Jump to content
The Education Forum

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/26/2019 at 7:48 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I agree. I wish our resident LN attorney Lance would weigh in with a legal opinion on this mess.

Alas - or perhaps not, depending on your perspective - there is no legal issue.  I investigated in depth, including taking various legal actions, against a mega-site (much larger than this) that repeatedly banned me for expressing Christian sentiments at the atheist-dominated "spirituality" sub-forum.  If you substitute "JFK conspiracy theorist" for "militant atheist," the debates were essentially identical.  Because this is a privately-owned site, there is no legal basis for a claim of discrimination, selective enforcement, violation of free speech or whatever.  (You could incur liability for defamation on a privately-owned site, but that's a different issue.)  On the other hand, the notion that any of us have a protectable "privacy" or "intellectual property" interest on what we post on Internet forums strikes me as hysterical - not as hysterical as Harvey & Lee or the notion of Ruth Paine as a CIA operative, but pretty hysterical nonetheless.  No question that as with me expressing my Christian views at the other site, the real issue with DVP is that he's a noisy agitator in a community of true believers who don't want their fantasies interrupted with large doses of reality. 

Edit:  Because lawyers have to be paranoid about this sort of thing, I should point out that I am no longer a lawyer at all and the above is simply my experience.  I retired in 2018 and resigned from the bar in 2019.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

57 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

No question that as with me expressing my Christian views at the other site, the real issue with DVP is that he's a noisy agitator in a community of true believers who don't want their fantasies interrupted with large doses of reality. 

That does indeed appear to be the real issue here. After all, where are all the lawsuits since David has not removed any of the ostensibly offensive material from his site and that material was the "real issue" according to the "aggrieved" parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

 true believers who don't want their fantasies interrupted with large doses of reality. 

Said the noisy agitator who isn't capable of observing the movement of his own clothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Said the noisy agitator who isn't capable of observing the movement of his own clothing.

The plaintive cry of one who has seen his "irrefutable theory" go poof.  Poof, mind you.  No exit wounds and dissolving bullets - poof!  It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know the extent to which I enrage someone like Cliff.  For those who don't understand the game, the trick to reducing someone like Cliff to a puddle of posts such as the above is to not take his nonsense seriously.  Cliff's Irrefutable Theory, you see, is very serious stuff with dissolving bullets that leave no exit wounds and other James Bondian quirks.  Picture the assassination being orchestrated by Maxwell Smart and you'll get the idea.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

The plaintive cry of one who has seen his "irrefutable theory" go poof.  Poof, mind you.  No exit wounds and dissolving bullets - poof!  It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know the extent to which I enrage someone like Cliff.  For those who don't understand the game, the trick to reducing someone like Cliff to a puddle of posts such as the above is to not take his nonsense seriously.  Cliff's Irrefutable Theory, you see, is very serious stuff with dissolving bullets that leave no exit wounds and other James Bondian quirks.  Picture the assassination being orchestrated by Maxwell Smart and you'll get the idea.

Lance  refers to the speculation of the autopsists that JFK was hit with a round that dissolved.   Confirmation bias prevents Lance from grasping the historical record on the subject.

The kind of round developed for the CIA by civilians at the US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

To a competent investigator this would be regarded as a "lead," but to a mediocre "lawyer" such objective reality is hysterically dismissed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

The plaintive cry of one who has seen his "irrefutable theory" go poof.  Poof, mind you.  No exit wounds and dissolving bullets - poof!  It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know the extent to which I enrage someone like Cliff.  For those who don't understand the game, the trick to reducing someone like Cliff to a puddle of posts such as the above is to not take his nonsense seriously.  Cliff's Irrefutable Theory, you see, is very serious stuff with dissolving bullets that leave no exit wounds and other James Bondian quirks.  Picture the assassination being orchestrated by Maxwell Smart and you'll get the idea.

 

33 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

The plaintive cry of one who has seen his "irrefutable theory" go poof.  Poof, mind you.  No exit wounds and dissolving bullets - poof!  It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know the extent to which I enrage someone like Cliff.  For those who don't understand the game, the trick to reducing someone like Cliff to a puddle of posts such as the above is to not take his nonsense seriously.  Cliff's Irrefutable Theory, you see, is very serious stuff with dissolving bullets that leave no exit wounds and other James Bondian quirks.  Picture the assassination being orchestrated by Maxwell Smart and you'll get the idea.

 

I don't see the need to argue Cliff's point. The rear wound in JFK's body was correctly situated at T3. That's the end of the story and there is no need for all these conspiracy tales. No bunch clothes arguments, nothing will change the fact that the shooting was carried out by multiple shooters. 

 

Edited by Jim Harwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything we post on this Forum and on Internet in general, e.g., a novel idea, theory, or an original image illustrating a theory, is an intellectual property of the poster. It can be referred to in own texts if properly quoted, not altered and not misinterpreted by the second author. It is very difficult to ensure that this general principle is followed. In practice, people copy and misinterpret the work of others without giving it any thought. However, this is a private Forum (although visible to a large audience) and it now has a rule that no member of this Forum can re-post full or large parts of other member's posts on another internet server. It is a good rule. It can be applied retroactively and therefore, David was rightly asked to remove the posts or parts of posts he copied along his posts on his own website. After he does it, his access to this Forum can be reinstated and I would be glad if this would be the final outcome and David would resume his posting here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The kind of round developed for the CIA by civilians at the US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

As I said, "dissolving bullets."  Through extensive research, I have discovered that dissolving bullets feature prominently in episodes of both Super Girl and Dr. Who - so, hey, you never know.  In Super Girl, they were developed by arch-fiend Lex Luthor!

I have attempted to research Cliff's latest volley, but the only references I have been able to find to "blood soluble" bullets developed "for the CIA" by "civilians" at the "Army Special Operations Division" at "Fort Detrick" are … wait for it … Cliff's own posts here!  What he is apparently talking about is Project MK-NAOMI (I think I once dated her), which did indeed develop or attempt to develop all sorts of wacky spy stuff - but not, insofar as I have been able to determine, blood soluble bullets.  To be fair to Cliff, I feel certain that he can produce an affidavit by a super-secret former scientist at Fort Detrick, who now goes under the code name Hoot Owl and will only appear in videos if his voice is altered and his face is blacked out, to the effect that he worked continuously on the Blood Soluble Bullet Project for years with the understanding that it would only be activated if and when JFK ever became President.

Those must have been some really fast-acting and thoroughly-dissolving blood soluble bullets, eh?  If I were going to shoot the President with blood soluble bullets, it seems unlikely to me that I would arm my patsy with a 6.5 mm military rifle - an awful lot could go wrong with that scenario - but maybe that's just me.  I wouldn't have thought the back and throat wounds would have produced enough blood to dissolve bullets of sufficient caliber and velocity to cause those wounds, but maybe that's just me.  I assume they didn't use blood soluble bullets for the head wound - right, or did they?  Then where did all the lead bullet fragments come from?  If they used lead bullets for some shots, why did they use blood soluble bullets for the back and throat wounds - what did that accomplish?  Did they plan for the blood soluble bullets to align so closely that the Single Bullet Theory is plausible, or was that just dumb luck?  Golly, I am confused, aren't I?

What Cliff and other CTers consistently do is called post hoc reasoning.  They reason backwards from the speculation that there were multiple shooters and that the throat wound was an entry wound.  They ask, "If those things were true, how could we explain the wounds?"  Ergo, dissolving bullets and whatnot.  They ignore the reality that their premises are pure speculation and that their explanations are almost comically absurd.  This is why the WC, the HSCA and assorted forensic experts recognized the Single Bullet Theory, superficially implausible though it may be, as the best explanation in preference to "explanations" that are premised on utter speculation and James Bond-type nonsense.

1 hour ago, Michael Cross said:

JFK conspiracy theorists and militant atheists . . . even making that assertion reveals a biased mindset.  

Gotta learn to read, Michael.  I did not equate conspiracy theorists to militant atheists.  I said that the dynamics of the debate between me as a Christian and the militant atheists on an atheist-dominated site were essentially the same as those between me as a Lone Assassin proponent and the conspiracy theorists on a CT-dominated site.  If it will make you happy, the dynamics are essentially the same when I as a scholarly and non-dogmatic Christian participate on a religious site dominated by fundamentalist yahoos.  Every type of fundamentalist True Believer, including CTers like you, would love to eliminate the infidels like DVP and me so you can mentally masturbate in peace with your fellow CTers.  That's just the reality.

1 hour ago, Jim Harwood said:

I don't see the need to argue Cliff's point. The rear wound in JFK's body was correctly situated at T3. That's the end of the story and there is no need for all these conspiracy tales. No bunch clothes arguments, nothing will change the fact that the shooting was carried out by multiple shooters. 

Oh, uh-huh.  Is this sort of thing why formerly prominent posters, who actually seemed to know what they were talking about in terms of weapons, ammunition, ballistics and wounds, no longer post here at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Gotta learn to read, Michael.  I did not equate conspiracy theorists to militant atheists.  I said that the dynamics of the debate between me as a Christian and the militant atheists on an atheist-dominated site were essentially the same as those between me as a Lone Assassin proponent and the conspiracy theorists on a CT-dominated site.  If it will make you happy, the dynamics are essentially the same when I as a scholarly and non-dogmatic Christian participate on a religious site dominated by fundamentalist yahoos.  Every type of fundamentalist True Believer, including CTers like you, would love to eliminate the infidels like DVP and me so you can mentally masturbate in peace with your fellow CTers.  That's just the reality.

 

As I said, your bias is showing.  Screaming really.  Wow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

As I said, "dissolving bullets."  Through extensive research, I have discovered that dissolving bullets feature prominently in episodes of both Super Girl and Dr. Who - so, hey, you never know.  In Super Girl, they were developed by arch-fiend Lex Luthor!

I have attempted to research Cliff's latest volley, but the only references I have been able to find to "blood soluble" bullets developed "for the CIA" by "civilians" at the "Army Special Operations Division" at "Fort Detrick" are … wait for it … Cliff's own posts here!  What he is apparently talking about is Project MK-NAOMI (I think I once dated her), which did indeed develop or attempt to develop all sorts of wacky spy stuff - but not, insofar as I have been able to determine, blood soluble bullets.  To be fair to Cliff, I feel certain that he can produce an affidavit by a super-secret former scientist at Fort Detrick, who now goes under the code name Hoot Owl and will only appear in videos if his voice is altered and his face is blacked out, to the effect that he worked continuously on the Blood Soluble Bullet Project for years with the understanding that it would only be activated if and when JFK ever became President.

Those must have been some really fast-acting and thoroughly-dissolving blood soluble bullets, eh?  If I were going to shoot the President with blood soluble bullets, it seems unlikely to me that I would arm my patsy with a 6.5 mm military rifle - an awful lot could go wrong with that scenario - but maybe that's just me.  I wouldn't have thought the back and throat wounds would have produced enough blood to dissolve bullets of sufficient caliber and velocity to cause those wounds, but maybe that's just me.  I assume they didn't use blood soluble bullets for the head wound - right, or did they?  Then where did all the lead bullet fragments come from?  If they used lead bullets for some shots, why did they use blood soluble bullets for the back and throat wounds - what did that accomplish?  Did they plan for the blood soluble bullets to align so closely that the Single Bullet Theory is plausible, or was that just dumb luck?  Golly, I am confused, aren't I?

What Cliff and other CTers consistently do is called post hoc reasoning.  They reason backwards from the speculation that there were multiple shooters and that the throat wound was an entry wound.  They ask, "If those things were true, how could we explain the wounds?"  Ergo, dissolving bullets and whatnot.  They ignore the reality that their premises are pure speculation and that their explanations are almost comically absurd.  This is why the WC, the HSCA and assorted forensic experts recognized the Single Bullet Theory, superficially implausible though it may be, as the best explanation in preference to "explanations" that are premised on utter speculation and James Bond-type nonsense.

Gotta learn to read, Michael.  I did not equate conspiracy theorists to militant atheists.  I said that the dynamics of the debate between me as a Christian and the militant atheists on an atheist-dominated site were essentially the same as those between me as a Lone Assassin proponent and the conspiracy theorists on a CT-dominated site.  If it will make you happy, the dynamics are essentially the same when I as a scholarly and non-dogmatic Christian participate on a religious site dominated by fundamentalist yahoos.  Every type of fundamentalist True Believer, including CTers like you, would love to eliminate the infidels like DVP and me so you can mentally masturbate in peace with your fellow CTers.  That's just the reality.

Oh, uh-huh.  Is this sort of thing why formerly prominent posters, who actually seemed to know what they were talking about in terms of weapons, ammunition, ballistics and wounds, no longer post here at all?

I don't know a damn thing about weapons, ammunition, ballistics and wounds but if you have an official document measuring the President rear wound according to medico legal requirements and the President's personal physician signed the document guess what they're going to accept in a trial or court hearing? The T3 location which kills any and all arguments.  The vote for conspiracy would be a foregone conclusion.

Edited by Jim Harwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appeared on this thread, emerging from my self-imposed exile, only because someone told me my legal expertise had been requested.  Here’s what I would say in terms of a resolution:

1.  If there was a clear term of service that no member may do what DVP has done, or DVP had received previous specific warnings, then warn or ban him if you wish.  If not, there is nothing illegal or immoral about what he has done.  I personally have no problem with it whatsoever - as I had previously told DVP..

2.  If there was no clear term of service, then it doesn’t seem fair or reasonable to ban DVP or require him to “undo” what he has done.  If it is the wish of the site administrators, a clear term of service should be adopted for future application, to wit:

No member shall quote or reproduce, in whole or part, the post of another member on any blog, other forum, other website or anywhere else outside this forum, without the express written consent of the member being quoted.  A violation of this rule may, in the discretion of the Administrators, result in discipline up to and including a permanent ban of the violator.

_______________________________________________________________________

Now that I’ve waded once again into the black hole of Cliff’s theory, I truly do not get it.  Given a patsy with a large-caliber military rifle and at least some shots by someone that left lead fragments in the body, in the car and on the curb, what earthly purpose would have been served by having other shooters with dissolving bullets of some sort?  What would that accomplish?  If we say, “Oh, the shooters at the front had dissolving bullets so all blame could be placed on Oswald,” then what about the back wound that doesn’t have an exit under Cliff’s theory?  Are we to believe that (1) a large-caliber military bullet struck the back but didn’t exit; (2) a dissolving bullet struck the throat but didn’t exit; (3) the bullet entrance wounds fortuitously aligned so as to make the SBT a plausible explanation; and (4) the tests that have closely duplicated precisely what the SB is supposed to have done were bogus?  Is there any evidence that such dissolving bullets actually existed?  Was the technology perfected to such an extent that there wouldn’t even be traces on JFK’s clothing?  Would they have reliably dissolved to nothingness in the circumstances of the throat and/or back wounds, which did not produce floods of blood?

Once again I have the same problem I always have:  WHAT SENSE WOULD THIS HAVE MADE???  WHY WOULD CONSPIRATORS SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO CARRY OUT A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATION HAVE CONCOCTED SUCH A WILDLY CONVOLUTED PLAN AND TAKEN SUCH HUGE AND UNNECESSARY RISKS???  One set of CTers thinks the conspirators were so brazen that Oswald was standing on the front steps of the TSBD as Prayer Man, another set thinks the conspirators were so determined to make Oswald the patsy that they resorted to Cliff’s Irrefutable Theory!  Come on, people.

Conspiracy theories always strike me as what are called “just so” stories.  They are unverifiable and elaborate explanations for events that do not require elaborate explanations.  Once again I say:  It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are less interested in the historical truth of the assassination than in force-fitting the assassination into some dark, preconceived notion of the way that the political and economic forces in our society operate.  Ergo, JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11 and probably the election of Reagan, the Bushes and Trump are all force-fit into this dark, preconceived notion while the rest of us live in the real world.

I guess I’m just not CT material.  I will leave you once again, unless I am summoned on some issue.  For one thing, my vision won’t allow me to keep participating.

1 hour ago, Jim Harwood said:

I don't know a damn thing about weapons, ammunition, ballistics and wounds but if you have an official document measuring the President rear wound according to medico legal requirements and the President's personal physician signed the document guess what they're going to accept in a trial or court hearing? The T3 location which kills any and all arguments.  The vote for conspiracy would be a foregone conclusion.

Back to law school for you, pal.  Fortunately, neither a trial nor the rest of the real world operates according to Conspiracy Logic.  If the "vote for conspiracy" on the basis of the autopsy face sheet would have been a "foregone conclusion," then I guess the WC, the HSCA and umpteen medical and forensic experts didn't get the memo on that.  Too bad DVP won't be here anymore, if he won't, because I can't imagine anyone else good-natured or patient enough to put up, over and over, with the embarrassing lack of logic and critical thinking - and, indeed, almost willful stupidity - that characterizes Conspiracy World.  Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Now that I’ve waded once again into the black hole of Cliff’s theory, I truly do not get it.

It's not my theory.  It was the theory of the autopsists the night of the autopsy.

Why is this fact so difficult for you to grasp, Lance?

20 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Given a patsy with a large-caliber military rifle and at least some shots by someone that left lead fragments in the body, in the car and on the curb, what earthly purpose would have been served by having other shooters with dissolving bullets of some sort? 

The crime was set up to look like a Communist conspiracy.  The FBI had been briefed to be on the lookout for exactly that wound pattern -- entrance, no exit, no bullet found -- and that it would come from outside the country.

If Oswald had been gunned down the afternoon of 11/22 odds are the FBI would have pointed to the wound pattern and claimed it was the KGB.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I appeared on this thread, emerging from my self-imposed exile, only because someone told me my legal expertise had been requested.  Here’s what I would say in terms of a resolution:

1.  If there was a clear term of service that no member may do what DVP has done, or DVP had received previous specific warnings, then warn or ban him if you wish.  If not, there is nothing illegal or immoral about what he has done.  I personally have no problem with it whatsoever - as I had previously told DVP..

2.  If there was no clear term of service, then it doesn’t seem fair or reasonable to ban DVP or require him to “undo” what he has done.  If it is the wish of the site administrators, a clear term of service should be adopted for future application, to wit:

No member shall quote or reproduce, in whole or part, the post of another member on any blog, other forum, other website or anywhere else outside this forum, without the express written consent of the member being quoted.  A violation of this rule may, in the discretion of the Administrators, result in discipline up to and including a permanent ban of the violator.

_______________________________________________________________________

Now that I’ve waded once again into the black hole of Cliff’s theory, I truly do not get it.  Given a patsy with a large-caliber military rifle and at least some shots by someone that left lead fragments in the body, in the car and on the curb, what earthly purpose would have been served by having other shooters with dissolving bullets of some sort?  What would that accomplish?  If we say, “Oh, the shooters at the front had dissolving bullets so all blame could be placed on Oswald,” then what about the back wound that doesn’t have an exit under Cliff’s theory?  Are we to believe that (1) a large-caliber military bullet struck the back but didn’t exit; (2) a dissolving bullet struck the throat but didn’t exit; (3) the bullet entrance wounds fortuitously aligned so as to make the SBT a plausible explanation; and (4) the tests that have closely duplicated precisely what the SB is supposed to have done were bogus?  Is there any evidence that such dissolving bullets actually existed?  Was the technology perfected to such an extent that there wouldn’t even be traces on JFK’s clothing?  Would they have reliably dissolved to nothingness in the circumstances of the throat and/or back wounds, which did not produce floods of blood?

Once again I have the same problem I always have:  WHAT SENSE WOULD THIS HAVE MADE???  WHY WOULD CONSPIRATORS SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO CARRY OUT A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATION HAVE CONCOCTED SUCH A WILDLY CONVOLUTED PLAN AND TAKEN SUCH HUGE AND UNNECESSARY RISKS???  One set of CTers thinks the conspirators were so brazen that Oswald was standing on the front steps of the TSBD as Prayer Man, another set thinks the conspirators were so determined to make Oswald the patsy that they resorted to Cliff’s Irrefutable Theory!  Come on, people.

Conspiracy theories always strike me as what are called “just so” stories.  They are unverifiable and elaborate explanations for events that do not require elaborate explanations.  Once again I say:  It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are less interested in the historical truth of the assassination than in force-fitting the assassination into some dark, preconceived notion of the way that the political and economic forces in our society operate.  Ergo, JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11 and probably the election of Reagan, the Bushes and Trump are all force-fit into this dark, preconceived notion while the rest of us live in the real world.

I guess I’m just not CT material.  I will leave you once again, unless I am summoned on some issue.  For one thing, my vision won’t allow me to keep participating.

Back to law school for you, pal.  Fortunately, neither a trial nor the rest of the real world operates according to Conspiracy Logic.  If the "vote for conspiracy" on the basis of the autopsy face sheet would have been a "foregone conclusion," then I guess the WC, the HSCA and umpteen medical and forensic experts didn't get the memo on that.  Too bad DVP won't be here anymore, if he won't, because I can't imagine anyone else good-natured or patient enough to put up, over and over, with the embarrassing lack of logic and critical thinking - and, indeed, almost willful stupidity - that characterizes Conspiracy World.  Have a nice day.

You don't have to ramble on and on with your meaningless complaints. Here is the bottom line the "best evidence" proves the back wound on the President was at T3 as stated in the Naval Certificate of Death(not an autopsy face sheet)  and signed by Admiral George Burkley Kennedy's personal physician who was in attendance during the entire autopsy(and never called by the Warren Commission). 

As far as DVP he argued with Cliff by trying to use the old Mastoid as a point of reference for the measurement of the back wound . This would get him laughed out of court because it's not a fixed point of reference and therefore you cannot rely on in in legal proceedings due to lack of accuracy. Only the reference point T3 would be acceptable by a court of law and that's what they used in the Naval Death Certificate. 

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...