The Problem of WCR/'Lone Nut" Disinformation on the Education Forum

[Robert Morrow]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

But yet it's OK for people to run amok on this forum with absolute and utter nonsense like the "Harvey and Lee" theory? What's the difference? Who is the arbiter of what's "disinformation" and what's not?

The Two Oswalds theory. What a pile of garbage! Hickey shooting JFK! Greer shooting JFK! Oswald on the front stairs! How about: it wasn't Jack Ruby who actually shot Oswald! The Fed killed JFK. Jackie Kennedy killed JFK! Onassis killed JFK!

This is why I don't mind lone nutters here. 

Exactly, who is the arbiter of disinformation? People should be allowed to fight over that are facts. LET THE READERS DECIDE WHO HAS THE BETTER ARGUMENT.

[W. Niederhut]

Many valid points here.

Regarding disputes about legitimate historical controversies, IMO, there is a qualitative difference between legitimate disagreements about the evidence and the deliberate posting of known falsehoods.

I would define "disinformation" as the propagation of clearly established falsehoods, for the purpose of deceiving the public.  We all know it happens.

My hunch is that most forum members would also reject the sophomoric premise of solipsism-- the notion that there are no discernible, objective truths, no established scientific or historical facts.

[Robert Morrow]

3 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

I'm paraphrasing J Gary Shaw but he said something along the lines of, "if you've studied this case you're either ignorant to the facts or lying." 

Doesn't Gary Shaw think Carlos Marcello killed JFK? Gary is a nice man, but are those the "facts" he is pushing?

Btw, I first saw Gary Shaw on Austin, TX cable access channel around 1990 on Frank Morrow's show Alternate Views, which was an AMAZING TV show.

And I did enjoy Gary Shaw's appearance on Alternative Views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Views

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2914864/

https://scholargps.com/specialties/22209064946509/alternative-views 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

The LN'ers have legitimate issues that they raise.

Moreover, any type of censorship can quickly become politicized. That is the norm, actually.

I don't think the LN'ers have made much headway on this particular forum.

In addition, one man's "propaganda" or "malinfomation" is another man's "speaking truth to power."

Who decides?

 

[W. Niederhut]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The LN'ers have legitimate issues that they raise.

Moreover, any type of censorship can quickly become politicized. That is the norm, actually.

I don't think the LN'ers have made much headway on this particular forum.

In addition, one man's "propaganda" or "malinfomation" is another man's "speaking truth to power."

Who decides?

 

Ben,

No one is "speaking truth to power" by posting disinformation-- known falsehoods.

That's a reductio ad absurdum-- i.e., "speaking truth" by speaking falsehoods?

But I think we all agree that censorship is generally problematic, except in cases of hate speech and/or ad hominem defamation based on falsehoods (i.e., libel.)

So, except in cases of hate speech, or libel, we are forced to rely on the knowledge, honesty, and patience of forum members to correct forum disinformation-- including Lone Nutter-ism.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

10 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

No one is "speaking truth to power" by posting disinformation-- known falsehoods.

That's a reductio ad absurdum-- i.e., "speaking truth" by speaking falsehoods?

But I think we all agree that censorship is generally problematic, except in cases of hate speech and/or ad hominem defamation based on falsehoods (i.e., libel.)

So, except in cases of hate speech, or libel, we are forced to rely on the knowledge, honesty, and patience of forum members to correct forum disinformation-- including Lone Nutter-ism.

 

 

The LN'ers have a few powerful indisputable facts in their quivers. As a moderator, I advise you treat LN'ers exactly the same as you treat CT'ers, and refrain from making disparaging commentary about LN'ers.

1. Not one person has ever testified they saw LHO when shots rang out 11/22/63. He wasn't visible during that time.

2. While I suspect LHO had co-conspirators who made made him the patsy...no one has even come close to showing, let alone proving, who they were. I have an informed guess, and no more than that. 

3. Reasonable and intelligent people believe that JFK was only shot from behind. See Pat Speer. (Speer is not an LN'er. I am only pointing out that the premise that JFK was shot from the front is not a conclusion shared by all.)

4. LHO was known to own a rifle, and had uncontested access to TSBD6, from which someone pointed a rifle and fired during the JFKA, according to multiple contemporary witnesses.

----

In my humble opinion, the timing of shots precludes a lone gunman during the JFKA. JFK and Connally  are struck within a second or so by separate bullets.

Others disagree with my version of the timing of JFKA shots.

So what is malinformation or falsehoods? Or divine truth? 

[Ron Bulman]

The problem is over 60% of people in the USA still believe Oswald did not act alone.  Not too long ago it was still over 70%, several years ago over 80%.  I'd guess 85-90% or more of forum members over the years believe it was a conspiracy.  Thus, to them Oswald did it is a waste of time.  It's about who, how and why.  Pushing the debunked warren omission theory is seen as knowingly spreading disinformation, gullibility or ignorance.

Edited August 10 by Ron Bulman

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

3. Reasonable and intelligent people believe that JFK was only shot from behind.

None of whom can logically argue for that. JFK's T3 back wound and throat entrance wound are irrefutable.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am only pointing out that the premise that JFK was shot from the front is not a conclusion shared by all.)

Some people have concluded the earth is flat.  Does that mean the issue is in doubt?

[W. Niederhut]

41 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The LN'ers have a few powerful indisputable facts in their quivers. As a moderator, I advise you treat LN'ers exactly the same as you treat CT'ers, and refrain from making disparaging commentary about LN'ers.

1. Not one person has ever testified they saw LHO when shots rang out 11/22/63. He wasn't visible during that time.

2. While I suspect LHO had co-conspirators who made made him the patsy...no one has even come close to showing, let alone proving, who they were. I have an informed guess, and no more than that. 

3. Reasonable and intelligent people believe that JFK was only shot from behind. See Pat Speer. (Speer is not an LN'er. I am only pointing out that the premise that JFK was shot from the front is not a conclusion shared by all.)

4. LHO was known to own a rifle, and had uncontested access to TSBD6, from which someone pointed a rifle and fired during the JFKA, according to multiple contemporary witnesses.

----

In my humble opinion, the timing of shots precludes a lone gunman during the JFKA. JFK and Connally  are struck within a second or so by separate bullets.

Others disagree with my version of the timing of JFKA shots.

So what is malinformation or falsehoods? Or divine truth? 

Ben,

    There is overwhelming scientific, forensic, and historical evidence debunking the false Allen Dulles/WCR "Lone Nut" narrative.  If you haven't figured that out yet, I advise you to do more reading and less writing.

    You also need to study the basics about Newtonian physics and human anatomy.

     Did you study any science in college?

    JFK was not killed by a fatal bullet fired from the TSBD.  His head was knocked violently backward by a bullet that entered his right upper forehead and blew his brain matter and an occipital skull fragment backward behind the limo.  So, in addition to all of the other contrary facts, the Lone Nut theory is debunked by Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum.

     Nor was Oswald a loner.  He had multiple contacts with various CIA and FBI assets.

     There are matters of fact and matters of opinion-- evidence-based truth, and false opinions based on erroneous "alternate facts," (to use Kellyanne Conway's term.)

     In my discussions with you, since you joined this forum, you have often struggled to understand the difference between facts and opinions.

     People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

     Can you, at least, acknowledge that disinformation is propagated in our mainstream and social media?

     

      

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I would define "disinformation" as the propagation of clearly established falsehoods, for the purpose of deceiving the public.  We all know it happens.

I agree there exist bad actors, people who push things for whatever purposes that they know are not true. That is reprehensible and unconscionable, and I do not even accept the sophisticated attempts to rationalize such in terms of noble lie theory. 

But this is tricky, W. How do you know for sure whether someone who is, say, a believer in the Warren Report LN interpretation, is knowingly pushing disinformation, as opposed to read Posner and found it convincing, i.e. is sincere? 

Do you call them pushers of disinformation, if they believe what they are saying is true?

Now to go to Litwin, for example, how do you know Litwin does not believe the LN interpretation is true? 

And if he does believe it (I would bet he does), so what. The things of interest on his website are the detailed research reports and archival research he does on specific topics. Who cares if he's a LNer, in terms of the specific topics he discusses. Truth has nothing to fear, if it is true, from healthy cross-examination.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    There is overwhelming scientific, forensic, and historical evidence debunking the false Allen Dulles/WCR "Lone Nut" narrative.  If you haven't figured that out yet, I advise you to do more reading and less writing.

    You also need to study the basics about Newtonian physics and human anatomy.

     Did you study any science in college?

    JFK was not killed by a fatal bullet fired from the TSBD.  His head was knocked violently backward by a bullet that entered his right upper forehead and blew his brain matter and an occipital skull fragment backward behind the limo.  So, in addition to all of the other contrary facts, the Lone Nut theory is debunked by Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum.

     Nor was Oswald a loner.  He had multiple contacts with various CIA and FBI assets.

     There are matters of fact and matters of opinion-- evidence-based truth, and false opinions based on erroneous "alternate facts," (to use Kellyanne Conway's term.)

     In my discussions with you, since you joined this forum, you have often struggled to understand the difference between facts and opinions.

     People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

     Can you, at least, acknowledge that disinformation is propagated in our mainstream and social media?

     

      

WN-

You have your views, and I have mine. 

Certainly, Pat Speer is a highly intelligent and knowledgable JFKA researcher, and he has drawn different conclusions than you regarding the direction of shots that struck JFK. 

If I recall correctly, Tink Thompson also concludes JFK was struck from behind. Both intelligent individuals, Speer and Thompson,  have spent decades studying the JFKA. 

My take is there is a great deal of legitimate disagreement from which direction bullets struck JFK. I suspect the shots from the GK were a diversion, but that is a suspicion, not a statement of fact. 

For what the JFK x-rays are worth, which may not be much, they appear to show a bullet hole near the rear base of his skull.  

I do not disparage your views, or wonder if you have basic understanding of physics. Perhaps you do, perhaps you don't. 

As for LHO being a loner, maybe he was, maybe not, as a general characterization  (I think largely not).

What I did say, without reservation, is that no one has ever identified LHO's co-conspirators for 11/22, or even come close. 

Nor did anyone see LHO when shots rang out. 

The LN crowd has reasons for their views. I disagree with those views.

My view is the WC was a government investigation-prosecution, without defense counsel present.  A posthumous show trial, or kangaroo court. 

But, even a truly guilty man can be found guilty in a show trial. The fact that the WC investigation was biased does not alone exonerate LHO. 

BTW, Larry Hancock's circumspect, careful presentations are probably the gold standard for JFKA-RFK1A research. Worth emulating. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10 by Benjamin Cole

[Kirk Gallaway]

W. though you and I are in agreement about many things, you're on kind of a slippery slope here. 

I don't know what you could be possibly proposing to do about this here? But it doesn't matter, because you'll forever enjoy interceding and being the loyal opposition. You know you love it, baby!!*

Hey, and sometimes I'll join you.

So the big deal is the Litwin post? Though I don't agree with everything they say, But from what I've seen Gerry, Jean, Tom ,Greg, and Pat, are pretty straight shooters, have good research capabilities and have contributed a lot.

I do think the general quality of posts are better among LNer's  here. But that's not saying a lot as there are many more CTer's here, and some of them  who embrace the JFKA as IMO, part of a network of conspiracies that fulfill a greater psychological need, and in some cases inevitably push  wacko political theories. The LNers' /agnostics have to try harder. **

Conversely I think Harvey and Lee is absolute wacko. That's why I haven't read Armstrong, but it's foremost proponent I've read  posting here is Jim whose intelligent , articulate,well mannered and rather level headed in his discourse. They keep their cul de sac tidy. Why should it bother me?   I guess

Miles:For whatever it is worth, I take a quite contrary stance to what several members on this forum have expressed above. I firmly believe that the assassination was a conspiracy. And yet, I probably spend just as much time reading so called Lone Nut research these days than CT research. Why? To challenge my own beliefs. I don't want to live in an echo chamber. If I am right then I am right, and if I am wrong then that is good because it puts me closer to the path of being right. I welcome all LN'ers on this forum, even though I may disagree with many of their arguments, because I don't want to miss what they have to say. When you discourage certain viewpoints from sitting at the table with you, you deny yourself the opportunity to hear them.

I agree completely with Miles here. I do get tired of hearing the same old reinforcement of dogma here. Has it really got us anywhere? There's a lot of obstructionist behavior going on even on this thread..

Robert:Let me tell you something straight up: I don't look to Jim DiEugenio or Oliver Stone or David Talbot to tell me what happened in the JFK assassination. Add in James Douglass too.

And I agree with Robert about this. There's really so much hypocrisy and politics  going on in these discussions. I'll just leave it at that for now.

 

 

 

* So ends my session counseling a Harvard trained Psychologist.

No I don't expect any breakthrough.                                                                                                              heh heh

 

** Of course, who can forget the perennial opposition DVP, who needs us much more than we need him. And is pretty sly, doesn't form coups, and pretty much keeps to himself to not blow the good thing he's got going again. Live/fight another day!   Nice going Dave!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cliff Varnell]

20 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Any thoughts about this issue on the Education Forum?

I don't think any kind of orthodoxy should be enforced.

However, I find these facts irrefutable.

1)  The sun rises in the East

2)  1 + 1 = 2

3)  The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound

I have total contempt for those who claim otherwise. 

Still, I would never deny anyone the right to express ill-informed views.

I reserve the right to go Full Metal AlexWilson* in retort.

 

*This is strictly aspirational.  There's only one Alex Wilson.

Edited August 10 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

BTW, Larry Hancock's circumspect, careful presentations are probably the gold standard for JFKA-RFK1A research. Worth emulating. 

Is that what you think you're emulating?

"While I suspect LHO had co-conspirators who made made him the patsy..."

You treat LHO's involvement in the murder of JFK as a given.

[Gil Jesus]

How do you handle LN disinformation ?

You respond with evidence. Citations, testimony and documents.

My experience with LNers has taught me that they never tell you the whole story. Only what they want you to know.

It's called, "deception by omission" and it's the same tactic used by the CIA, FBI and the WC.

Another tactic they use is circular reasoning, where instead of proving a premise which leads to a true conclusion, they accept the conclusion as true and circle back to the premise reasoning that the premise is also true.

For example, they conclude that since police took the handgun away from Oswald at the Texas Theater, ( conclusion ) he picked the gun up at REA Express ( premise ).

Of course this type of reasoning is flawed because it doesn't eliminate other possibilites, especially in light of the fact that no one from REA Express was ever called to give testimony and that there is a question of whether the gun was in Oswald's possession or McDonald tried to stick it in his waistband, which Oswald responded to by punching him.

What "deception by omission" was the FBI trying to hide by not calling pertinent witnesses from REA ? Was this handgun picked up by someone with a badge ?

But I digress.

Let them quote their Bugliosis, Myerses, Posners and whoevers. 

I have all of them on ignore. If you don't like what they say, I suggest you do the same. Don't give them an audience.

Mostly what they bring to the table are opinions, speculations and sarcasm. I'm not interested in their nonsense because it's not evidence. I'm only interested in the evidence.

All of the lies the government tells us eventually get exposed for what they are. It may take some time, but the truth always prevails.

When you folks opened up the forum and accepted new members, you let them in. You even reinstated one LNer who had been banned. Now you want to censor them ?

I'm for freedom of speech. Let the Lone Nutters say whatever they want. It can all be proven to be false with evidence.

Edited August 10 by Gil Jesus