an obviously scoped rifle...

And yet can claim that his FAILURE TO ID was because he was afraid or that the ID was already made?

Note: I have to disagree with my friends here about David's quote:

"If you don't believe the WC then you must think everything is fake right?"

It's a poor sentence at best and by its nature tautological... when we unravel it it SHOULD state:

"If you can't authenticate everything incriminating Oswald, you can't believe the WC or its report's conclusions"

As David so enjoys to forget, we are Innocent until PROVEN guilty... when the evidence used to prove guilt cannot be authenticated as real evidence, it does not prove guilt and in fact, supports the original assumption of innocence.

When a prime witness to the man shooting a rifle in the window contradicts his own signed statements - that evidence is no longer authenticated... it can be entered into evidence but with caveats. It cannot be built upon since the foundation is dry rot.

So you see David, you cite the WCR yet you don't take the next step and provide authentication, it's okay since neither did the WC... but you calling C2766 "Oswald's rifle" when you can't authenticate any of the steps involved in getting the rifle from point A to point B... the rifle ceases to be evidence of his guilt but only Evidence of the Conspiracy to incriminate.

If an early 30's 170lb man in light clothing was shooting at JFK from that window, it most certainly could not have been our little 130 lb Oswald wearing dark clothing.... and since neither you nor the WC could offer authenticated criminal evidence of his guilt, you play this game.

The time is coming... it's one thing to index and describe the conclusional conflicts of the report - I am going to illustrate topic by topic how the Evidence IS the Conspiracy in each and every aspect of the case...

----------------

Oswald was wearing a dark brownish red over shirt, button down collar, which from the side, while holding a rifle to shoot would not show too much white T-shirt.

The Nov affidavit states he was looking at the man in the window when the last shot was fired... yet in his testimony... not so much.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?

Mr. BRENNAN. No.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?

Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?

Mr. BRENNAN. No.

Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.

Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir.

I've read, many times, (don't remember where) that the description bulletin that was broadcast at 12:45 was prior to Brennan talking with anyone to give them a description.

[James DiEugenio]

Ken,

In McKnight's excellent book, he notes that the Commission had the photos and X-rays. (See p. 171)

They did not want to make this public. And they did not tell the staffers. So Specter has Rydberg do the drawings from memory which was good for them since if they had the photos the trajectory would not have connected.

[Robert Prudhomme]

And this is Davey's fatal problem as a writer. HIs acceptance of the official record as sacred.

In Ian Griggs' book, No Case to Answer, which I wager Davey has never heard of let alone read, he goes after Brennan in a very original way.

Griggs was a former British detective, and he studied the line ups meticulously. In fact I have never seen anyone do as thorough a job on these line ups as Ian did. (See pages 85-90)

Now, the WC says Brennan was at a line up. Yet he could not even recall how many men were in the one he watched! I kid you not. He said there were 6 or 7. Not true. There were four.

He was then asked if there were any black men in the line up. He said he did not remember if there were any. Now, recall, this is Texas in 1963. And Kennedy has made a big move in civil rights and riots etc all over the TV box at night.

Griggs now goes through all the sources where Brennan should be named as watching a line up:

CE 2003 details the line ups and the witnesses, no mention of Brennan

Raw notes of DPD on the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Affidavits of police officers who supervised the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Testimony of witnesses to line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Some witness eh? The invisible man.

Your butt on a platter, DVP, and handed to you.

*SNICKER*

[Steven Gaal]

https://vincepalamara.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/inside-the-assassination-industry-vol-2-harold-weisberg.pdf

• oh my pg 47 ...facts crypto to DVP ,gaal
• pg 114 explanatory footnote ,oh my ,gaal

Edited July 11, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

https://vincepalamara.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/inside-the-assassination-industry-vol-2-harold-weisberg.pdf

• oh my pg 47 ...facts crypto to DVP ,gaal
• pg 114 explanatory footnote ,oh my ,gaal

please let me add

In 2001, Rex Bradford summed up the attitude of the media nicely:

A thought experiment may be helpful at this point. Imagine that it is 1963, the height of the Cold War, but it is not Kennedy who has been killed. It is Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, recently humiliated by the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In this thought experiment, it is Khrushchev, not Kennedy, who received a military autopsy whose results ran directly counter to the reports of the civilian doctors who first treated him. Imagine that later one of the autopsy doctors admitted that a Soviet general ran the autopsy, and that this doctor said he was

ordered not to track the path of a bullet

; that crucial autopsy photographs known to be taken went missing; that trained medical witnesses disputed what was shown in those that remained; that the official autopsy camera went missing after an investigation failed to match it to the photographs.

Imagine it was Russia where the security services destroyed evidence linking themselves with the purported killer, who was declared to be a lone “rabid

capitalist

,” but who seemed to be surrounded for the last year of his life by KGB operatives; that secret evidence finally revealed that the purported killer

had been impersonated

in a supposed phone conversation with CIA agents.

But Khrushchev’s successor, without revealing the impersonation, had led those investigating the crime to think that the alleged assassin had indeed made these disturbing calls, and there might be nuclear war with America if this got out.

And so on. Take the

single bullet theory

, the killing of the alleged assassin while in police custody, and all the rest of the JFK assassination story, including the fact that the murder was followed by a major expansion of a war, a war that secret documents years later showed Khrushchev had ordered be wound down.

Everyone in the U.S., from the New York Times to the man on the street, would have a field day with this scenario. It would be completely

obvious to everyone

that Khrushchev was killed by his own political enemies with the help of the KGB, for political reasons.

It would be obvious that the “story” of the lone

capitalist

was just that, a story, propped up by phoney “evidence” that would be completely disbelieved. You wouldn’t need 1/10th of the evidence pointing toward a

high–level conspiracy

that is present in the JFK assassination to convince just about anybody of this.

… What is fundamentally different between this thought experiment and the reality of the Kennedy assassination is not the basic facts — it is a matter of belief systems. For a great many people, it is simply not possible that an assassination of a President would be carried out by powerful domestic political figures, even though they would be perfectly willing to believe it of the Soviets or almost any other country’s leaders. Even imagining that high U.S. officials would lie and engage in cover–up in such a matter is unthinkable to many, and certainly unspeakable in the nation’s “responsible” media.

(

http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_5.htm

)

The print and broadcast media’s overwhelmingly one–sided depiction of the Kennedy assassination has reflected nothing more sinister than its standard identification with established power. Five decades after the event, however, the killing of President Kennedy is perhaps no longer considered to be part of modern history, and no longer subject to all the consequent restrictions on expression. It will be interesting to see how the media cope with the fiftieth anniversary in 2013.

[Glenn Nall]

And this is Davey's fatal problem as a writer. HIs acceptance of the official record as sacred.

In Ian Griggs' book, No Case to Answer, which I wager Davey has never heard of let alone read, he goes after Brennan in a very original way.

Griggs was a former British detective, and he studied the line ups meticulously. In fact I have never seen anyone do as thorough a job on these line ups as Ian did. (See pages 85-90)

Now, the WC says Brennan was at a line up. Yet he could not even recall how many men were in the one he watched! I kid you not. He said there were 6 or 7. Not true. There were four.

He was then asked if there were any black men in the line up. He said he did not remember if there were any. Now, recall, this is Texas in 1963. And Kennedy has made a big move in civil rights and riots etc all over the TV box at night.

Griggs now goes through all the sources where Brennan should be named as watching a line up:

CE 2003 details the line ups and the witnesses, no mention of Brennan

Raw notes of DPD on the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Affidavits of police officers who supervised the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Testimony of witnesses to line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Some witness eh? The invisible man.

Your butt on a platter, DVP, and handed to you.

*SNICKER*

I'm just trying to get him to reconcile two simple statements - just the fact that he SAID they don't need Brennan - so why cite him so often...?

he can't even admit to this contradiction.

*** DVP is noticeably absent from the thread by now ***