Jump to content
The Education Forum

Infiltration of this forum


Paul Brancato
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Where's my 'like' button? Thanks Cliff.

Do you view anyone who has looked at the evidence, including the direct and simple example that Cliff bings up (every time he sees an opening) as lemmings?

 

Thank you, Paul.

I delight in the weaponized fact of conspiracy -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Point the physical evidence at a Lone Nutter or CT Pet Theorist and they'll lapse into silence or start babbling gibberish.

Works every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Thank you, Paul.

I delight in the weaponized fact of conspiracy -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Point the physical evidence at a Lone Nutter or CT Pet Theorist and they'll lapse into silence or start babbling gibberish.

Works every time.

 

The first deployment of the weaponized fact of conspiracy was in the summer of 1966 in the Philadelphia office of Arlen Specter when Gaeton Fonzi ambushed the author of the Single Bullet Theory.

Here's some crucial background on that seminal event.

Vincent J. Salandria’s Reflections on Gaeton Fonzi’s "The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter"

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/VJS_WCTandAS.html

The Fonzi-Specter Tapes

http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fonzi-Specter_Interviews.html

Salandria/Fonzi weaponized the fact of conspiracy over 50 years ago -- but CT Pet Theorists pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist.

Why?

Because the weaponized FOC is aimed at them.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

"The Warren Commission, the Truth, and Arlen Specter"

Quote

Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing was in the Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained.

And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was 5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter bullet,” said the Report.

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report — placed below the back of the right ear — and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times,” he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It . . . it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that . . . aaah . . . that it gets . . . that . . . aaah . . . this . . . this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back . . . sit back now . . . all right now . . . if . . . usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if . . . but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits . . . it’s not . . . it’s not . . . it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt . . . after all, we lined up the shirt . . . and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front . . .”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes . . . aaah . . . well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to . . . aaah . . . understand the . . . aah . . . the angle of decline which . . .”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that . . . that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I . . . I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.”

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking that Jesus was the Jesus from The Gospel of Thomas. A guy with an unfathomable message expressed in the form of sayings, which were a familair mode of communication at the time. The message, however, was new. Of course, if you were not of noble blood, of aristocratic lineage, bestowed of great omens, or demonstrating great powers or relating yourself in familiar pagan ways, you were mad. The message was, however, immutable. So the messenger was bestowed with miraculous powers, called  the son of God (divi filius), and the language of his teachings raised from that of a desert nomad to that of a respectable Roman aristocrat.

I'm good with that; it's the thought that counts.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 7:22 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

What part of "separation of Church and State" eludes you?

If you want to live in a country governed by a State Religion you should move out of this one.

See, that's why the world needs lawyers who can actually think through issues:  I could be a raving New Atheist who believes God is a dangerous fantasy yet still believe abortion is murder.  Whatever your notion of the "separation of Church and State" may be, it does not mandate a pro-abortion perspective, as you seem to believe it does.  Is this an example of your critical thinking skills?  Some who claim to be Christians support abortion.  Most do not.  Filtering my religious beliefs entirely out of the equation, as I am perfectly capable of doing, I still come down on the side that believes the rights of the incipient human being far outweigh, by several magnitudes, any right of the mother to terminate the incipient human being she has brought into existence.  I still come down on the side that believes abortion is murder and should not be tolerated in a society that at least wants to pretend it is civilized and enlightened.

Ta-ta for now.

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:40 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

it's sounds like you're a groupie participant in "weirdness" forums. Why would you do that? My first thought is that you're bored and would derive satisfaction from trolling sites and  starting arguments with weird,incapable people in a debate you'd be confident you could win. But that's just  my guess based on my limited experiences with you. I recently saw you over in "JFK F facts". What's your game here, Lance? What do you want from this forum?

I participate in numerous weirdness forums because I have a six-decade interest in (and first-hand experience with) paranormal/anomalous phenomena.  Most of the weirdness communities (not just the Internet forums) are, alas, heavily populated with one-dimensional True Believers whose desire to Believe overwhelms any critical thinking skills they might have.  By participating in these communities, I hope to expand my knowledge of the subject matter, offer what insights I can, and observe and puzzle over the psychology and group dynamics of the True Believers.  Internet forums, alas, are really heavily populated with True Believers whose desire to Believe overwhelms any critical thinking skills they might have.  This is true even of the mainstream Christian forums on which I participate, which is why I have almost never posted on any forum beyond about 300 posts (as opposed to the average True Believer with 147,000).

It would appear  you're hoping to get a following through condescending behavior.  If they could only see you now back at the old Jesuit Seminary or Theological School (was it one of those?)at 67, Trolling sites of people you obviously think are inferior to get in snarky little exchanges to satisfy your ego, bloviating endlessly about yourself and your opinions and establishing right at the onset your feeling of superiority and demeaning the members of this forum. I'm confused Lance, despite your Christian self righteousness, why should we see you as anything other than a self absorbed, garden variety bully?

It was Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, thanks for asking.  I am indeed inherently snarky.  I do not suffer fools gladly, as the saying goes.  On the other hand, I have never had so much as a warning here, and I would put my level of snarky-ness and demeaning-ness rather low on the scale of what is observed here regularly.  Snarky-ness and demeaning-ness are two of those things that are mostly in the eye of the beholder and largely depend on whose ox is being gored.  Indeed, it was one of my fond hopes for this forum (dashed on the rocks of reality long ago, of course) that the requirement to use one's real name and educational credentials might keep things at a relatively civilized and sane level.  Instead, I now regularly cite this forum as Exhibit A for the sad truth that Internet forums simply cannot avoid descending into ... well, what they inevitably descend into.

Ta-ta for now.

 

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:43 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I agree with your central question - I'll paraphrase - What's your game Lance? Why are you here?

Paul, you have asked precisely this same question of others whose views you find distasteful.  Your vision of this forum - which you are certainly entitled to - is seemingly as a shrine to the memory of Our Beloved JFK and an indictment of the Dark Forces of Evil That Did Him In.  As I've said before, to me JFK was Just Another President and his assassination is Just Another Fascinating Historical Question.  I am interested in the assassination only because, at one time, I thought there was a mass of evidence that it was indeed a Deep Dark Mystery.  I was a rabid conspiracy theorist because (1) let's face it, conspiracy theorizing is way more fun than boring old history, and (2) pretty much all I had read was the conspiracy literature.  If someone comes up with anything resembling Actual Evidence that the assassination is a Deep Dark Mystery, my interest will be reactivated; indeed, I will be delighted, because I love Deep Dark Mysteries.  My other interest, which is continuing, is the psychology and dynamics of communities of True Believers.  The commonalities of these communities - whether we are talking about Fundamentalist Christian True Believers, Alien Abduction True Believers, Bigfoot True Believers or JFK Assassination Conspiracy True Believers - are genuinely fascinating.  But the True Believers are incapable - utterly incapable - of stepping back and observing themselves.  You will never, ever meet a True Believer who says, "You're damn right I'm wearing a tinfoil hat.  I happen to like it, and my wife thinks it's very becoming on me."  I try to goad the True Believers into taking that step back, but it's a thankless and fruitless task.

Ta-ta for now.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lance Payette said:

See, that's why the world needs lawyers who can actually think through issues:  I could be a raving New Atheist who believes God is a dangerous fantasy yet still believe abortion is murder. 

There's a big difference between believing abortion is murder and subjecting all Americans to a law that it is murder.

You're free to your beliefs, but you attempt to impose those beliefs on the rest of us is un-American.

Whatever your notion of the "separation of Church and State" may be, it does not mandate a pro-abortion perspective, as you seem to believe it does.

The Supreme Court has decided otherwise.

  Is this an example of your critical thinking skills?  Some who claim to be Christians support abortion.  Most do not.  Filtering my religious beliefs entirely out of the equation, as I am perfectly capable of doing, I still come down on the side that believes the rights of the incipient human being far outweigh, by several magnitudes, any right of the mother to terminate the incipient human being she has brought into existence. 

Again, you insist on imposing your beliefs on others.

You don't seem to get it -- you're entitled to believe anything you want, but to force your belief on the rest of us is Fascist.

I still come down on the side that believes abortion is murder and should not be tolerated in a society that at least wants to pretend it is civilized and enlightened.

Claiming that a woman's reproductive capacities are property of the State is Christian Fascism.

Ta-ta for now.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I am exceedingly kind and patient (as lawyers go), I will kindly and patiently point out the fuzziness in your thinking:

48 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There's a big difference between believing abortion is murder and subjecting all Americans to a law that it is murder.

You're free to your beliefs, but you attempt to impose those beliefs on the rest of us is un-American.

The question is not whether I "believe" abortion is murder or you "believe" abortion is not murder.  The question is, "What is abortion?  Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job?  Should society outlaw, restrict or tolerate it?"  If you premeditate the killing of your grandmother, whether you "believe" it is murder or just good clean fun is irrelevant.  Those who enact the laws have defined it as murder, and this happens to accord both with Christian doctrine and with the thinking of 99.9% of sane people of all beliefs.  Probably 99% of all laws "impose beliefs" on segments of society that disagree with them.  I firmly believe I should be able to ride my Yahama FJR1300 150 miles an hour whenever I think it's safe to do so, but the Motorcycle Unbelievers who wrote the un-American traffic laws disagree.  The Man-Boy Love Society firmly believes sex between adults and children is healthy for children, but the Pedophilia Unbelievers who wrote the un-American molestation laws disagree.

48 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Supreme Court has decided otherwise.

See how long that lasts.  So when the Supreme Court decides abortion is murder, or at least that it may be flatly prohibited at the State level, will this be "American" or "Un-American"?  Will it be Un-American because President Trump has appointed Justices who happen to think this way?  Will you change your views on abortion because "the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"?  I prefer to base my thinking on less shifting sand than "what the Supreme Court has decided" at any given point in time.  Are you familiar at all with the history of Supreme Court rulings, with the rather unbelievable things the Wise Justices have decided over the years - even long before the typical Justice was a partisan political hack and the Court had become the Unelected 5-4 Legislature it now has?

 

48 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Again, you insist on imposing your beliefs on others.

You don't seem to get it -- you're entitled to believe anything you want, but to force your belief on the rest of us is Fascist.

I do?  Remind me again, what are those views I am imposing?  What, I am not entitled to express opposing views "if the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"?  Gee, you would have made a good little Nazi or Stalinist, wouldn't you?  I believe the pro-abortion position is literally evil - not because "God has said so," but for precisely the same reasons I believe the Holocaust was literally evil - and I am entitled to work my hardest both to change minds and to change the laws.  That is what America is all about.  I would suggest it is you who "don't seem to get it."  Actually, more than 50% of Americans favor greater restrictions on abortion - so why is their position "Fascist" while the pro-abortion position is not?  The fact that my position on abortion happens to square with mainstream Christian doctrine may irk the hell out of you, but it does not make the position any less valid.  To repeat:  The question is not whether I, a Christian, "believes" abortion is murder or your Aunt Hatty, a New Atheist, "believes" abortion is not murder.  The question is, "What is abortion?  Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job?  Should society outlaw or restrict it, or should society tolerate or even encourage it?" 

48 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Claiming that a woman's reproductive capacities are property of the State is Christian Fascism.

I believe this is what those of us in the legal profession refer to as a non sequitur.  I don't care if a woman rips out her reproductive organs with her bare hands if it makes her happy.  I don't care if a woman chooses never to have children if it makes her happy.  But when she does manage to get herself pregnant despite the plethora of ways society affords her to avoid becoming pregnant, then I do firmly believe the rights of the incipient human being she has brought into existence trump (or Trump, if you will) any right she might think she has to terminate said incipient human merely being because she finds the pregnancy inconvenient.

I really don't think you're advertising your critical thinking skills here, Cliffaroo,  I'd stick to that "weaponized fact of conspiracy."

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Because I am exceedingly kind and patient (as lawyers go), I will kindly and patiently point out the fuzziness in your thinking:

The question is not whether I "believe" abortion is murder or you "believe" abortion is not murder.  The question is, "What is abortion?  Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job? 

Neither.  Talk about non sequitur!

The issue at hand is that YOU believe abortion is murder and YOU want to impose your belief on the rest of us.

Should society outlaw, restrict or tolerate it?" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

If you premeditate the killing of your grandmother, whether you "believe" it is murder or just good clean fun is irrelevant. 

Strawman.

Those who enact the laws have defined it as murder, and this happens to accord both with Christian doctrine and with the thinking of 99.9% of sane people of all beliefs.  Probably 99% of all laws "impose beliefs" on segments of society that disagree with them. 

You're comparing folks who don't want to wear bicycle helmets to the rights of all woman to control their own health decisions?

I firmly believe I shoud be able to ride my Yahama FJR1300 150 miles an hour whenever I think it's safe to do so, but the Motorcycle Unbelievers who wrote the un-American traffic laws disagree. 

Why should WE trust your judgement about what YOU think is safe?

Again, you have this innate desire to impose your beliefs on the rest of us.

The Man-Boy Love Society firmly believes sex between adults and children is healthy for children, but the Pedophilia Unbelievers who wrote the un-American molestation laws disagree.

Who cares what a bunch of criminals think?

See how long that lasts. 

I see logical alchemy making the false equation of the rights of all women with the eccentric demands of very few individuals.

So when the Supreme Court decides abortion is murder, or at least that it may be flatly prohibited at the State level, will this be "American" or "Un-American"? 

Un-American Christian Fascism.

Will it be Un-American because President Trump has appointed Justices who happen to think this way?  Will you change your views on abortion because "the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"?  I prefer to base my thinking on less shifting sand than "what the Supreme Court has decided" at any given point in time.  Are you familiar at all with the history of Supreme Court rulings, with the rather unbelievable things the Wise Justices have decided over the years - even long before the typical Justice was a partisan political hack and the Court had become the Unelected 5-4 Legislature it now has?

You questioned the reach of the Constitutionally mandated "Separation of Church and State" and I pointed out the obvious.

It's not just Roe v. Wade which establishes or enforces  the separation of Church and State.

I do?  Remind me again, what are those views I am imposing? 

That abortion is murder and must not be tolerated.

Apparently if you could you'd impose your notions of vehicle safety on the rest of us, as well.

What, I am not entitled to express opposing views "if the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"? 

Of course you're entitled to any view you want.

What you are not entitled to is imposing your views on others.

Gee, you would have made a good little Nazi or Stalinist, wouldn't you?

You're regressing into ad hominem, barrister.

I don't think the Court would be pleased with your outburst.

I'm not advocating for mandated abortion, which would be totalitarian.

You're advocating for forced birth, which IS totalitarian.

No one questions your right to fight for forced birth -- but let's call it for what it is: Christian Fascism.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you Cliff, and Kirk.

lance - for an educated guy you prove your ignorance when it comes to JFK, and why we 'true believers' care about his death. You don't know who he was and why his death mattered. We are not true believers, you are. How can you be so interested in the true believers without realizing you are a prime example? Just because you allow yourself the right to pick and choose what you believe doesn't change the fact that your attitude towards abortion is typically patriarchial. That proves to me you are also ignorant of Christian and dare I say Jewish history. Jesus was surrounded by women. They were his closest companions, something unheard of in his day. The early 'churches' were egalitarian. Patriarchic ideas were imposed later by power hungry men, you know, the ones who deemed as 'full of hubris' anyone who dared to question the male hierarchy that gradually took over the Christian movement and turned it into something Jesus would have found deplorable. We can thank Paul, formerly known as Saul, for that turnaround. A careful reading of his history reveals him for what he was - an agent of Rome, clearly at first, and obviously to me later after his 'vision' on the road to Damascus. He apparently died in Rome too.

Demeaning a woman by using the term 'manage to get herself pregnant' as if men had nothing to do with it is laughable. The argument on abortion has been reframed by those that try to impose the state on a woman's rights. It is pro choice, not anti life. No one on the pro choice side believes that abortion is a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael - I opened mine too but didn't think it was out of bounds because Lance was so direct. I react badly when men take the position that the state should be empowered legally to punish a woman for having an abortion, especially when they take the even more extreme position that it doesn't matter how they got pregnant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I opened mine too but didn't think it was out of bounds because Lance was so direct. I react badly when men take the position that the state should be empowered legally to punish a woman for having an abortion, especially when they take the even more extreme position that it doesn't matter how they got pregnant. 

Paul, I like this place and the people in it. I like to treat it like my living room or dinner table. I know we are all virtual strangers but I don't want to see it turn out like the comments area of youtube or your typical news article. I kind of think of it as the Senate as opposed to the House. It's kind of unique among Internet forums.

Cheers,

Mike

Edited by Michael Clark
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...