Jump to content
The Education Forum

A New Verb-- to 'bugliose'


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

As I've said repeatedly, every conspiracy theory stumbles over (1) Lee Harvey Oswald, the actual man and his actual life, and (2) the actual events in Dealey Plaza.  Every conspiracy theory is forced to posit a Lee Harvey Oswald who bears little if any resemblance to the actual LHO and a sequence of events in Dealey Plaza that bears little resemblance to the actual events.  You can posit grand and even plausible-sounding theories involving hordes of Dark Forces until you are forced to deal with the actual Oswald and the actual events of Dealey Plaza. 

:clapping 

How refreshing.

Of course, if a conspiracy theory stumbles over LHO (the actual man and his actual life), a duplicate can be spawned out of thin air, with his own duplicate rifle (because there were also two of those). Magic!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL, 😃

ROTF as I endure spasms of uncontrollable laughter.😁

This accusation of bias comes from a  scientist who will not even admit that the CBLA was smelly from the start.

By the way, from what I have been able to dig up, it was first originated in the JFK case.  But the FBI did not think it was ready for prime time.  Guinn perfected the hoax.

Baker, the scientist, cannot bring himself to admit that. VIncent Guinn made a lot of money covering up the facts in the JFK case.

 

I certainly can't compete with your level of scientific reasoning, Jim. I just hope I don't get so desperate that I resort to logical fallacy in an attempt to claw back at least some semblence of credibility. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I'm a betting man and I'd fade a bill on "narcissistic personality disorder" to describe both Lance Payette and Donald Trump should they get quality psychiatric examination.

I'd have to lay odds, no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 11:29 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Paul Baker is the DVP from across the pond.  Except in some respects he is even worse.  He says he is a scientist yet he will not admit that the CBLA test has been completely vitiated and can never be used forensically again.  He actually said he saw merits on both sides!!

"What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the victims in President Kennedy's car....and yet, after the bullets stopped flying and the fragments and/or whole bullets were examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street? Short of conspiracy theorists coming right out and calling Vincent Guinn a bald-faced l-i-a-r when he revealed his NAA results in 1978 (and even taking into account the newer NAA studies that have been done since '78 that have cast doubt on the exactitude of Guinn's determinations), I cannot see how the conspiracists of the world can fight the above-mentioned "odds" problem." -- DVP; September 5, 2007

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:
  1.  At least one effort to duplicate what happened is available in a documentary on YouTube, and it did indeed show the shirt and jacket bunching together. 

Pure fiction.  No such YouTube exists. 

I busted Chad Zimmerman faking such a demonstration -- he offered to pay me ten grand if I could prove he wasn't full of sh-t.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Pure fiction.  No such YouTube exists. 

I busted Chad Zimmerman faking such a demonstration -- he offered to pay me ten grand if I could prove he wasn't full of sh-t.

THAT is your "refutation" of my above points?  The sheer lunacy of (1) no exit holes for two bullets; (2) two entrance holes that just magically line up as though one were an entrance hole and the other were an exit hole; and (3) the necessity to postulate dissolving bullets - all THAT requires no comment?

Such a YouTube video certainly did exist.  I watched it myself and posted a link last year.  The shirt experiment was in the middle of a well-received documentary.  You debated it with me.  If it is no longer available on YouTube (which I don't know), that is scarcely the same as "not existing" except in Conspiracy World.

You "busted" Chad Zimmerman, did you?  Was he arrested?  And he offered to pay you $10K if you could prove he wasn't full of doo-doo, did he?  (Does that even make sense?  "You're such a genius, Cliff, you've caused me to doubt myself.  I beg you, sir - prove I'm not full of steaming bat guano and I'll pay you $10,000."  Yeah, I guess I could see that happening.)  I don't even recall whether Zimmerman was the guy in the video, but if he was he does not seem to have retracted anything:  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000037.htm.

For those who may not know, Cliff has been beating this drum - and only this drum - FOREVER.  All acknowledge that the alignment of the various holes demands an explanation, but no one will take poor Cliff as seriously as he demands to be taken.  He has PROVED A CONSPIRACY, you fools!!!  WHY can you not see this???  THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Such a YouTube video certainly did exist.  I watched it myself and posted a link last year. 

That was Chad Zimmerman's fake experiment which did not show any movement of clothing.  

The Big Lie being promoted here is that multiple inches of JFK's tucked in custom-made dress shirt and multiple inches of his suit jacket were elevated entirely above the base of his neck without pushing up on the jacket collar -- which rested in a normal position just above the base of his neck.

Because Lance is cognitively impaired by confirmation bias he can't process the fact that all the Elm St. photos show a normal amount of shirt collar above the top of the jacket collar.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

You "busted" Chad Zimmerman, did you?  Was he arrested?  And he offered to pay you $10K if you could prove he wasn't full of doo-doo, did he?  (Does that even make sense?  "You're such a genius, Cliff, you've caused me to doubt myself.  I beg you, sir - prove I'm not full of steaming bat guano and I'll pay you $10,000."  Yeah, I guess I could see that happening.)

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/latest$20cliff$20challenge|sort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/KMqn57EVz80/y7QNUN3W3pkJ

After claiming on the Beyond the Magic Bullet Show that "Stan" was an exact stand-in for JFK, Chad realized his experiment destroyed the SBT.  He needed to cast doubt on the validity of Stan as a proper stand-in.

Chad Zimmerman, emphasis added:

If Varnell were to go and meet Stan, the JFK stand-in from The Discovery
Channel's 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' episode and returns with the belief that
Stan has the same build as JFK, then I will give Varnell a check for
$10,000.

Tactless? Perhaps. Does it prove my point? Perhaps. Stan was a less than
perfect stand-in for JFK.

But don't take it from me, go ahead and find Stan, Cliff. I look forward to
the public apology for repeatedly claiming otherwise.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

"What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the victims in President Kennedy's car....and yet, after the bullets stopped flying and the fragments and/or whole bullets were examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street? Short of conspiracy theorists coming right out and calling Vincent Guinn a bald-faced l-i-a-r when he revealed his NAA results in 1978 (and even taking into account the newer NAA studies that have been done since '78 that have cast doubt on the exactitude of Guinn's determinations), I cannot see how the conspiracists of the world can fight the above-mentioned "odds" problem." -- DVP; September 5, 2007

 

I'm glad he put this in large type.

Because it shows he doesn't mind shouting at the top of his lungs when he is utterly wrong. 

And he is.

What did Mr. T used to say? Pity the fool.

I will now swear off the Emmett Kelly of the JFK case again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I will now swear off the Emmett Kelly of the JFK case again.

 

Please, no more going around and around with Von Pein.

You don't see me fake-debating these guys.

Pure ridicule is all they deserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/latest$20cliff$20challenge|sort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/KMqn57EVz80/y7QNUN3W3pkJ

After claiming on the Beyond the Magic Bullet Show that "Stan" was an exact stand-in for JFK, Chad realized his experiment destroyed the SBT.  He needed to cast doubt on the validity of Stan as a proper stand-in.

Chad Zimmerman, emphasis added:

If Varnell were to go and meet Stan, the JFK stand-in from The Discovery
Channel's 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' episode and returns with the belief that
Stan has the same build as JFK, then I will give Varnell a check for
$10,000.

Tactless? Perhaps. Does it prove my point? Perhaps. Stan was a less than
perfect stand-in for JFK.

But don't take it from me, go ahead and find Stan, Cliff. I look forward to
the public apology for repeatedly claiming otherwise.

Here is the video, beginning at about the 39-minute mark of "Beyond the Magic Bullet," that Cliff claimed "did not exist."  Apparently if Cliff disagrees with something, it ceases to exist.  Chad Zimmerman claims only that his stand-in for JFK in the shirt-bunching experiment is "the same size" as JFK - i.e., six feet and 170 pounds.  Apparently "Stan" was the stand-in, although he is not identified by name in the documentary.  As I review the fussing and feuding, which dates back more than a decade, apparently Cliff was claiming that Zimmerman had claimed that Stan was an "exact" replica of JFK, which Stan clearly wasn't (he appears much thinner) and Zimmerman didn't say he was (at least on the video or anywhere else that I could find).  Cliff also apparently squawked because Stan's clothing wasn't tailored, whereas JFK's obviously was.  (For that matter, Stan apparently wasn't wearing a heavy back brace either.)  By Cliff Logic, this renders the entire experiment bogus and irrelevant, whereas by Lance Logic it remains instructive and sufficient to show that what Cliff claims is IMPOSSIBLE!!! is, in fact, not impossible at all.

I am frankly unable even to follow what Cliff is saying, either here or in his beef with Zimmerman.  Perhaps you can.  Here's the mind-numbing discussion leading to Zimmerman's $10,000 challenge.  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/chad$20zimmerman$20$2410$2C000|sort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/P2knOTVeY1M/tk-CtLbVTCMJ and https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/chad$20zimmerman$20$2410$2C000|sort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/5p0tzjiw034/E9p0v3zXZskJ  Zimmerman's emphatic point is that Stan was not the "same build" as JFK, which he clearly wasn't and Zimmerman didn't suggest he was.  As you read this insane pissing contest, which is more than a decade old, bear in mind that Weaponizer Cliff calls me obsessive!  BWAHAHAHA, as the saying goes.  No, I just don't tolerate fools gladly and, after 35 years of litigation practice, am pretty skilled at pointing out their foolishness.

Dr. Zimmerman is alive and well and in practice - perhaps I'll get his take on this and report back.  To show what a genial Lone Nutter I am, here is an extremely detailed critique of Zimmerman by Pat Speer, http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12b%3Abullxxxxandbeyond.  It is at least free of Cliff-type nonsense.  The Zimmerman experiment does not, of course, purport to duplicate the assassination in exact detail or to produce identical results - duh.  I liked one of Zimmerman's responses to Speer's incessant grilling:  "However, clothing moves, Pat. That was the point of the demonstration.”

 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lance Payette said:

Here is the video, beginning at about the 39-minute mark of "Beyond the Magic Bullet," that Cliff claimed "did not exist."  Apparently if Cliff disagrees with something, it ceases to exist.

The video does not show any movement of clothing.  There is no video in existence which shows multiple inches of shirt and multiple inches of jacket elevating above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Payette is trying to gaslight us by claiming the video shows things it clearly doesn't show.

Payette remains cognitively impaired, unable to see the visible shirt collar in the Elm St. photos.

So he just makes things up, like Von Pein et al.

Pathetic...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The video does not show any movement of clothing.  There is no video in existence which shows multiple inches of shirt and multiple inches of jacket elevating above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Payette is trying to gaslight us by claiming the video shows things it clearly doesn't show.

Payette remains cognitively impaired, unable to see the visible shirt collar in the Elm St. photos.

So he just makes things up, like Von Pein et al.

Pathetic...

 

And this from someone who prefers to believe in two closely aligned entrance wounds with no exit wounds caused by dissolving bullets fired by shooters at the rear and front.  OK.

The marker on the shirt moves in Zimmerman’s demonstration.  But in Conspiracy World, of course, the entire demonstration and documentary were – uh-huh – a conspiracy.

There are dozens of photos of JFK’s jacket bunched up around his neck, sometimes to a grotesque degree.

Cliff thus focuses on the shirt.  Because a shirt collar fits more tightly, it will not slide up a readily as a jacket.  But a billowy cotton dress shirt will indeed bunch up to an extent beneath the jacket.  I proved this to myself, and you can certainly duplicate my little experiment (and I wasn’t wearing a bulky back brace either).

In JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy, John McAdams makes a salient point:  When all the other evidence suggests that the Single Bullet Theory is the best explanation, as it does, the clothing simply has to be consistent with that theory.  To allow the clothing to drive the theory, even to the extent of claiming entrance wounds with no exit wounds and dissolving bullets, is exactly backwards.  But Conspiracy Logic is exactly backwards much of the time.

I have had perhaps 25 little instances in my life where things occurred that were “physically impossible” – except for the fact that they undeniably occurred.  I accepted their reality, even though the only possible explanation seemed to push the laws of physics to the very edge.

Believe what you want, but for me the “bunching” explanation is far, far more plausible than what Cliff is suggesting.

With that, the prosecution rests.  Literally - I'm going to take a nap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...