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

[Jean Ceulemans]

10 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?

     

      

W. , I´m just being a little curious here and don´t want to go off topic, so I´ll stay within the "disinformation" concept.  

How do you feel, p.e. about people stating Twin Towers were not taken down by explosives, that it was the result (2x) of a tower being hit by a plane.

Would you consider e.g. the wiki page on that disinformation?

Or would you be satisfied if there was an addendum pointing to certain theories?

Or...

I´d like your opinion on that.

So I´d better understand what is called disinformation by your definition.

A different interpretation? Or sometimes just blablabla from people living in a different world 😇 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10 by Jean Ceulemans

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Any thoughts about this issue on the Education Forum?

 

W,

Enforcing the forum rule against posting demonstrable falsehoods doesn't have to be hard and can be done without harming the benefits of free speech. It all depends on where one draws the line on what is considered to be a falsehood.

The large majority of things we debate on in the EF are matters of opinion... things that can be interpreted in more than one way. Members of the forum should have free rein on these things. What they shouldn't have free reign on are fundamental facts. Like  a) the sun will rise in the morning,  b)  1 + 1 = 2  and  c) the holes in JFK's jacket are near T3, not T1.

To put it succinctly, while members should be allowed to post false interpretations, they should not be allowed to post false evidence. Posting false evidence is dishonest.

 

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

 

Greg,

   James DiEugenio published a series of detailed critiques of Litwin's work, which were recently referenced by Ron Bulman on an archival Litwin thread.

    IMO, Denny Zartman also did a diligent, conscientious job of exposing some of the flaws in Fred Litwin's LN paradigm on the September 2018 Litwin introduction thread here on the forum.

     Zartman went to the trouble of purchasing, reading, and critiquing Litwin's book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak.

      And, yes, I agree that, if people are diligent, the truth will eventually triumph, but it's a tedious, redundant process for conscientious forum members to have to repeatedly correct the disinformation.

      There's a lot of wheel-spinning on the forum, and re-inventing the wheel, in that regard, which is why I occasionally re-post archival threads in which these debates have already occurred. 

Edited August 10 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

BTW, I think the LN crowd misses something, which the CT'ers do also. 

In general, LN'ers are so determined to prevail with their LN view...they fail to consider whether LHO could have been in on a small assassination plot of the President. 

This holds a lot of water. We know LHO was in TSBD, had access to TSBD6, but his whereabouts are unknown during the actual shooting. LHO was known to have owned a rifle, and is thought to have had connections to underworld figures and the intel state, and to have been a Castro sympathizer.  

Perhaps LHO organized a small sordid JFKA plot. IMHO, there had to be a second gunman, due to rapid sequence of shots. 

Like everyone else, I have no solid evidence who were LHO's co-conspirators. 

Remember: LHO left the TSBD in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, and got a revolver. Why?

On the other side, the CT'ers want to exonerate LHO entirely. LHO was just a guy packing boxes that day, rosy cheeked and whistling while he worked, when the CIA perped the JFKA. Then LHO, a CIA asset, went home and armed himself, although he was absolutely innocent, had no clue what happened. And decided to go watch a movie, and strike up conversations with other theater-goers. 

For reasons unknown, the CIA made a patsy out of one of their own assets. 

Is declaring that LHO was one of the JFKA assassins a falsehood?

Is declaring that LHO acted alone a falsehood? 

Are we so sure? 

 

[Sean Coleman]

Theres more misinfo (DVP, BB et al) than disinfo at this party.

But I’m all for devils advocates-like to hear all arguments before making an educated decision…..

[Gil Jesus]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

To put it succinctly, while members should be allowed to post false interpretations, they should not be allowed to post false evidence. Posting false evidence is dishonest.

 

I would agree with that with the condition that "false interpretation" be replaced with "misinterpretation". A misintepretation is an error that may well be innocent in nature, while posting false evidence could be construed as intentional. This is why it's always important to cite your sources. I've erred in the past in another forum by repeating something I'd read in a book. When I went back to look for the author's source, there was none. So I started marking all my documents on file with the source at the top in red. And I made sure that anything I used was cited.

Misinterpretation may be an innocent mistake, but to avoid being accused of posting false evidence, it's always best to post your source. And that goes for the Lone Nutters as well.

It's important for them to understand that what they've read in the "Oswald-Did-It" books is not evidence any more than William Cooper's bleached out version of the Zapruder film is "proof" that Greer shot Kennedy.

A few weeks ago, I posted a list of about 50 things which should have been true if Oswald was guilty of the two murders. Not one Lone Nutter responded to that list.

That's how you debate them.

[Jean Ceulemans]

39 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Theres more misinfo (DVP, BB et al) than disinfo at this party.

But I’m all for devils advocates-like to hear all arguments before making an educated decision…..

Thank you for that reply.

But I think it´s not always that clear, there´s something subjective as well here.

Like, what is the relation between misinfo/disinfo and experience? In how we tend to judge this info?

How often do people really take the time to study the arguments? Auch... not a lot... (it´s always the same 30 pages that are being posted anyway).  Endlessly repeating and going nowhere as it seems.

How many have actually changed their minds because of arguments expressed by others? Again, not a lot I think?

Often it looks like a trench war, throwing stuff at each other, but not moving the line.

  

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

6 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

W. , I´m just being a little curious here and don´t want to go off topic, so I´ll stay within the "disinformation" concept.  

How do you feel, p.e. about people stating Twin Towers were not taken down by explosives, that it was the result (2x) of a tower being hit by a plane.

Would you consider e.g. the wiki page on that disinformation?

Or would you be satisfied if there was an addendum pointing to certain theories?

Or...

I´d like your opinion on that.

So I´d better understand what is called disinformation by your definition.

A different interpretation? Or sometimes just blablabla from people living in a different world 😇 

 

 

 

 

I noticed you haven't answered this from Jean,  W. 

But you've said this:

W:   And, if Trump is at odds with the Deep State, why didn't he release the JFKA records and tell the American people "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11," as he promised?

On the contrary, one of Trump's closest associates, Rudy Giuliani, was intimately involved in the Bush-Cheney/PNAC 9/11 op.

 

And I recall somewhere your stated reason for Bush, Cheney and PNAC blowing up the towers and killing 3000 Americans was to provide a pretext for Bush launching the Iraq War! You don't seem to realize if there was any exposure of Bush as starting 911, he'd be seen as the greatest traitor in American history, but you are so sure that he would be so confident of taking that chance and getting way with it!

That also strikes me as being so absolutely paranoid wacko! , it rivals Harvey and Lee.

 

This would be ok. If your purpose in posting this thread was not attack discreditable threads!

IMO, if you have these beliefs, and you are a mod. You just have to be more tolerant.

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

45 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

That also strikes me as being so absolutely paranoid wacko! , it rivals Harvey and Lee.

 

I have a great deal more respect for a person who has studied a seemingly irreconcilably contradictory situation-- like 911 or Harvey & Lee -- and formulated a theory explaining it, than for a person who disparages such a theory out of ignorance and offers no alternative explanation.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have a great deal more respect for a person who has studied a seemingly irreconcilably contradictory situation-- like 911 or Harvey & Lee -- and formulated a theory explaining it, than for a person who disparages such a theory out of ignorance and offers no alternative explanation.

You're joking, right? Alternative explanations for EVERY major "Harvey & Lee" talking point have been provided here and numerous other places.

[Pat Speer]

On 8/9/2024 at 11:12 AM, James DiEugenio said:

As long as you have people here like Down and DVP, you will have to put up with this stuff.

IMO, you cannot ban people like that, since we do have free speech.

So we are caught on the horns of a dliemna.

 

I suspect you will agree, Jim, that it's a two-way street...that there has been a ton of nonsense spewed from both sides. IF you are gonna police the forum to keep out obvious bs like "the single-bullet theory is the single-bullet fact" you should also police the forum to keep out obvious bs like "The Altgens photos were altered in a CIA trailer in the TSBD parking lot" OR "The shots were actually fired when the limo was on Main Street." And then, from there, to keep out stuff about Hickey and/or Greer firing the fatal shots--stuff that is discussed with regularity, but has little real support. And then ...where will it end?

If this forum can survive the Fetzer years--which were filled with threads claiming Josiah Thompson was a CIA asset, etc--well, then, it can survive a few posts from the handful of lone-nutters on this forum. 

As far as Litwin, well, I wish he would join the forum. A lot of what passes as CT research is weak or worse. But gets accepted because people are so eager to see something that validates their viewpoints. A critical eye is good, IMO. I think we can agree that there is so much evidence suggesting a conspiracy that one should still suspect a conspiracy even if 90% of the reasons most suspect a conspiracy turn out to be junk. 

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect you will agree, Jim, that it's a two-way street...that there has been a ton of nonsense spewed from both sides. IF you are gonna police the forum to keep out obvious bs like "the single-bullet theory is the single-bullet fact" you should also police the forum to keep out obvious bs like "The Altgens photos were altered in a CIA trailer in the TSBD parking lot" OR "The shots were actually fired when the limo was on Main Street." And then, from there, to keep out stuff about Hickey and/or Greer firing the fatal shots--stuff that is discussed with regularity, but has little real support. And then ...where will it end?

If this forum can survive the Fetzer years--which were filled with threads claiming Josiah Thompson was a CIA asset, etc--well, then, it can survive a few posts from the handful of lone-nutters on this forum. 

As far as Litwin, well, I wish he would join the forum. A lot of what passes as CT research is weak or worse. But gets accepted because people are so eager to see something that validates their viewpoints. A critical eye is good, IMO. I think we can agree that there is so much evidence suggesting a conspiracy that one should still suspect a conspiracy even if 90% of the reasons most suspect a conspiracy turn out to be junk. 

 

 

 

 

Pat,

    Let's get real.

    There is no meaningful equivalence between the systematic, deliberate falsehoods promoted by the WCR and its salespeople in the mainstream and social media, and the honest, accurate research evidence debunking the WCR "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination.

    Certainly, some alternative theories are flawed, but no honest, informed person accepts the Lone Nut theory.

    Based on the philosophy of science, valid theories must explain ALL of the facts without being debunked by ANY facts.

    It's a high bar, and the Lone Nut theory doesn't even come close to clearing that bar.

    And let's acknowledge that the CIA has invested heavily in promoting WCR disinformation for 60 years.

     That is the essential subject of this thread.

Edited August 11 by W. Niederhut

[Joe Bauer]

21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pat,

    Let's get real.

    There is no meaningful equivalence between the systematic, deliberate falsehoods promoted by the WCR and its salespeople in the mainstream and social media, and the honest, accurate research evidence debunking the WCR "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination.

    Certainly, some alternative theories are flawed, but no honest, informed person accepts the Lone Nut theory.

    Based on the philosophy of science, valid theories must explain ALL of the facts without being debunked by ANY facts.

    It's a high bar, and the Lone Nut theory doesn't even come close to clearing that bar.

    And let's acknowledge that the CIA has invested heavily in promoting WCR disinformation for 60 years.

     That is the essential subject of this thread.

Bump

[Cliff Varnell]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Is declaring that LHO acted alone a falsehood? 

Are we so sure? 

False Mystery.  Crypto-LN or Vichy-CT?

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A critical eye is good, IMO. I think we can agree that there is so much evidence suggesting a conspiracy that one should still suspect a conspiracy even if 90% of the reasons most suspect a conspiracy turn out to be junk. 

The evidence only "suggests" a conspiracy?

May I suggest this is another False Mystery...