Oliver Stone: "Putin is a great leader for his country."

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Of course they can judge for themselves, as they already have. Numerous member polls right here on this forum show that the vast majority of researchers reject this silly, ridiculous theory.

I found the 2015 forum poll on H&L.  There was nothing remotely resembling an expert consensus, as you imply.

In fact, many of the voters in that poll had, apparently, never even read Armstrong's book.

The evident expert on the subject, on that thread, was David Josephs.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

In fact, the opposite is true. We owe the members of the ROKC a debt of gratitude for authoritatively shredding the looniest and most embarrassing fringe theories in this case ("Harvey" and/or "Lee," I'm aiming a Minox camera in your direction...) -- theories that impugn the integrity and credibility of the JFK research community at large.

You’re missing the point IMO, Jonathan. That section could be the holy grail of truth, but nobody will read it (barely anyone) as it looks like Sideshow-Bob has been to poetry school. ie it’s written in a way that no serious person would look at. Even if they would; they’d find it was fully of personal attacks and weird eccentric nicknames for people. If this case is to be solved and there is to be a correcting of history, then you need a sizeable proportion of the public to support that and to pressure government. Almost everything happens through public consent. That section alienates people and fulfils stereotypes. I think what’s required Is some objectivity. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

Thanks, Jeremy. Beyond loyalty, there is rationality. I’ll presume you whole heartedly agree with any other criticisms of Greg and Alex.

I don't doubt that Chris would presume something like that, but he'd be mistaken.

W. Niederhut writes:

Quote

As for Jeremy B. triumphantly posting a definition of "ad hominem" from external sources, he could have found precisely the same definition in one of my original posts here earlier this year.

That's good to know. The definition I quoted was aimed not at you but at certain members who like to bleat about logical fallacies while demonstrating that they wouldn't recognise one if it came up to them wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "Hello! I'm a logical fallacy!" printed on it.

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

If this case is to be solved and there is to be a correcting of history, then you need a sizeable proportion of the public to support that and to pressure government.

Exactly! I'm glad we agree on that.

In particular, we need the support of that section of the general public which is equipped and motivated to question what they're told by the media about the assassination.

Unfortunately, there are aspects of the online assassination debate that will surely alienate such people, by corroborating what the media tells them.

They are told that those who question the official account of the JFK assassination are 'conspiracy theorists', and that 'conspiracy theorists' are borderline-paranoid fantasists who make far-fetched claims supported by insufficient evidence.

Sure enough, any member of the public who is curious about the JFK assassination will find no shortage of far-fetched, poorly supported claims in online forums such as this one, where any amount of nonsense may be spouted as long as it's spouted politely.

All the photographs taken in Dealey Plaza are fakes. Oswald was two people, one of whom had a 13-inch head. Oswald had a girlfriend in New Orleans who desperately needs whatever money you are able to send her. The trees on the grassy knoll were fakes constructed from papier-mâché. All the home movies from Dealey Plaza are fakes. Jack Ruby was two people. Oswald's mother was two people. The street lights and road signs in Dealey Plaza contain listening devices disguised as rain sensors. The photos and news films that show one of the Jack Rubys shooting one of the Oswalds are fakes. President Kennedy's body was snatched away from Air Force One and replaced with that of Officer Tippit, who was the gunman on the grassy knoll, hidden by all those fake trees. And so on.

What is the general public going to think when it comes across stuff like this? They are going to equate the JFK assassination with faked moon landings and lizard people. They are going to believe what the media tells them about the assassination. That's why idiotic, far-fetched nonsense needs to be countered, even when it is spouted politely. One place where this questioning happens consistently is the 'Debunked' section of the ROKC forum.

Quote

That section alienates people and fulfils stereotypes. I think what’s required Is some objectivity.

In fact, that section actively contradicts the media's stereotype of 'conspiracy theorists'. It would surely not alienate the section of the general public that we need to attract.

I can understand that Chris and others might take it personally when they are subjected to someone else's idea of humour. But if he delves beyond those comments, he will find plenty of the sort of criticism and analysis that he and the general public would appreciate.

[John Cotter]

On 5/13/2023 at 9:33 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Barnard writes:

Chris seems to have misunderstood the comment he is replying to, which I assume is this one, posted some hours before Chris's reply:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2700p25-the-only-thing-to-fear-about-inevitability-is-the-inevitable-itself-or-a-portrait-of-the-hollow-men-in-motion#42016

'Ad hominem' does not mean simply making an unkind or sarcastic personal comment about someone. It means countering someone's argument by attacking them personally. The countering-someone's-argument part is the essential element. That's what turns a personal comment into an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Greg even dug up an excellent discussion of this much-misused term. I hope he won't mind if I quote it here, for the edification of those who are keen to use the term without understanding what it means:

 

As Humpty Dumpty said, “when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean”.

It’s interesting that Greg Parker cherry-picked a nonsensical internet article which suits his questionable modus operandi and ignores the standard definition of ad hominem.

The following sentence from the article is illustrative in that regard:

“Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.”

This is patent nonsense. The terms “argument” and “opponent” clearly imply that what’s involved is a debate, and that by attacking you, your opponent – by definition – is trying to counter your argument.

That’s borne out by the definitions of “ad hominem” in a number of independent sources, including Wikipedia and the Oxford Dictionary of English.

Therefore, contrary to what the author claims, ad hominems are pervasive in social media. The fact that the author describes people who call them out as “delicate types, delicate of personality and mind” indicates an agenda on his part – an authoritarian agenda.

It’s analogous to the CIA weaponizing the term “conspiracy theory/theorist” in suggesting essentially that anyone who questions official narratives is mentally ill. It’s called gaslighting.

The funny thing is that Greg is defending Alex Wilson’s mudslinging on the spurious basis that it’s not ad hominem and that it’s therefore just good old verbal abuse.

In other words, puerile name calling and insulting people are commendable on Planet ROKC because…because, well, Greg says so. Also, of course, as Greg has admitted, Wilson’s slapstick “logic” appeals to the peanut gallery. For Greg and Wilson, verbal abuse is great fun.

What’s even funnier is that just because Greg adduced an obnoxiously nonsensical article to “justify” verbal abuse in his forum, Jeremy Bojcuk obsequiously dumps this “excellent article” on the Education Forum as if it were as infallibly authoritative as a papal encyclical.

These are the groupthinkers who constantly proclaim their superior JFKA research skills and their intellectual superiority vis-à-vis the deplorables constantly targeted by Wilson – the “yokels” as he has called them.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

I won’t go into all the other self-contradictory and Humpty Dumptyesque nonsense Greg spews about his veiled threat to divulge secrets I confided in him, other than to note his deflecting from this malign behaviour by imputing a “possibly” pathological misperception of his behaviour to me. In other words, attempted gaslighing.

However, I’m glad Greg wishes me well despite his rottweiler Wilson repeatedly verbally abusing me. That’s the kind of generosity of spirit that has made ROKC so successful in its mission.

Edited May 14, 2023 by John Cotter

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Thanks, Jeremy. Beyond loyalty, there is rationality. I’ll presume you whole heartedly agree with any other criticisms of Greg and Alex.

I don't doubt that Chris would presume something like that, but he'd be mistaken.

There was more than a hint of sarcasm there, Jeremy. You rarely even acknowledge anything contrary to your positions. 
 

On another note, should we blame you for this little feud? After all, it was you who brought the ‘ad hominem’ to our attention, originally. We wouldn’t even know it existed. Look what a state its got Greg Parker worked up into. He even stated he was willing to goto war. How old is he? 🙂 

Or, perhaps we should be grateful for you bringing it to our attention. As it allowed us to call out the malevolence, and toxic nature of ROKC for what it is. I guess these people collect somewhere. Qanon, Reddit, ROKC, 4Chan, etc. 

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Of course they can judge for themselves, as they already have. Numerous member polls right here on this forum show that the vast majority of researchers reject this silly, ridiculous theory.

 

A few months ago I came across a list of H&L believers. The number was very large, roughly 90, and included numerous highly-respected, well-known researchers and authors. I had seen only a small number of the EF posters on the list comment on EF about Harvey & Lee. I think they prefer to keep their belief to themselves rather than open themselves up  to attack by the anti-H&L folks here on the forum.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sure enough, any member of the public who is curious about the JFK assassination will find no shortage of far-fetched, poorly supported claims in online forums such as this one, where any amount of nonsense may be spouted as long as it's spouted politely.

 

So what do you suggest we do, Jeremy? Kick off from the forum any member who points something out that Jonathan Cohen thinks is nonsense? What about if you think so?  Or I, or Kathy, or Mark? Greg Parker?

 

[Jeff Carter]

The Harvey and Lee hypothesis is:  a hypothesis. I don’t understand why some persons, beyond expressing disagreement with the hypothesis, deputize themselves and seek to not just police discussion on the topic but actively try to prevent such discussion. It is abundantly clear the concept of an Oswald doppelgänger / double has historic roots (discussed as early as 1964), and is part of the evidentiary trail.

I’m personally agnostic, but have found Harvey And Lee to be a valuable resource, and Armstrong a very good writer who asks the right questions and engages the reader. The self-appointed deputies are the annoyance.

[Pamela Brown]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

So what do you suggest we do, Jeremy? Kick off from the forum any member who points something out that Jonathan Cohen thinks is nonsense? What about if you think so?  Or I, or Kathy, or Mark? Greg Parker?

 

There is something called agreeing-to-disagree...

[Matthew Koch]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:57 PM, W. Niederhut said:

John,

     Alex Wilson has, certainly, misinterpreted several of my posts here on the Education Forum, including my recent reference to Ron Unz's American Pravda article on the subject of Holocaust Denial.

     Among other inaccuracies, Wilson mistakenly imagines that I am some sort of Holocaust Denier, because I referenced Ron Unz's analysis of the historiography of the Holocaust.  In fact, the historiography (as opposed to the history) of the Holocaust is a convoluted subject.  The ghastly history of the Holocaust hasn't come down to us in straightforward, unaltered form during the past 80 years.   Many historical details only gradually came to light.  Unz documents that historiographic process in great detail.

     My first exposure to Holocaust history was by word of mouth, over 60 years ago.  When I was a boy, my father mentioned a N-a-z-i concentration camp he had seen firsthand as a GI in Germany in 1945, and he told me that the starving camp survivors "had to be fed very carefully" because they were dying.  That left quite an impression on my mind.  In my adult life, I have also known Holocaust survivors, and children of Holocaust survivors.  The father of one of my medical school housemates was a survivor of Auschwitz.

     I am not a Holocaust Denier.  Far from it.

     So, my impression, after reading Alex Wilson's latest commentaries about the Education Forum this evening, is that he has a habit of making false claims about subjects that he hasn't understood in any depth.

     As examples, Wilson really doesn't seem to be familiar with Fletcher Prouty's career history and writings about the CIA and Vietnam.  Instead, he mistakenly thinks of Prouty as a loony Liberty Lobby Holocaust Denier. 

     Does Wilson believe the same about Mark Lane, based on Lane's association with Spotlight and the Liberty Lobby?

     I also have the impression that Alex Wilson has never studied or understood the scholarly scientific and forensic research about 9/11-- e.g., the analyses of David Ray Griffin and the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

     Yet, ironically, Wilson claims that I, myself, am an example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

     He's simply wrong.  Unlike Wilson, I'm fully aware of my ignorance about subjects that I haven't studied or understood in any detail-- including many aspects of the JFKA research.

     Dunning-Kruger is a phenomenon where people are unaware of their own ignorance.

Well, when the thread was made about me being banned Jeremy said that since I denied being a right wing extremist.. That meant I was one, because if I wasn't one, I wouldn't have a problem being called that.. and William Niederhut Harvard Class of 83' agreed with him and Alex Wilson and you even cited Alex's work as being very good..

I guess this is Karma because by your guys' logic this proves you are one! I guess that's why you bring up Laurnet Guyénot (Israel killed the Kennedy's) so much! lololololols

Now what does Oliver Stone's opinion on Russia have to do with this being on the main JFK page and not deep politics section, next to the Allen Dulles and the Yahtzee's?

[Jonathan Cohen]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Harvey and Lee hypothesis is:  a hypothesis. I don’t understand why some persons, beyond expressing disagreement with the hypothesis, deputize themselves and seek to not just police discussion on the topic but actively try to prevent such discussion. It is abundantly clear the concept of an Oswald doppelgänger / double has historic roots (discussed as early as 1964), and is part of the evidentiary trail.

I’m personally agnostic, but have found Harvey And Lee to be a valuable resource, and Armstrong a very good writer who asks the right questions and engages the reader. The self-appointed deputies are the annoyance.

Under what definition of journalism is Armstrong is "a very good writer" ? 900 pages with no editing? Boy, that'a a new one!

I trust you will recognize there is a major difference between Oswald having been impersonated and him being a part of a decades-long secret government doppelganger scheme that also involved two distinct, human versions of his own mother. There is evidence for the former. The latter is laughable.

[Pamela Brown]

14 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Well, when the thread was made about me being banned Jeremy said that since I denied being a right wing extremist.. That meant I was one, because if I wasn't one, I wouldn't have a problem being called that.. and William Niederhut Harvard Class of 83' agreed with him and Alex Wilson and you even cited Alex's work as being very good..

I guess this is Karma because by your guys' logic this proves you are one! I guess that's why you bring up Laurnet Guyénot (Israel killed the Kennedy's) so much! lololololols

Now what does Oliver Stone's opinion on Russia have to do with this being on the main JFK page and not deep politics section, next to the Allen Dulles and the Yahtzee's?

Well, for one, Oliver Stone's opinion on Russia may influence his opinion on the JFK/A...

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Well, when the thread was made about me being banned Jeremy said that since I denied being a right wing extremist.. That meant I was one, because if I wasn't one, I wouldn't have a problem being called that.. and William Niederhut Harvard Class of 83' agreed with him and Alex Wilson and you even cited Alex's work as being very good..

 

Mathew,

      Now that you've told us just what hurt,

      I'm sorry that you were so butt hurt.

      I never expected

      that you'd be ejected,

      or that Bojzcuk's unkindest cut hurt.  😳

     

Edited May 15, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

So what do you suggest we do, Jeremy? Kick off from the forum any member who points something out that Jonathan Cohen thinks is nonsense? What about if you think so?  Or I, or Kathy, or Mark? Greg Parker?

I'm not sure why Sandy thinks promoters of nonsense should be expelled from the forum, or why the identification of nonsense should be the responsibility of one person.

The basic principle is that anyone who makes a positive claim has the responsibility of justifying that claim. That doesn't always happen.

In practice, of course, it doesn't matter much when someone makes an unsupported claim in an online forum. But in controversial cases such as the JFK assassination, when critics of the lone-nut theory are branded as 'conspiracy theorists', there is a particular need for people to justify any claims they make that might be considered far-fetched by reasonable members of the public.

Faked trees, faked photos, faked home movies, faked Oswalds, faked Rubys, faked presidential corpses: these types of claims, if unsupported by sufficient evidence, are likely to cause intelligent, open-minded members of the general public to believe the media's assertions that we're all a bunch of 'conspiracy theorists' (in the propaganda definition of the term).

In such cases, it would be the responsibility of the moderators to enforce standards of rational debate. The moderators should do more than limit their role to dealing with name-calling and the like.

All it should take, in most cases, would be a bit of gentle prodding. If someone makes a claim for which they don't appear to have provided sufficient evidence, or if someone claims certainty when their evidence doesn't appear to justify certainty, the moderators should point it out. Maybe the person making the claim will produce more evidence, or formulate their claim in a more plausible way, or acknowledge that their claim isn't quite as water-tight as they had imagined.

There's no need for arbitrary or draconian punishment. As long as far-fetched claims can be seen to be questioned by those with authority over the forum, casual visitors won't get the impression that the far-fetched stuff is any more widely accepted than it is.

[Pamela Brown]

We can choose to keep an open mind to what others have to say. We can weigh and evaluate what they put forth and decide for ourselves what to think.  We can agree to disagree.  We can put someone on ignore if we don't want to read what they write.