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

[Keven Hofeling]

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

You sure like to dish it out, don't you, Sgt. Price?

This post constitutes notice to you that your accusation that I am a covert government disinformation operative is a violation of the rules of the Education Forum, and if you have not retracted that allegation within twenty-four hours of the time of this post, I will report same to the forum administrators, and pursuant to the rules, your failure to ameliorate the violation will be given due consideration at the discretion of the administrators.

There is a difference between the questions I have asked you, and the accusation with which you have responded to my questions, Mr. Varnell.

[Cliff Varnell]

7 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

This post constitutes notice to you that your accusation that I am a covert government disinformation operative is a violation of the rules of the Education Forum, and if you have not retracted that allegation within twenty-four hours of the time of this post, I will report same to the forum administrators, and pursuant to the rules, your failure to ameliorate the violation will be given due consideration at the discretion of the administrators.

There is a difference between the questions I have asked you, and the accusation with which you have responded to my questions, Mr. Varnell.

Have at it.  Are you from Cleveland?

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There's another explanation -- confirmation bias driven by faith.  Both David Von Pein and Pat Speer have faith in their belief JFK was only struck from behind.  Both of these otherwise informed and honest gentlemen observed that the physical evidence -- the bullet holes in JFK's clothes -- is problematic for their belief. 

Von Pein observed the fact that JFK's jacket collar dropped in Dealey Plaza, and the back of the jacket was only elevated "a little bit."  Confirmation bias does not allow him to draw the obvious conclusion -- the back wound was too low to allow for the SBT. 

There was a time when Pat Speer insisted JFK's clothing was bunched up a couple of inches to align with a wound at T1.  Now, instead of raising the clothing, Speer lowered the top of the JFK's back two inches!

They can't help themselves.

Oh please, Cliff. I have no faith in any of this stuff, and that is why I have been so controversial. 

I don't trust anyone's ability to ascertain the truth on this case. That is why I have looked at so many different elements of the case. I have declared for 20 years that the evidence strongly suggests the single-bullet theory is nonsense, and you have been angry at me for most of that time for not sharing YOUR FAITH that the clothing evidence all by itself proves this, that no other evidence is needed, and that looking at the rest of evidence is folly.

So let's repeat. I have no faith in any of this. But I have many strong suspicions about many different aspects of the case, that lead me to suspect there was more to it than Oswald, and that the Johnson Administration engaged in a deliberate cover-up.  

Now, to be clear, I studied philosophy as a young man, and this led me to completely reject the notion of "knowledge" and "faith." 

I remember, for instance, that, upon reading Descartes' famous line "I think, therefore I am"--I immediately rejected it. How do we "know" that non-existent things don't think? And what is "thinking" anyhow? Could it be that what we think are thoughts are little more than burps or farts? 

So, no, I do not have faith all the shots came from behind. In fact, I have worked with some of the most prominent doctors working on this case, and have helped them come up with arguments for a shot from the front.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh please, Cliff. I have no faith in any of this stuff, and that is why I have been so controversial. 

I don't trust anyone's ability to ascertain the truth on this case. That is why I have looked at so many different elements of the case.

Your insistence that the top of JFK's back was 4 inches below the bottom of his clothing collars speaks to a true belief more fantastic than virgin birth.

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I have declared for 20 years that the evidence strongly suggests the single-bullet theory is nonsense, and you have been angry at me for most of that time for not sharing YOUR FAITH that the clothing evidence all by itself proves this, that no other evidence is needed, and that looking at the rest of evidence is folly.

I've cited the supporting evidence of the T3 back wound in great detail.  Disproving the SBT is child's play, there are more important issues at hand which your analyses obfuscate.

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So let's repeat. I have no faith in any of this. But I have many strong suspicions about many different aspects of the case, that lead me to suspect there was more to it than Oswald, and that the Johnson Administration engaged in a deliberate cover-up.  

Now, to be clear, I studied philosophy as a young man, and this led me to completely reject the notion of "knowledge" and "faith." 

I remember, for instance, that, upon reading Descartes' famous line "I think, therefore I am"--I immediately rejected it. How do we "know" that non-existent things don't think? And what is "thinking" anyhow? Could it be that what we think are thoughts are little more than burps or farts? 

So, no, I do not have faith all the shots came from behind. In fact, I have worked with some of the most prominent doctors working on this case, and have helped them come up with arguments for a shot from the front.

 

Well then, I stand corrected.  I'm baffled why you bend over so far backwards to deny the throat wound was an entrance.

Edited August 12 by Cliff Varnell

[Jean Ceulemans]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

cut... Now, to be clear, I studied philosophy as a young man, and this led me to completely reject the notion of "knowledge" and "faith." 

I remember, for instance, that, upon reading Descartes' famous line "I think, therefore I am"--I immediately rejected it. How do we "know" that non-existent things don't think? And what is "thinking" anyhow? Could it be that what we think are thoughts are little more than burps or farts? .. cut

 

Indeed (well...) we can only "think" about things that we "think" we "know" something about. Often to find that we actually know very little, or that we just are incapable of understanding.

Throw some particles at a board with 2 slits in it and perform some experiments... seems registration is all we need to change events?!? Or even pseudo-registration. How does that work? Well, we don´t know... but it´s fun to watch...

 

[Miles Massicotte]

5 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Indeed (well...) we can only "think" about things that we "think" we "know" something about. Often to find that we actually know very little, or that we just are incapable of understanding.

Reminds me of "This is Water" by David Foster Wallace. We are all fish swimming through the ocean, doing our thing, focused on ourselves, our egos, our knowledge, our perception of the world. Then an older fish swims by us and says "Hey, how's the water?" But we, having lived our whole lives in the water, respond "What the hell is water?" 

Often times our selves are our own worst barrier to the truth. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

2 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Reminds me of "This is Water" by David Foster Wallace. We are all fish swimming through the ocean, doing our thing, focused on ourselves, our egos, our knowledge, our perception of the world. Then an older fish swims by us and says "Hey, how's the water?" But we, having lived our whole lives in the water, respond "What the hell is water?" 

Often times our selves are our own worst barrier to the truth. 

Thank you for that one, I did not know it, I´ll remember it for sure, good one!

 

[Benjamin Cole]

On 8/12/2024 at 1:35 PM, Pat Speer said:

Oh please, Cliff. I have no faith in any of this stuff, and that is why I have been so controversial. 

I don't trust anyone's ability to ascertain the truth on this case. That is why I have looked at so many different elements of the case. I have declared for 20 years that the evidence strongly suggests the single-bullet theory is nonsense, and you have been angry at me for most of that time for not sharing YOUR FAITH that the clothing evidence all by itself proves this, that no other evidence is needed, and that looking at the rest of evidence is folly.

So let's repeat. I have no faith in any of this. But I have many strong suspicions about many different aspects of the case, that lead me to suspect there was more to it than Oswald, and that the Johnson Administration engaged in a deliberate cover-up.  

Now, to be clear, I studied philosophy as a young man, and this led me to completely reject the notion of "knowledge" and "faith." 

I remember, for instance, that, upon reading Descartes' famous line "I think, therefore I am"--I immediately rejected it. How do we "know" that non-existent things don't think? And what is "thinking" anyhow? Could it be that what we think are thoughts are little more than burps or farts? 

So, no, I do not have faith all the shots came from behind. In fact, I have worked with some of the most prominent doctors working on this case, and have helped them come up with arguments for a shot from the front.

 

"So let's repeat. I have no faith in any of this. But I have many strong suspicions about many different aspects of the case, that lead me to suspect there was more to it than Oswald, and that the Johnson Administration engaged in a deliberate cover-up.---PS

Pretty much ditto.

Except maybe I have only qualified suspicions, not even strong suspicions. 

[Bill Brown]

On 8/9/2024 at 11:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

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.

 

Let's say that 65% of the public believe Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and 35% believe Oswald acted alone.

Let's say of the 65%, there are a dozen different conspiracy theories. Splitting it up evenly, we have each of the dozen conspiracy theories taking up about 5% to 6% of those polled.

Now, we have the idea that Oswald acted alone taking up 35% of those polled.

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

 

[Bill Brown]

On 8/10/2024 at 1:22 PM, Gil Jesus said:

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.

 

"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."

Then please, once and for all, "cite your source" for your claim that William Scoggins was lying (face down?) in the street and therefore is a bad witness to use for Oswald as the felling cop-killer.

 

[W. Niederhut]

19 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

 

19 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Let's say that 65% of the public believe Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and 35% believe Oswald acted alone.

Let's say of the 65%, there are a dozen different conspiracy theories. Splitting it up evenly, we have each of the dozen conspiracy theories taking up about 5% to 6% of those polled.

Now, we have the idea that Oswald acted alone taking up 35% of those polled.

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

 

Using this logic, we could conclude that Hitler and the Nazis were the "most popular" party in Germany in 1932.

How did that work out for humanity?

The only thing that this polling data tells us is that 35% of the population is still clueless about JFK's assassination.

Edited August 14 by W. Niederhut

[Cliff Varnell]

"[T]he strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry..."  Barack Obama, 2012

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

"[T]he strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry..."  Barack Obama, 2012

To be honest, this quote signals a virtue I don't entirely possess.

 

[W. Niederhut]

On 8/9/2024 at 8:45 AM, W. Niederhut said:

         The United States, and the Education Forum, have an admirable tradition of freedom of speech and, as forum administrator, Mark Knight, pointed out during the recent Pat Speer controversy, it has never been the policy of the Education Forum administration to enforce "orthodoxy" (i.e., right beliefs) about history, including the history of the JFK assassination.

        That said, many of us have noticed that a cadre of WCR apologists ("Lone Nutters") on the forum have persisted in posting disinformation promoting the false WCR "Lone Nut" narrative about the JFK assassination.

        The most recent example is a forum thread promoting a WCR/Lone Nut podcast by Fred Litwin-- the salesman popularly known as the man who was a "teenage conspiracy freak," (presumably before he matured and embraced the delusional Warren Commission Report propaganda that has been aggressively promoted in the U.S. mainstream media during the past sixty years.)

        So, here's the dilemma in the U.S. today, and on the Education Forum.

        Freedom of speech is exploited by propagandists to promote disinformation, and censorship is anathematized.  This was, literally, a life-and-death controversy in the U.S. during the COVID pandemic.

        Is it better to let propagandists have an Orwellian field day, or to try to set limits on disinformation?

        James DiEugenio and Denny Zartman commented, accurately, on the Fred Litwin podcast thread that it is a shame to see this kind of propaganda on the Education Forum.

        I agree.  This isn't McAdams.edu.

        But, then again, censorship is a potentially dangerous phenomenon.  Elon Musk bought Twitter to abolish censorship.

         (BTW, how is that $44 billion dollar acquisition working out for American democracy?)

        Any thoughts about this issue on the Education Forum?

       

I noticed today that the recent forum debate inspired by the marketing campaign for Fred Litwin's new book smearing Jim Garrison closely mirrored this August 2024 thread about the problem of WCR/LN disinformation on the Education Forum.

The main difference between the two threads is that James DiEugenio's detailed critiques of Litwin's work were referenced on the new thread.

Edited October 6 by W. Niederhut