David Lifton on the Paines (2017)

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I would have liked to see legal action to stop the film because I don't think it is accurate or fair to Ruth Paine. I don't believe that such legal action would prevail, however. The problem with the film is that all you have are the suspicions of people who are predisposed to believe in a conspiracy (Sue Wheaton comes to mind immediately). But you think it is ok to go with these suspicions even when people like Judge Griffin, David Lifton and Joe Alesi (and presumably others) tell you otherwise. That is wrong in my opinion and it is not worth the damage it does to Ruth Paine and the factual record in the JFK case.

Tracy,

As I’ve said before, the position of you and your fellow lone nut theorists is untenable because it’s based on a logical fallacy, namely argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"). This fallacy is committed by those who reject an opposing argument, not because it’s illogical, but because they don’t like its implications.

A classic example of this fallacy was the ruling of an English judge, Lord Denning, described as follows in the Guardian newspaper:

‘In 1980 he upheld an appeal by West Midlands police against a civil action by the Birmingham Six over injuries they received in police custody. To accept that the police were lying would open an "appalling vista," he said.’

Likewise, you and your fellow lone nut theorists reject clearcut evidence of a JFKA conspiracy simply because it opens up the ‘appalling vista’ of the complicity and duplicity of US government agencies and their ‘assets’ both witting and unwitting, such as the Paines.

The fact that on this fallacious basis you also condemn LH Oswald as an assassin, thus flouting the principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence, underlines the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your lone nut theory.

In 1991 Lord Denning admitted that he had been wrong in his fallacious 1980 ruling. When are you and your fellow lone nut theorists going to admit that you’re wrong?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/mar/06/claredyer1

Edited December 30, 2022 by John Cotter

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, Max Good said:

I think the reason Greg Doudna couldn't resist re-posting the material on Griffin from my Patreon, despite the clear instruction not to, was that he hoped Griffin would take some legal action against me.  Griffin, Paul Hoch, W. Tracy Parnell, Doudna, Fred Litwin, and David von Pein have all suggested or intimated legal action against me.  That's not exactly in the spirit of a "friendly debate," as far as I'm concerned.

This isn't about intellectual property for me and I will not engage with people who would like to see me getting sued.  I think most of us can see who has honest intentions and who does not.

Thanks to Denny Zartman and John Cotter for the support.

I do not support legal action against you Max Good and would not like to see you getting sued. I am not aware of having suggested or intimated such in the past.

I did not report on the Griffin material you published on Patreon in the hope that Griffin would take legal action against you. I believed Judge Griffin raised journalism-ethical issues which at some point I hope you will see fit to thoughtfully address. That is what I found newsworthy and the issue to me. Please do not misrepresent me.

I would be sympathetic to legal action from Ruth Paine against one individual I could name if she were to go that route, but that is not you. Ruth Paine's track record has not been to go that route, the pacifist in her I suppose, and there is no realistic likelihood of that ever happening, meaning thought-leaders so inclined (not all) within the conspiracy community will continue to have unfettered reign to defame and publicly excoriate the character of an innocent woman without evidence, with impunity.

The conspiracy community's own Dreyfus Case.

And not helpful to going to a resolution of the JFK assassination. She didn't kill Kennedy. She didn't have anything to do with killing Kennedy. She loved Kennedy.

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I would have liked to see legal action to stop the film because I don't think it is accurate or fair to Ruth Paine. I don't believe that such legal action would prevail, however. The problem with the film is that all you have are the suspicions of people who are predisposed to believe in a conspiracy (Sue Wheaton comes to mind immediately). But you think it is ok to go with these suspicions even when people like Judge Griffin, David Lifton and Joe Alesi (and presumably others) tell you otherwise. That is wrong in my opinion and it is not worth the damage it does to Ruth Paine and the factual record in the JFK case.

On the subject of censorship, there are only two positions which are honest and logically consistent: the belief in free speech extremism, or the belief that literally all opinions except for your own should be censored. The tiniest difference in political policy could kill or displace thousands of people, so if one does not expressly value liberty over security, there will ALWAYS be an important-sounding reason to justify censorship. People have a hard time understanding that no two sets of opinions are alike. For an example, imagine two people who agree on almost everything about World War 2, but person A believes that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, while person B thinks that only the bombing of Hiroshima was justified but not Nagasaki. From person B's perspective, is person A not supporting the murder of hundreds of children? And aren't both supporting mass child murder from the perspective of somebody who thinks that neither bombing was justified? Is the violent death of hundreds of children not on the same level of importance as other kinds of speech deemed too "violent", "slanderous", or "hateful"? See, any attempt to defend a non-free-speech-extremist system falls apart.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I saw a screening of Max's film several years back, at a conference. I thought it was fair to Ruth Paine in that it let her defend herself. It left me on the fence. I was kinda saddened by the response of some of those in attendance, however, who felt that Max had really nailed her, or exposed her, etc. I didn't get that all. 

It would be a shame, IMO, if she felt she should sue, or if others have convinced her she should sue. One not already pre-disposed to hate her could very well come away with an understanding of why she is controversial, and not that she's a witch who should be burned. 

Now, this is assuming the film as released is the film I saw at the screening. It remains possible Max re-edited the film to make it more pleasing to those hoping it would be a hit piece. If this is so, well, that's disappointing. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Pat Speer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

13 hours ago, John Cotter said:

As I’ve said before, the position of you and your fellow lone nut theorists is untenable because it’s based on a logical fallacy

No, if she had filed suit, it would have had to be based on legal principles and I understand that. That is why I said I don't think she would prevail. She is possibly a public figure and agreed to participate in the film. So, I don't think she would prevail and I doubt anyone is telling her to do that and she likely has no interest in it anyway. Any personal feelings I mentioned are just that.

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, if she had filed suit, it would have had to be based on legal principles and I understand that. That is why I said I don't think she would prevail. She is possibly a public figure and agreed to participate in the film. So, I don't think she would prevail and I doubt anyone is telling her to do that and she likely has no interest in it anyway. Any personal feelings I mentioned are just that.

I don't see how your post follows logically from mine, Tracy.

[Matt Allison]

I wonder how much Max had to pay a lawyer to determine what had to be left out in order to prevent it being defamatory.

It would be nice if he told us, wouldn't it?

[Guest]

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Denis Morissette]

How about the slap in the face that Michael P. received from Fritz?

[John Cotter]

30 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Those who are wedded to conspiracy logic would have to plausibly explain to me why, with the massive efforts at concealment and cover-up they posit on the part of powerful people and agencies, Michael and especially Ruth were allowed to keep making themselves available and blabbing their heads off into doddering old age. Apparently there was zero fear that Ruth, from 1963 into her 70s, 80s and now 90s, would crack or inadvertently let the dark truth slip. If Ruth were what she is hypothesized to be, I would think the conspiratorial powers would have made sure she faded quietly into obscurity and stayed quiet.

Like so much of conspiracy logic, it just makes no sense. I think I'm very well-informed about pretty much everything Ruth has ever said or that has been said about her, and I see zero actual evidence that she is anything other than what she has represented herself to be. It's all dark speculation and the connecting of imaginary dots that just doesn't gibe with the actual life of the actual woman.

Indeed, the conspiracy community's treatment of Ruth Paine is, to me, one of the three or four prime examples of the near-lunacy that characterizes conspiracy think.

Talk about logical fallacies - wow. FWIW, in my considerable internet forum experience, I find that those who lean heavily on accusing others of logical fallacies (1) seldom have a clear grasp of the fallacies they cite, and (2) typically commit logical fallacies in the very act of accusing others of logical fallacies.

In reality, JFK's assassination didn't mean diddly squat to me, either in 1963 or now. I have no emotional involvement in the solution. I was a gung-ho, gee-whiz conspiracy loon for decades because all I knew was the conspiracy literature. I follow the evidence and logic where they lead. If, in fact, it could be shown that the CIA, Mafia or Montana Department of Animal Husbandry was intimately involved in the assassination, I'd find it utterly fascinating as a point of historical interest, nothing more and nothing less.

Can you please explain where and how any part of your screed logically rebuts any of the points that I made?

Please be specific.

 

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 3:28 PM, Denis Morissette said:

How about the slap in the face that Michael P. received from Fritz?

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Denis Morissette]

2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Are you responding to me? If the slap occurred - which I have no particular reason to doubt, given Fritz's treatment of Frazier - what would this tell us about anything? OK, in the aftermath of the assassination, Fritz was something less than a pussycat. I'm not aware that Lifton made clear why Michael said Fritz had slapped him, but in any event why would we think this tells us anything about the Paines? Did Fritz's treatment of Frazier tell us anything about Frazier?

I'm just adding something that has to do with Paine and Lifton. I wanted to know what people think of this. That's all. It's something Lifton brought up a few months ago. He had never related this slap with the alleged slap attempt on Frazier. Fritz beating up suspects was brought up by DPD Captain George Butler in 1968. He said that he would have beaten up Oswald had the FBI agents not being present during the interrogations. These are just allegations from a Garrison team member.

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 3:39 PM, John Cotter said:

Can you please explain where and how any part of your screed logically rebuts any of the points that I made?

Please be specific.

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 3:54 PM, Denis Morissette said:

I'm just adding something that has to do with Paine and Lifton. I wanted to know what people think of this. That's all. It's something Lifton brought up a few months ago. He had never related this slap with the alleged slap attempt on Frazier. Fritz beating up suspects was brought up by DPD Captain George Butler in 1968. He said that he would have beaten up Oswald had the FBI agents not being present during the interrogations. These are just allegations from a Garrison team member.

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[John Cotter]

21 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

My point to you was nothing more than what I stated: You assume that Tracy is guilty of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy when I feel quite sure you don't actually have the faintest idea of whether he is. You then extend your unwarranted assumption to Tracy's "fellow lone nut theorists," a category that would include moi and pretty much the entire community of professional historians, not to mention umpteen others. In my case, your blanket assumption is simply false. I wouldn't be the least bit "appalled" if "US government agencies" actually carried out the assassination, any more than I'm appalled that Oswald did. Your argumentum ad consequentiam attack does, in fact, commit its own logical fallacies.

The argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy is the only plausible explanation for you and your fellow lone nut theorists rejecting the clearcut evidence of US government agencies being involved in the JFKA conspiracy.

I don’t have to know what people are thinking when their actions speak for themselves.