Theorist shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

But no more keen than you, for whom it is an apparently obligatory feature of just about every contribution to this forum that you make. An obvious question arises: why do you constantly share a legacy media strawman?

It’s particularly egregious in this instance as you’re replying to someone who had nothing whatever to say on the matter in the course of his posts in this thread. You, yet again, introduced it. Might not your putative “reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no particular interest in, knowledge of, or opinion about the assassination,” considering your obsession, reasonably conclude that you are either disturbed, or worse, that your real function is to attempt to police a debate in the service of the perpetrators?

A second question occurs: Why on earth are you worried about the opinion of the legacy media? After all, it lied about the case long before Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the kisser, or Capricorn One hit cinemas. What exactly is the basis for your belief that if only other researchers fell into line with your strictures the legacy media would reverse its position on the assassination? The proposition is so full-moon unhinged that it brings nothing but discredit upon researchers of every stripe, gender, and headwear. Have a word with yourself - and bill for the full hour.

Well said.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Paul Rigby suggests that my "real function is to attempt to police a debate in the service of the perpetrators".

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen: anyone who questions the far-fetched stuff must be working on behalf of "the perpetrators"!

If anyone is helping "the perpetrators", it's the promoters of theories which reasonable members of the public would describe as far-fetched or worse.

Presidential body-snatchers, long-term doppelgänger projects, gunmen hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, photo-alteration vans in Dealey Plaza: this stuff does not feature in a reasonable person's account of how the world works. It really doesn't! Reasonable people would not recognise such things as part of the world in which they live. They would regard them as far-fetched, maybe even as fantasies invented by crackpots.

"Why don't you believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission?"
"Well, you see, they kidnapped President Kennedy's body and surgically altered it, and of course Oswald was actually two people, and so was his mother, and most of the photos and home movies were altered, and ... Wait, where are you going? Why are you laughing and shaking your head?"

Theories which propose this sort of nonsense as solutions to the JFK assassination will discourage reasonable people from taking an interest in the subject, and will allow the media to claim that if you question the lone-nut dogma, you must be a crackpot.

If the general public comes to believe that everyone who questions the lone-nut dogma is a crackpot, is that more likely to harm or help "the perpetrators"?

Quote

Why on earth are you worried about the opinion of the legacy media?

Because it influences people's attitudes, of course. In particular, it influences the attitudes of reasonable people who are not familiar with the facts of the JFK assassination, and encourages those people not to take the case seriously. If the case is ever going to get resolved, it requires the support of the general public.

Do believers in far-fetched theories actually want the case to be resolved? I suspect it isn't a high priority for them.

Incidentally, I'm wondering whether we should introduce a scale for describing off-the-wall theories, since 'far-fetched' is rather mild for some of them. Perhaps we could start with 'far-fetched', then go to 'crackpot', and end with 'whack-job'.

• Where on the scale would the presidential body-snatchers theory go? Is it more far-fetched than the long-term doppelgängers theory, or less far-fetched?
• Is the long-term doppelgängers theory even less credible than the photo-alteration-van-in-Dealey-Plaza theory?
• How does the photo-alteration-van theory compare with the body-snatchers theory?
• What about the papier-mâché trees theory? Where should that one go on the scale?

And I'm sure we can fit some little green men in there somewhere. There's plenty of scope for constructive discussion!

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Paul Rigby suggests that my "real function is to attempt to police a debate in the service of the perpetrators".

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen: anyone who questions the far-fetched stuff must be working on behalf of "the perpetrators"!

If anyone is helping "the perpetrators", it's the promoters of theories which reasonable members of the public would describe as far-fetched or worse.

Presidential body-snatchers, long-term doppelgänger projects, gunmen hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, photo-alteration vans in Dealey Plaza: this stuff does not feature in a reasonable person's account of how the world works. It really doesn't! Reasonable people would not recognise such things as part of the world in which they live. They would regard them as far-fetched, maybe even as fantasies invented by crackpots.

"Why don't you believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission?"
"Well, you see, they kidnapped President Kennedy's body and surgically altered it, and of course Oswald was actually two people, and so was his mother, and most of the photos and home movies were altered, and ... Wait, where are you going? Why are you laughing and shaking your head?"

Theories which propose this sort of nonsense as solutions to the JFK assassination will discourage reasonable people from taking an interest in the subject, and will allow the media to claim that if you question the lone-nut dogma, you must be a crackpot.

If the general public comes to believe that everyone who questions the lone-nut dogma is a crackpot, is that more likely to harm or help "the perpetrators"?

Because it influences people's attitudes, of course. In particular, it influences the attitudes of reasonable people who are not familiar with the facts of the JFK assassination, and encourages those people not to take the case seriously. If the case is ever going to get resolved, it requires the support of the general public.

Do believers in far-fetched theories actually want the case to be resolved? I suspect it isn't a high priority for them.

Incidentally, I'm wondering whether we should introduce a scale for describing off-the-wall theories, since 'far-fetched' is rather mild for some of them. Perhaps we could start with 'far-fetched', then go to 'crackpot', and end with 'whack-job'.

• Where on the scale would the presidential body-snatchers theory go? Is it more far-fetched than the long-term doppelgängers theory, or less far-fetched?
• Is the long-term doppelgängers theory even less credible than the photo-alteration-van-in-Dealey-Plaza theory?
• How does the photo-alteration-van theory compare with the body-snatchers theory?
• What about the papier-mâché trees theory? Where should that one go on the scale?

And I'm sure we can fit some little green men in there somewhere. There's plenty of scope for constructive discussion!

You know, JB makes some good points here. 

The less-credible theories, and witnesses, probably do in some way undercut serious JFKA research. 

And refuting those theories does not make anyone an arm of the Deep State. 

What concerns me also is how some JFKA'ers are so 100% dead certain about certain aspects of the JFKA that are...well...open to reasonable debate.  

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

When there are disagreements about issues in this case, why not discuss the EVIDENCE?

In support of the two Oswald analysis, here’s one bit of evidence showing that Lee Harvey Oswald was in two widely scattered places at the same time while in the U.S. Marines.

The evidence shows that Oswald embarked from Japan on the USS Skagit (AKA 105) bound for the “South China Sea Area” on Sept. 14, 1958.

 

Two days later, on Sept. 16, 1958, he was back in Japan being treated for VD.

A couple of weeks later, on Oct. 6 1958, Oswald was stationed near Ping-Tung on the island of Taiwan.

 

On the very same day, Oct. 6, 1958,  Oswald was treated again at the Naval Hospital in Atsugi, Japan, more than 1400 miles from Taiwan.  I’ve just shown part of the evidence for this example; there is more.

 

Will Harvey and Lee critics discuss the EVIDENCE here, on the JFK Assassination Debate Forum?  Or will they just say it has all been debunked before.  Perhaps they’ll post a flurry of links to other websites, or say that it was debunked on this site years ago.

BUT THIS SINGLE EXAMPLE OF MULTIPLE LHOs HAS NEVER BEEN DEBUNKED, here or anywhere else.  Nor have many other examples.

Why not avoid the ad-hominem attacks and, for once, discuss the evidence here?  If you have contrary evidence, it  doesn’t need to be lengthy.  Just give us a few sentences explaining how one man was in two places 1400 miles apart as documented by USMC paperwork.
 

Edited January 16 by Jim Hargrove
Delete repeated graphic

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/14/2024 at 12:13 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I am talking about forum members who shame theories and the people who believe  them, only because they themselves find the theories to be farfetched.

I am NOT talking about those people who present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory. But I AM talking about those 1) who shame a theory off-the-cuff, or 2) who explain why they find the theory to be farfetched, but offer no substantial evidence against it, or 3) who claim the theory has been rebutted when in fact it hasn't.

Here are some offenders I can think of:

@Jonathan Cohen

@Jeremy Bojczuk

@Robert Charles-Dunne

@Michael Walton

I know of people who won't post on certain topics because of the shaming they know they will get in response. This is the reason that shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

Anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory is in no position to shame anyone, especially after the release of close-up photos of the shirt and tie, after the demolition of Guinn's NAA, and after the the Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis of the SBT. 

Quote

@Jeremy BojczukPresidential body-snatchers, long-term doppelgänger projects, gunmen hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, photo-alteration vans in Dealey Plaza: this stuff does not feature in a reasonable person's account of how the world works. It really doesn't! Reasonable people would not recognise such things as part of the world in which they live. They would regard them as far-fetched, maybe even as fantasies invented by crackpots.

Reasonable people will recognize this paragraph as a mix of strawman polemic and a denial of documented facts. 

We could literally fill hundreds of pages with real-life cases of innocent suspects who were wrongly convicted because the police and/or prosecutors used faked evidence, altered evidence, and/or planted evidence. 

FYI, it is an established fact that the CIA ran long-term imposter projects. 

"Presidential body-snatchers"? Well, we now know that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda long before its official arrival time, and that it arrived in a cheap metal military shipping casket, not in the ceremonial casket into which it was placed in Dallas. 

Personally, I've never mentioned or seen references to "photo-alteration vans" in Dealey Plaza. Photo alteration probably occurred elsewhere. There are technical anomalies and impossibly fast movements in the Zapruder film that no anti-alteration apologist has yet been able to explain, not to mention the absence of events in the film that numerous witnesses described (such as the limo stop/marked slowdown). 

How many times have governments been caught using fake photos for propaganda/disinformation purposes? Did you miss the news about the CIA's frequent use of fake photos in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s? How many thousands of cases of fake passports that fooled government customs personnel do you want to talk about? 

It is almost comical that WC apologists, and a few misguided WC critics, act like photo fakery and photo alteration only happen in fiction movies and spy novels. 

 

Edited January 16 by Michael Griffith

[Robert Burrows]

21 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory is in no position to shame anyone, especially after the release of close-up photos of the shirt and tie, after the demolition of Guinn's NAA, and after the the Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis of the SBT. 

Reasonable people will recognize this paragraph as a mix of strawman polemic and a denial of documented facts. 

We could literally fill hundreds of pages with real-life cases of innocent suspects who were wrongly convicted because the police and/or prosecutors used faked evidence, altered evidence, and/or planted evidence. 

FYI, it is an established fact that the CIA ran long-term imposter projects. 

"Presidential body-snatchers"? Well, we now know that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda long before its official arrival time, and that it arrived in a cheap metal military shipping casket, not in the ceremonial casket into which it was placed in Dallas. 

Personally, I've never mentioned or seen references to "photo-alteration vans" in Dealey Plaza. Photo alteration probably occurred elsewhere. There are technical anomalies and impossibly fast movements in the Zapruder film that no anti-alteration apologist has yet been able to explain, not to mention the absence of events in the film that numerous witnesses described (such as the limo stop/marked slowdown). 

How many times have governments been caught using fake photos for propaganda/disinformation purposes? Did you miss the news about the CIA's frequent use of fake photos in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s? How many thousands of cases of fake passports that fooled government customs personnel do you want to talk about? 

It is almost comical that WC apologists, and a few misguided WC critics, act like photo fakery and photo alteration only happen in fiction movies and spy novels. 

 

Well said. 

[Paul Rigby]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

• What about the papier-mâché trees theory? Where should that one go on the scale?

Do tell, given that you mention this twice. Was this really ever a widely-held theory beyond David Lifton (and then only briefly)? If so, you shouldn’t have any difficulty in producing a list of adherents, who must have roamed the plains of JFK research, given the prominence you afford them, like eighteenth century herds of wild bison. Would, say, six be too many? Perhaps just three, then? You can go all the way back to 1966 if it helps.

Of course, if you can’t produce any such evidence, we may reasonably conclude that this is just another gross caricature of the research community, one indistinguishable from those routinely provided by what was once the mainstream media, and is now little more than a fringe legacy. Quite why anyone should be concerned with the approval of such a mistrusted, embittered rump continues to elude me.

And again, I ask, how does reproducing the vituperation of the establishment assist in any campaign to win round the declining media of that same establishment? Will, for instance, Jeff Bezos be won over by your insults and throw aside all those lucrative multi-million dollar contracts with the CIA for the sake of a one-off truthful WaPo investigation? If you believe that, you need immediate psychiatric intervention.

Your reasoning is no less peculiar with respect to the general public. How does your obsessive need to insult researchers who don’t agree with you “influence[s] the attitudes of reasonable people who are not familiar with the facts of the JFK assassination”?  The answer is obvious: In your own words, it “encourages those people not to take the case seriously.” Contrary to your purported goals, this seems to be your real aim.

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

When there are disagreements about issues in this case, why not discuss the EVIDENCE?

In support of the two Oswald analysis, here’s one bit of evidence showing that Lee Harvey Oswald was in two widely scattered places at the same time while in the U.S. Marines.

The evidence shows that Oswald embarked from Japan on the USS Skagit (AKA 105) bound for the “South China Sea Area” on Sept. 14, 1958.

 

Two days later, on Sept. 16, 1958, he was back in Japan being treated for VD.

A couple of weeks later, on Oct. 6 1958, Oswald was stationed near Ping-Tung on the island of Taiwan.

 

On the very same day, Oct. 6, 1958,  Oswald was treated again at the Naval Hospital in Atsugi, Japan, more than 1400 miles from Taiwan.  I’ve just shown part of the evidence for this example; there is more.

 

Will Harvey and Lee critics discuss the EVIDENCE here, on the JFK Assassination Debate Forum?  Or will they just say it has all been debunked before.  Perhaps they’ll post a flurry of links to other websites, or say that it was debunked on this site years ago.

BUT THIS SINGLE EXAMPLE OF MULTIPLE LHOs HAS NEVER BEEN DEBUNKED, here or anywhere else.  Nor have many other examples.

Why not avoid the ad-hominem attacks and, for once, discuss the evidence here?  If you have contrary evidence, it  doesn’t need to be lengthy.  Just give us a few sentences explaining how one man was in two places 1400 miles apart as documented by USMC paperwork.
 

Jim, it looks like you are going off of the authentication date for the document in the bottom right. The actual dates of embarkment listed on the left are different: 

In the first one the ship embarked for the South China Sea area on 8/29/58, not 9/14. 9/14 is when the document was signed off - which implies they were back in Japan by that time, does it not? The location: Japan field at the top seems to confirm that. 

So if Oswald is in Japan on the 14th it’s no mystery that he’s getting treated for VD in Japan on the 16th. 

The next document shows the date as 9/25, not 10/6. The document was prepared in Taiwan on 10/6, but that doesn’t mean Oswald was there at that time. The notes say: 

Drop asgd to subunit #1 H&MS 11 NAS Atsugi Japan auth OO MAG 11 ltr S-1:RFS:alh of 25Sept58

Does that mean that the assigned were “dropped” in Japan on the 9/25? Or that the transfer was approved on that date? If so I’m not sure how Oswald got to Taiwan between the 16th and 25th, but it’s not impossible at least. 

This was just a quick glance and I could be missing something, but either way the actual assignment/embarkment dates tell a different story than the document approval dates. 

[Sandy Larsen]

As anybody can see from Jeremy's post, he advocates the shaming of theories that he considers to be farfetched. Not the shaming of what others find farfetched, BTW. He and Jonathan fancy themselves as the forum policemen.

That kind of shaming is reprehensible because 1) we don't all agree on what is farfetched, and 2) it shuts down the debate -- or even the conversation -- by serving to coerce members to remain silent. Yes, shaming is a form of coercion.

Compare Jeremy's post to Jim Hargrove's and Tom Gram's. Jeremy tries to shut down the conversation, whereas Jim opens it up and Tom debates it. That's the way it should be.

The veracity of the H&L theory should be decided on the evidence supporting and opposing it, not on anybody's personal level of what should be considered to be farfetched and what shouldn't be.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Regarding shaming versus evidence...

As I said earlier, Jeremy's MO is 1) to explain why he thinks something is farfetched, and then 2) to shame the theory and the believers of the theory in order to shut down the conversation and debate.

Jeremy's explanation for why something should be considered farfetched should not be mistaken for evidence against the theory.

Think about that for a moment. If we were to take his opinion on the farfetchedness of something as evidence -- no matter how reasonable it may sound -- then likewise we'd have to to do the same with the opinions of everybody else, including LNers -- who consider everything beside the WCR as farfetched. What one can do, of course, is to agree (or disagree) with Jeremy as to the farfetchedness of a given topic.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Jim, it looks like you are going off of the authentication date for the document in the bottom right. The actual dates of embarkment listed on the left are different: 

In the first one the ship embarked for the South China Sea area on 8/29/58, not 9/14. 9/14 is when the document was signed off - which implies they were back in Japan by that time, does it not? The location: Japan field at the top seems to confirm that. 

So if Oswald is in Japan on the 14th it’s no mystery that he’s getting treated for VD in Japan on the 16th. 

The next document shows the date as 9/25, not 10/6. The document was prepared in Taiwan on 10/6, but that doesn’t mean Oswald was there at that time. The notes say: 

Drop asgd to subunit #1 H&MS 11 NAS Atsugi Japan auth OO MAG 11 ltr S-1:RFS:alh of 25Sept58

Does that mean that the assigned were “dropped” in Japan on the 9/25? Or that the transfer was approved on that date? If so I’m not sure how Oswald got to Taiwan between the 16th and 25th, but it’s not impossible at least. 

This was just a quick glance and I could be missing something, but either way the actual assignment/embarkment dates tell a different story than the document approval dates. 

In addition, the military has loads of aircraft, and they often ferry people about. 

1400 miles sounds like along way, but not by airplane. 

Was LHO ever impersonated? Possibly. 

Are old paper records always accurate? Not always. 

Many people have "false memories" of having seen LHO somewhere...after his face became famous nationally. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by Benjamin Cole

[Ron Bulman]

 

[Benjamin Cole]

27 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

 

Those women could sing. 

What happened to popular music? 

When did shouting monotone expletives become "music"? 

[Jim Hargrove]

21 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Jim, it looks like you are going off of the authentication date for the document in the bottom right. The actual dates of embarkment listed on the left are different: 

In the first one the ship embarked for the South China Sea area on 8/29/58, not 9/14. 9/14 is when the document was signed off - which implies they were back in Japan by that time, does it not? The location: Japan field at the top seems to confirm that. 

So if Oswald is in Japan on the 14th it’s no mystery that he’s getting treated for VD in Japan on the 16th. 

The next document shows the date as 9/25, not 10/6. The document was prepared in Taiwan on 10/6, but that doesn’t mean Oswald was there at that time. The notes say: 

Drop asgd to subunit #1 H&MS 11 NAS Atsugi Japan auth OO MAG 11 ltr S-1:RFS:alh of 25Sept58

Does that mean that the assigned were “dropped” in Japan on the 9/25? Or that the transfer was approved on that date? If so I’m not sure how Oswald got to Taiwan between the 16th and 25th, but it’s not impossible at least. 

This was just a quick glance and I could be missing something, but either way the actual assignment/embarkment dates tell a different story than the document approval dates. 

Thank you for the serious reply, Tom.  You may be quite right that the doc shows a departure date for the USS Skagit of Aug. 29, 1958, not Sept. 14 as I thought.  

The dates on these documents, however, still show a clear conflict between the dates of Oswald’s Taiwan trip and his treatment dates at the Atsugi marine hospital.   

Looking at the line:

“Drop asgd to subunit #1 H&MS 11 NAS Atsugi Japan auth OO MAG 11 ltr S-1:RFS:alh of 25Sept58,”

You ask, “Does that mean that the assigned were “dropped” in Japan on the 9/25? Or that the transfer was approved on that date?” 

But it really doesn’t matter. According to either interpretation, Oswald did not arrive back in Japan earlier than 9/25, which conflicts with his visit to the Atsugi hospital on Sept. 16, and apparently again on Sept. 20, Sept. 22, and Sep. 23.

Here’s how Captain Donabedian testified to the Warren Commission about those treatments, indicating that Oswald’s urethral discharge was noted and treated at the Atsugi facility well before the earliest date he could have returned to Japan.

Mr. ELY - I would like at this point to refer you to pages 152 through 156 of this exhibit. 
I shall let you proceed to explain what these mean without questioning. 
Captain DONABEDIAN - On 9- 10- 58, slight burning on urination. "Has urethral discharge." 
Mr. ELY - Well, if you cannot read it, there is no point-- -- 
Captain DONABEDIAN - Then they took a smear. 
Mr. ELY - What is the purpose of a smear? 
Captain DONABEDIAN - A smear is to diagnose the cause of the infection, the cause of the discharge, to see what type of bacteria was present. 
And on 9- 23- 58, report of a urethral discharge sensitivity test. A culture was taken and reported staphylococcal hemolytic. And the sensitivity test to determine what drug we have that will affect that particular bacteria that is causing this. And erythromycin was the drug of choice. 
On page 154, on 16 September 58 he evidently went to one of the outlying dispensaries, and they said "Send to the mainside for smear," which means he was sent to the mainside dispensary to get the smear taken. 
September 1958, the complaint was urethral discharge. They sent him to the lab for a smear. 
And here it says, "Gram negative, diplococci intra- and extra- cellular morphological resembling neisseria gonococci." 
Mr. ELY - Could you tell us, Doctor, generally, what that means? 
Captain DONABEDIAN - Well, this resembles the gonococcus bacteria which causes gonorrhea. And it says here morphologically resembling this germ-- since the only legal diagnosis would be to have a culture made to prove this or disprove it. 
And here for his treatment they gave him penicillin, it looks like 400,000units, four times a day, for 3 days, and said "Return on Monday in the p.m., for a repeat smear."
Then on September 30, 1958, "Still has profuse discharge, somewhat clearer,received course of penicillin ending 2 days ago." 
In other words, he had finished getting his penicillin. So for this profuse discharge, they treated him with chloromycetin capsules, one, four times a day,and return Monday for smear and culture. Then on September 22-- -- 
Mr. ELY - I believe the last item was September 20. 

Serious discussion of this issue is most appreciated.  I’ll discuss the Skagit embarkation date with John A.   

Also, for Benjamin Cole:

Thanks for your note.  It also occurred to me that air travel was the only way to reconcile the USMC documents about the Taiwan trip and Oswald’s treatments in Japan.  There are two Vietnam-era Marine Corps vets in my family, and I asked both if they thought it possible that a marine private would be airlifted considerable distances for VD treatment.  Both said it wouldn’t happen.

[Michael Griffith]

Personally, I could never feel shamed by anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory. Similarly, I could never feel shamed by someone who believes that Elvis did not die in 1977 but faked his death and lived a secret life for many years thereafter. 

Given all we now know about why the SBT was conjured up in the first place, given the release of clear photos of the tie and what those photos show (e.g., no hole through the tie and no nick on the edge of the tie), given the hard physical evidence of the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt, given the ARRB releases about the absolute and positive determination during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, given Dr. Mantik's CT scan of a JFK-like torso showing no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through bone, given that the Zapruder film indisputably shows that JFK was hit before Z190, given the demolition of Guinn's NAA fraud, given that three of the Dallas doctors revealed that the throat wound was above the tie knot, and given the recent Knott Laboratory 3D laser SBT analysis, etc., etc., there is just no excuse for still believing in the SBT.