Why Are People Here Debating About Debunked Material?

[W. Niederhut]

22 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Sandy, there's more than enough threads in here for people to research on. My problem with what he wrote is for other "guests" or people who determine when the subject matter is or isn't up for discussion. I don't recall this JFK Debate having all of the major issues determined or resolved? Do you want new people study getting the JFK case by telling them already what YOU believe are the facts? For over a year I couldn't get on this forum and now that I'm here there's topics and areas that have been discussed in the past that I haven't been able to participate. So please excuse me if I haven't been here for 15 years discussing threads that some seem to find it being an issue. 

Paul,

   This is one reason why I have been re-posting old Forum threads here, in the context of new threads about redundant disinformation.

DiEugenio's detailed debunking of Bugliosi's pseudo-historical book, Reclaiming History, is a good example.

We discussed it a few years ago here, but now David Von Pein is shamelessly referencing it again, as if it hadn't been debunked.

 

[Paul Cummings]

23 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

   This is one reason why I have been re-posting old Forum threads here, in the context of new threads about redundant disinformation.

DiEugenio's detailed debunking of Bugliosi's pseudo-historical book, Reclaiming History, is a good example.

We discussed it a few years ago here, but now David Von Pein is shamelessly referencing it again, as if it hadn't been debunked.

 

So what. Not trying to be jerk but then ignore or block. You've made your position clear on these message boards (or at least I believe you've done) in a variety of topics. I think way too many people in here take things very personally. Stick to the facts which I know you are doing in your own heart. Take care and God bless.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Paul Cummings

[James DiEugenio]

Charles Ferris, one of Mike Mansfield's assistants, from an oral history:

 

In the late spring of ’63, they were down for a meeting at the White House of the legislative leaders and at the end of the meeting, Kennedy said to Mike, “Mike, can you stay around for a couple of minutes after this? I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re right and my people are wrong on Vietnam.” I don’t know if it was that conversation or another, but the connection was that he knew that [Barry M.] Goldwater was going to be his opponent and he said, “I can’t do anything until after the election.” But it was very clear in his mind that President Kennedy had concluded then that he was going to get out of there. They had not yet put combat troops in. They were putting support forces, the MAG [Military Assistance Group] forces in there, logistics people, and advisors. So you know, it really adds a big dimension to the assassination.

[James DiEugenio]

I have Von Pein on ignore. For good reason.

Many  years ago I quoted from RH, a crucial phrase in the intro, which DVP did not even recall.  VB said that in the following pages he would present the arguments of the critics, not as he wanted to, but as they wanted them presented.  And then he would effectively rebut them.

I said  this was pure hogwash. I then proved it.  I demonstrated in 25 instances throughout the book that Bugliosi DID NOT present the critics' arguments honestly.  He could not afford to or he would lose the argument.  A  good example was on the Ruby polygraph where he failed to mention, for example, the low GRS setting, which the experts for the HSCA said negated the test.  Bugliosi had to know this since he quoted from the same place.

When you do that 25 times, at least, you simply have no credibility on the subject.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We really can't ignore the LNer threads because if we do, newbies will assume there is some validity to what they claim. Unfortunately we have to waste our time refuting those threads.

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

Sandy, there's more than enough threads in here for people to research on.

 

Paul,

Are you disagreeing with what I said?

Gerry Down created a thread with several posts where he claims that the reason the brain photo showed no cerebellum damage is because the EOP bullet passed right above it. If I and Michael Griffith hadn't spent our time refuting this LNer nonsense, some poor newbie soul could walk away think the guy was right. (It has been well established that the brain is not Kennedy's.)

 

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

My problem with what he wrote is for other "guests" or people who determine when the subject matter is or isn't up for discussion. I don't recall this JFK Debate having all of the major issues determined or resolved? Do you want new people study getting the JFK case by telling them already what YOU believe are the facts? For over a year I couldn't get on this forum and now that I'm here there's topics and areas that have been discussed in the past that I haven't been able to participate. So please excuse me if I haven't been here for 15 years discussing threads that some seem to find it being an issue.

 

Is this paragraph for me or W.? If It's for me, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me.

I don't believe that CTers should only be able to discuss beliefs held by just one person, no.

[Paul Cummings]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

Are you disagreeing with what I said?

Gerry Down created a thread with several posts where he claims that the reason the brain photo showed no cerebellum damage is because the EOP bullet passed right above it. If I and Michael Griffith hadn't spent our time refuting this LNer nonsense, some poor newbie soul could walk away think the guy was right. (It has been well established that the brain is not Kennedy's.)

 

 

Is this paragraph for me or W.? If It's for me, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me.

I don't believe that CTers should only be able to discuss beliefs held by just one person, no.

Sandy, I really don't want to get into specific posts ok? This is a great resource and wealth of information and feel blessed to be in here. What I don't come here for is politics when it comes to finding out the latest JFKA or cutting off new threads because they've been discussed in the past. I'm done and really don't like posting in these areas.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

What I don't come here for is politics when it comes to finding out the latest JFKA or cutting off new threads because they've been discussed in the past.

 

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[W. Niederhut]

46 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

So what. Not trying to be jerk but then ignore or block. You've made your position clear on these message boards (or at least I believe you've done) in a variety of topics. I think way too many people in here take things very personally. Stick to the facts which I know you are doing in your own heart. Take care and God bless.

Paul,

   You missed the point.

    My criticism of disinformation is not about self interest, or "taking things personally."

    It's about a moral commitment to discerning and telling the truth vs. repeating falsehoods.

    Ignoring falsehoods is not an ethical solution to the problem of government-promoted disinformation.

    People involved in JFK's assassination, and the cover up, have been systematically promoting falsehoods in our mass media (and social media) for almost 60 years now.

   IMO, we should be committed to telling the truth, for ethical reasons.

[Paul Cummings]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

I messaged you.

[Paul Cummings]

7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

   You missed the point.

    My criticism of disinformation is not about self interest, or "taking things personally."

    It's about a moral commitment to discerning and telling the truth vs. repeating falsehoods.

    Ignoring falsehoods is not an ethical solution to the problem of government-promoted disinformation.

    People involved in JFK's assassination, and the cover up, have been systematically promoting falsehoods in our mass media (and social media) for almost 60 years now.

   IMO, we should be committed to telling the truth, for ethical reasons.

No, I do get your point. I just don't understand why you feel the need in most threads to do this. There's more enough information in here for people to discern the truth IMO.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Paul Cummings

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

   You missed the point.

    My criticism of disinformation is not about self interest, or "taking things personally."

    It's about a moral commitment to discerning and telling the truth vs. repeating falsehoods.

    Ignoring falsehoods is not an ethical solution to the problem of government-promoted disinformation.

    People involved in JFK's assassination, and the cover up, have been systematically promoting falsehoods in our mass media (and social media) for almost 60 years now.

   IMO, we should be committed to telling the truth, for ethical reasons.

Yes William - we should. But this board is endlessly engaged in proving Oswald innocent, or guilty. 

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

DiEugenio's detailed debunking of Bugliosi's pseudo-historical book, Reclaiming History, is a good example.

We discussed it a few years ago here, but now David Von Pein is shamelessly referencing it again, as if it hadn't been debunked.

The problem is --- the many things you and DiEugenio insist have been "debunked" really haven't been "debunked" at all. You guys just THINK they've been debunked. Big difference.

Take, for example, DiEugenio's constant refrain about the "wrong rifle". That's been fully explained--and reasonably so--in "LNer" (non-conspiratorial) terms, and Jim D. knows this full well. But he never stops with the "wrong rifle" crap. As if it has never once been reasonably explained before. And Bugliosi, of course, addresses the issue in his book (excerpted below). He doesn't ignore it or sweep it under the carpet:

BTW....

Vince Bugliosi knew full well that the rifle wasn't found "in the sniper's nest", even though he says it was in the above book excerpt. That was merely an innocent mistake (even though some CTers might believe otherwise).

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

53 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

But this board is endlessly engaged in proving Oswald innocent, or guilty. 

So? Isn't that pretty much the whole point of a board entitled "JFK Assassination Debate"?

You're not going to sit there and try to tell me that this board has actually PROVEN Oswald to be INNOCENT....are you? Let's be reasonable.

Edited June 3, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The Dictabelt junk has been debunked, yes. No doubt about it, IMO. At the very least, the HSCA/4th Shot/Dictabelt evidence has a very dark cloud hanging over it (based on Steve Barber's "Hold everything secure" discovery alone). And even most CTers should be able to acknowledge the existence of that "dark cloud". (See the webpage below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / JFK Acoustics--Charles Rader Interview

Re: The smell of "Gunsmoke"....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Smell Of Gunpowder In Dealey Plaza

Re: Bang....Bang-Bang....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Spacing Of The Gunshots

Re: The SBT and Governor Connally's reactions....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists

No, the HSCA acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt has not been debunked, not at all. BBN scientists did new tests that refute the claim that the "hold everything" transmission refutes the HSCA acoustical evidence. Have you not read Dr. Josiah Thompson's new book, which devotes dozens of pages to the new BBN analysis? 

You could start by answering my article on the acoustical evidence:

hscaacous.pdf - Google Drive

 

[James DiEugenio]

Someone asked why DVP was previously banned.

Its because he would take exchanges off of this forum without the permission of the guy he was arguing with, and then drag them over to his site.

He would then add to that exchange, where he had originally been pummeled by me or someone else.  So in this revised version it would look like he had the last word and me, or whoever, had retreated.  And since his site is a personal blog, there was no way to reply.

When he was confronted with this rather unattractive practice, he tried to weasel out of it.

But I actually showed he had done it just as I and others had complained about.

That is when he was ejected.

He got back on by promising not to do it again.

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by James DiEugenio