So, who is running this forum now?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Posted today by David Talbot on Facebook:

The Art of Death... David Bowie turned everything into art, even his own death. I was put in mind of that again while watching the recent documentary "Bowie: Moonage Daydream," which is kind of a sound and vision, well, daydream. The documentary puts you in Bowie's strange and beautiful head (was there any human creature so immensely variable, switching looks and musical styles on artistic instinct?), down to his very end, which was NOT bitter. "Life is fantastic," Bowie's disembodied voice tells us near the end of the documentary.

Did Bowie, who died of cancer in January 2016, believe in an AFTERlife? It seems that way. He left us an album ,"Blackstar," released the same month of his passing, that contained these lyrics:

"Something happened on the day he died

Spirit rose a meter

then stepped aside

Somebody else took his place, and bravely cried

(I'm a blackstar, I'm a star star, I'm a blackstar)"

The album also contained a song called "Lazarus," after the man whom Jesus miraculously raised from the dead, that featured these lyrics:

"Look up here, I'm in heaven...

Dropped my cell phone down below

Ain't that just like me?"

The man always had a sense of humor. He played with life... and death. I get it. As I wrote in my stroke memoir, "Between Heaven and Hell," getting in touch with the great unknown heightened my sense of the absurd.

Bowie's songs on "Blackstar" comforted and discomfited me. That's what great art does. It's also what the onrush of our finality -- at least on this earthly plane -- does to us.

As I get closer to the end, I dwell more on death. It's not morbid -- although our youth-oriented, acquisitive culture drums that idea into us. Death is the great mystery. The looming Blackstar. Maybe it's the ultimate extinction, in which case we don't have to fret any longer. But, like Bowie, I choose to think, to FEEL, it's the beginning of a new mystery.

I don't exactly look forward to it. After all, life is still "fantastic," even in my debilitated state. But I'm more and more ready for whatever comes next...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Love Bowie, I cried when he died. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

Ad hominem insults only reveal the

lack of credibility of the person

lobbing the insults. They show

an inability to argue factually.

Its true, but, if slighted, its tough not to respond in kind, particularly in this world where a digital footprint is so permanent. 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

 

Yes the old days, quite moving concern, this place. In fact, I was warned of my upcoming expulsion from the Ed Forum, 3 times... I will be signing off from the forum at the end of this week... who'd of thought in 2004 that I'd be one of the last old-timers here in nearly 2023... and if Len Colby showed here again, I'd take him to task anew.... of course there were disinfo agents hereabouts, image shifter I liked to call them back then -- and .john mcmadman had entire university classroom(s) full of them... fighting with the best of them, the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome' bunch... mod's insisting we have a clean discussion of the facts, like we were going to determine where the next JFK investigation was going, and an obvious conclusion.... and there hasn't been one person join this forum without a pre-determine assassination conclusion in their mind... so "keep an open mind" is pure BS....

Present and future authors bounced book ideas off this forum membership, some good stuff, some trash the result over the years.... But always someone had some concept to sell, most of it nonsense... Glad I witnessed it... it's no-wonder fascism has poked its nose out....the unknown history of JFK assassination investigation: a waiting game, the au contraire crowd will die the WCR truth will stand... the best I have seen over the years regarding assassination evidence is: Oliver Stone/Jim DiEugenio latest -- the Doug Horne's Series -- And a guy that still posts to alt.conspiracy.jfk, one Ben Holmes who keeps every single .john mcmadam acolyte toes to the flames... using Mark Lanes Rush to Judgement, Holmes has been devastating when it comes to debate concerning JFK assassination case evidence. Not one lone nutter has had success against Holmes including .John who was needless to say outmanned in debating Holmes.......

So I bid you adieu, go in peace, but don't go silently... and Pat, I got here April 2004 (an invite from John Simkin (not Andy - we didn't get along), after Rich DellaRosa's JFK assassination research website shut down, at which I was the film/photo site moderator -- which,  by-the-way spawned many other photo assassination archives)

David Healy -- 11-29-2022

It’s sad to see you go. The JFKA was fascism. 
 

[Ron Bulman]

23 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

 

Yes the old days, quite moving concern, this place. In fact, I was warned of my upcoming expulsion from the Ed Forum, 3 times... I will be signing off from the forum at the end of this week... who'd of thought in 2004 that I'd be one of the last old-timers here in nearly 2023... and if Len Colby showed here again, I'd take him to task anew.... of course there were disinfo agents hereabouts, image shifter I liked to call them back then -- and .john mcmadman had entire university classroom(s) full of them... fighting with the best of them, the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome' bunch... mod's insisting we have a clean discussion of the facts, like we were going to determine where the next JFK investigation was going, and an obvious conclusion.... and there hasn't been one person join this forum without a pre-determine assassination conclusion in their mind... so "keep an open mind" is pure BS....

Present and future authors bounced book ideas off this forum membership, some good stuff, some trash the result over the years.... But always someone had some concept to sell, most of it nonsense... Glad I witnessed it... it's no-wonder fascism has poked its nose out....the unknown history of JFK assassination investigation: a waiting game, the au contraire crowd will die the WCR truth will stand... the best I have seen over the years regarding assassination evidence is: Oliver Stone/Jim DiEugenio latest -- the Doug Horne's Series -- And a guy that still posts to alt.conspiracy.jfk, one Ben Holmes who keeps every single .john mcmadam acolyte toes to the flames... using Mark Lanes Rush to Judgement, Holmes has been devastating when it comes to debate concerning JFK assassination case evidence. Not one lone nutter has had success against Holmes including .John who was needless to say outmanned in debating Holmes.......

So I bid you adieu, go in peace, but don't go silently... and Pat, I got here April 2004 (an invite from John Simkin (not Andy - we didn't get along), after Rich DellaRosa's JFK assassination research website shut down, at which I was the film/photo site moderator -- which,  by-the-way spawned many other photo assassination archives)

David Healy -- 11-29-2022

I too, David, will miss the loss of your whit and enlightenment.  Thanks for your encouragement/support of a few posts of mine over the last few years.

Goodbye, farewell, so long, vaya con dios
Good luck, wish you well, take it slow

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

Ad hominem insults only reveal the

lack of credibility of the person

lobbing the insults. They show

an inability to argue factually.

Well said, but it is also important to properly define what constitutes an ad hominem argument or post.

It isn't ad hominem to disagree with someone's theses or claims about alleged facts.

Ad hominem arguments are attacks against the person rather than against their theses and/or claims about alleged facts.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

It isn't ad hominem to disagree with someone's theses or claims about alleged facts.

Ad hominem arguments are attacks against the person rather than against their theses and/or claims about alleged facts.

This is true, just practice what you preach. Also, if you have conviction to such values; call out any acolytes who commit ad hominem✔️ 

[Kirk Gallaway]

37 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well said, but it is also important to properly define what constitutes an ad hominem argument or post.

It isn't ad hominem to disagree with someone's theses or claims about alleged facts.

Ad hominem arguments are attacks against the person rather than against their theses and/or claims about alleged facts.

 

 Here's the definition of ad hominem,

of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Some claims of  "ad hominem attacks" are simply a reaction to a disagreement of facts and often reflect an unwillingness to discuss the matter further..

[George Govus]

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks Doug - I needed that.

What he said.

[John Cotter]

13 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Love Bowie, I cried when he died. 

His Hunky Dory album is one of the greatest masterpieces in any genre.

https://www.google.com/search?q=David+Bowie%2C+Hunky+Dory&oq=David+Bowie%2C+Hunky+Dory&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i512j0i512l7.8661j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:8445ea0d,vid:6hyFs1Cju2A

Edited December 1, 2022 by John Cotter

[Gerry Down]

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well said, but it is also important to properly define what constitutes an ad hominem argument or post.

It isn't ad hominem to disagree with someone's theses or claims about alleged facts.

Ad hominem arguments are attacks against the person rather than against their theses and/or claims about alleged facts.

 

Posner is a big target for ad hominem attacks on here. I've lost count of the number of times someone mentions a point made by posner only for someone to shoot back something regarding his plagerism controversy from some years back. I couldn't care less about some plagerism controversy. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

Posner is a big target for ad hominem attacks on here. I've lost count of the number of times someone mentions a point made by posner only for someone to shoot back something regarding his plagerism controversy from some years back. I couldn't care less about some plagerism controversy. 

Clearly, since you spelled it wrong. (Sorry about the snarkiness, but you stepped into it.)

Posner has a couple of credibility problems. Chief among these is that he claimed he'd talked to the autopsy doctors and that they'd admitted they were wrong about the head wound entrance location. This wasn't true. Boswell shot him down. 

There was also the problem of his implying FAA had worked for him, and that they had validated the SBT, when FAA had in fact presented both sides of the SBT argument at an ABA mock trial, and had come to no conclusion. 

And then there's the plagiarism issue--which showed he was willing to cut corners to get ahead in the cutthroat world of journalism. It's fair to take from this that he may have cut corners to get ahead while writing Case Closed as well. I mean, this is a actually a big duh. He called the book Case Closed when he knew it was anything but, and that there were valid reasons to disagree. He proved this, moreover, in his choice of lawyer to help him fight his plagiarism problem. He chose Mark Lane. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Bill Brown]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Clearly, since you spelled it wrong. (Sorry about the snarkiness, but you stepped into it.)

Posner has a couple of credibility problems. Chief among these is that he claimed he'd talked to the autopsy doctors and that they'd admitted they were wrong about the head wound entrance location. This wasn't true. Boswell shot him down. 

There was also the problem of his implying FAA had worked for him, and that they had validated the SBT, when FAA had in fact presented both sides of the SBT argument at an ABA mock trial, and had come to no conclusion. 

And then there's the plagiarism issue--which showed he was willing to cut corners to get ahead in the cutthroat world of journalism. It's fair to take from this that he may have cut corners to get ahead while writing Case Closed as well. I mean, this is a actually a big duh. He called the book Case Closed when he knew it was anything but, and that there were valid reasons to disagree. He proved this, moreover, in his choice of lawyer to help him fight his plagiarism problem. He chose Mark Lane. 

 

Posner has a couple of credibility problems. Chief among these is that he claimed he'd talked to the autopsy doctors and that they'd admitted they were wrong about the head wound entrance location. This wasn't true. Boswell shot him down. 

 

Pat, can you elaborate further on this or link me to a place where I may have a look?  I know most of the Parkland medical personnel retracted their original statements (in interviews with Posner), regarding the location of the head wound, etc... But the autopsy doctors?

 

I don't read and/or follow Posner too much at all so I'm unaware.

 

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Posner has a couple of credibility problems. Chief among these is that he claimed he'd talked to the autopsy doctors and that they'd admitted they were wrong about the head wound entrance location. This wasn't true. Boswell shot him down. 

 

Pat, can you elaborate further on this or link me to a place where I may have a look?  I know most of the Parkland medical personnel retracted their original statements (in interviews with Posner), regarding the location of the head wound, etc... But the autopsy doctors?

 

I don't read and/or follow Posner too much at all so I'm unaware.

 

After Posner's book came out, Aguilar called up Boswell and asked him if what Posner said he said (that he now believed the bullet entered the cowlick) was true. Boswell not only denied telling this to Posner, he claimed he'd never even talked to Posner. 

There used to be some threads on this online, but I just looked and I think they went down with McAdams' site. 

In any event, this was widely discussed, to such an extent that Posner was asked about this when he spoke to the Conyers committee, which was preparing to set up the ARRB. As I recall, there was preliminary testimony given by many researchers to this committee as to what the board should look into, and Posner was one of those to testify. Well, as I recall Posner said he could prove he talked to Boswell because he had the phone records to prove it. But he never coughed up those records, as I recall. 

It was either that or the phone call was listed as lasting less than a minute, which suggested he'd called Boswell but got a machine, or left a message. My memory is a bit foggy on this. But I recall quite clearly that the evidence was quite damning and strongly suggested Posner had never actually spoken to Boswell. 

I don't have time right now to dig back into this, but a quick search led me to this note in Weisberg's archives.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/P Disk/Posner Gerald/About/Item 33.pdf

The doctor referenced by Weisberg was Aguilar. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

After Posner's book came out, Aguilar called up Boswell and asked him if what Posner said he said (that he now believed the bullet entered the cowlick) was true. Boswell not only denied telling this to Posner, he claimed he'd never even talked to Posner. 

There used to be some threads on this online, but I just looked and I think they went down with McAdams' site. 

In any event, this was widely discussed, to such an extent that Posner was asked about this when he spoke to the Conyers committee, which was preparing to set up the ARRB. As I recall, there was preliminary testimony given by many researchers to this committee as to what the board should look into, and Posner was one of those to testify. Well, as I recall Posner said he could prove he talked to Boswell because he had the phone records to prove it. But he never coughed up those records, as I recall. 

It was either that or the phone call was listed as lasting less than a minute, which suggested he'd called Boswell but got a machine, or left a message. My memory is a bit foggy on this. But I recall quite clearly that the evidence was quite damning and strongly suggested Posner had never actually spoken to Boswell. 

I don't have time right now to dig back into this, but a quick search led me to this note in Weisberg's archives.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/P Disk/Posner Gerald/About/Item 33.pdf

The doctor referenced by Weisberg was Aguilar. 

Thanks Pat, this case never ceases to amaze me, there seem to be something around every corner

[Bill Brown]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

After Posner's book came out, Aguilar called up Boswell and asked him if what Posner said he said (that he now believed the bullet entered the cowlick) was true. Boswell not only denied telling this to Posner, he claimed he'd never even talked to Posner. 

There used to be some threads on this online, but I just looked and I think they went down with McAdams' site. 

In any event, this was widely discussed, to such an extent that Posner was asked about this when he spoke to the Conyers committee, which was preparing to set up the ARRB. As I recall, there was preliminary testimony given by many researchers to this committee as to what the board should look into, and Posner was one of those to testify. Well, as I recall Posner said he could prove he talked to Boswell because he had the phone records to prove it. But he never coughed up those records, as I recall. 

It was either that or the phone call was listed as lasting less than a minute, which suggested he'd called Boswell but got a machine, or left a message. My memory is a bit foggy on this. But I recall quite clearly that the evidence was quite damning and strongly suggested Posner had never actually spoken to Boswell. 

I don't have time right now to dig back into this, but a quick search led me to this note in Weisberg's archives.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/P Disk/Posner Gerald/About/Item 33.pdf

The doctor referenced by Weisberg was Aguilar. 

 

Thanks.  Much appreciated.