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

[David Von Pein]

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It was the Johnson Administration's lone-nut narrative.

In truth and in reality, of course, it was THE EVIDENCE ITSELF which brought about the "lone nut narrative". The CIA and Johnson had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The evidence convicts Oswald. Not the CIA or LBJ.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

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

 

Well sure Jonathan... just like the magic bullet theory is an alternate explanation the WC apologists like to use.

ANYTHING has an alternate explanation if you strain credulity hard enough to make one.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

What's "troubling" about it, Jonathan?

Should moderators approve of disinformation?

That is exactly right!

So long as said moderator is not himself or herself a member of the lone nutcase cult...

 

Edited August 11 by Keven Hofeling

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

According your hypothesis this implies that anyone who accepts the Lone Nut theory must be dishonest and/or misinformed. Is that right?

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.

[Keven Hofeling]

29 minutes 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.

And there are additional possible explanations which, consistent with the rules of this forum, I will not direct toward any particular individual...

What I can say is that as the result of running a political assassinations research group on Facebook, I have come to conclude that social media is crawling with government sponsored operatives, particularly in political assassination related groups, and most of the participants who are honest brokers touch shoulders with these operatives on a daily basis in these groups and never suspect that this is, in fact, what is going on.

Of course, nothing like that is happening here in the Education Forum.

 

Edited August 11 by Keven Hofeling

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

In truth and in reality, of course, it was THE EVIDENCE ITSELF which brought about the "lone nut narrative". The CIA and Johnson had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The evidence convicts Oswald. Not the CIA or LBJ.

 

It's possible witness testimony was honestly mistaken.

It's possible witness testimony was coerced.

It's possible that a photo like the Fox 5 "back of the head" photo -- which has no chain of evidence and was not prepared according to autopsy protocol -- was manipulated.

It is impossible for disparate physical objects to occupy the same physical space at the same time.  The SBT absolutely requires JFK's jacket collar and multiple inches of his shirt and jacket fabric to occupy the same physical space at the same time.

 

 

Edited August 11 by Cliff Varnell

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In truth and in reality, of course, it was THE EVIDENCE ITSELF which brought about the "lone nut narrative". The CIA and Johnson had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The evidence convicts Oswald. Not the CIA or LBJ.

 

C'mon, David.

Surely, you and Pat Speer aren't denying that Allen Dulles aggressively pushed his Lone Nut narrative, from the get go, in the Warren Commission hearings, are you?

He opened the Commission meetings with the CIA's Lone Nut declaration-- which was also their psy op in the mainstream media.

Or that Dulles, Hoover, et.al., aggressively suppressed and manipulated evidence to support the Lone Nut psy op?

We've had to endure 60 years of this nonsense.

There are multiple lines of evidence debunking the defunct LN theory.

 

Edited August 11 by W. Niederhut

[Denny Zartman]

There's no free speech on this forum. This is a private website and we are all here at the pleasure of the site owner. If the owner of the Education Forum wants to have Lone Nut theorists on here, that's their decision. The website owner welcomes LN’s here. That's unquestionable.

Some people (myself among them) think misinformation and disinformation comes part and parcel with Lone Nut theorists, because, as we see it, the Lone Nut theory has already been satisfactorily proven false far beyond any reasonable doubt.

The question at issue seems to be: will any moderators of this forum be allowed the authority to stem the flow of misinformation and disinformation, or is this a Wild West where anything goes? And if the answer is “something in between,” who draws the line and determines what is innocent misinformation and what is malicious disinformation?

People have a right to their own opinions; they do not have a right to their own facts. I believe objective facts exist. But, it seems some folks here think facts are merely matters of opinion.

If I were on a scientific website’s forum discussing planets and solar systems, and there were flat-earthers there always chiming in, well… that's their right. But they would certainly be mucking up attempts at serious scientific discussion. I'd have to wonder what their intent for being there was in the first place. And I wouldn't blame anyone who would prefer a slightly more serious-minded forum that did not treat facts as opinions. To me, treating facts as opinions is disrespectful to the concept of truth. I feel truth should be the goal of all of us here.

Lone Nut theorists believe the whole case was solved an hour after it happened. That's their prerogative. Yet somehow they think they have something useful to contribute to the conspiracy theorist’s discussions today. I don't see it. In my eyes, the most the LN’s seem to offer is scorn for those still studying the case. That scorn holds little intellectual value for me. To those of us looking for answers, what do the Lone Nut theorists offer to further our understanding of what really happened? Other than endless variations of “You're a bunch of stupid morons on a silly wild goose chase, because the answer was crystal clear the very moment it happened sixty years ago.”

Again, that's their prerogative to hold that viewpoint. I'll never question that. But it often makes being on this forum tedious and unnecessarily frustrating when it seems every conversation with LN’s offers little more than the opportunity to go back to cover well-trodden ground. It's distracting, and it's hard not to entertain the idea that distraction is their ultimate goal, since truth seems to be a much lesser priority to them.

[Denny Zartman]

You're doing Yeoman's work here, @W. Niederhut.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Again, that's their prerogative to hold that viewpoint. I'll never question that. But it often makes being on this forum tedious and unnecessarily frustrating when it seems every conversation with LN’s offers little more than the opportunity to go back to cover well-trodden ground. It's distracting, and it's hard not to entertain the idea that distraction is their ultimate goal, since truth seems to be a much lesser priority to them.

Denny, in June 1966 Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence and Arlen Specter had a nervous breakdown.

To confront LNers with any evidence other than the physical evidence is tedious and unnecessarily frustrating.

[Cliff Varnell]

A message to my fellow "CTs".

Annoyed by all the LN trash on the Forum?  Who's fault is that?

It's yours.

Y'all let them off the hook by going down these well-worn rabbit holes...

 

Edited August 11 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

But, it seems some folks here think facts are merely matters of opinion.

You mean, for example, such things as the proven-beyond-all-doubt facts listed below?....

Whether Oswald purchased the Carcano rifle? (Most CTers think he didn't.)

Or whether Oswald purchased the Smith & Wesson revolver? (Many CTers think he never did.)

Or whether the Baker/Oswald lunchroom encounter really happened? (Many CTers think it didn't.)

Or whether Oswald carried any large-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22? (Many CTers think he didn't.)

Or whether Howard Brennan really attended any police lineup on 11/22? (Jim DiEugenio doesn't think he did.)

Or whether Oswald rented a room at the Beckley roominghouse in Oct. '63? (Greg Parker thinks he didn't.)

Or whether Oswald carried any pistol at all into the Texas Theater on 11/22? (Many CTers say he didn't.)

Etc., etc., to CT absurdity....

 

Edited August 11 by David Von Pein

[W. Niederhut]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You mean, for example, such things as the proven-beyond-all-doubt facts listed below?....

Whether Oswald purchased the Carcano rifle? (Most CTers think he didn't.)

Or whether the Baker/Oswald lunchroom encounter really happened? (Many CTers think it didn't.)

Or whether Oswald carried any large-ish paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22? (Many CTers think he didn't.)

Or whether Howard Brennan really attended any police lineup on 11/22? (Jim DiEugenio doesn't think he did.)

Or whether Oswald rented a room at the Beckley roominghouse in Oct. '63? (Greg Parker thinks he didn't.)

Or whether Oswald carried any pistol at all into the Texas Theater on 11/22? (Many CTers say he didn't.)

Etc., etc....

All of these examples can be understood by a paradigm where Oswald was consciously functioning as a CIA patsy who expected to fly out of Red Bird on 11/22/63.

Now, explain how Oswald shot JFK in the right forehead from the TSBD, blasting brain matter and the occipital skull fragment backward behind the limo.  How did he suspend Newton's Laws of Motion?

We can debunk any theory with a single contrary fact, even if we don't yet have a definitive, comprehensive, alternate theory.

That's philosophical logic 101.

[David Von Pein]

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Now, explain how Oswald shot JFK in the right forehead from the TSBD, blasting brain matter and the occipital skull fragment backward behind the limo.

There was, of course, no wound at all to JFK's "right forehead". That's just another conspiracy-flavored myth (of course).

And, of course, there was no "occipital skull fragment" blasted out of JFK's head in Dealey Plaza at all, and the authenticated X-ray below proves it, because it shows no missing bone at all in the occipital area of President Kennedy's head. None. CTers, naturally, will claim (sans a bit of proof) that this is yet another piece of "fake" evidence:

And your next conspiracy myth will be.....?

 

Edited August 11 by David Von Pein

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

There's no free speech on this forum. This is a private website and we are all here at the pleasure of the site owner. If the owner of the Education Forum wants to have Lone Nut theorists on here, that's their decision. The website owner welcomes LN’s here. That's unquestionable.

Some people (myself among them) think misinformation and disinformation comes part and parcel with Lone Nut theorists, because, as we see it, the Lone Nut theory has already been satisfactorily proven false far beyond any reasonable doubt.

The question at issue seems to be: will any moderators of this forum be allowed the authority to stem the flow of misinformation and disinformation, or is this a Wild West where anything goes? And if the answer is “something in between,” who draws the line and determines what is innocent misinformation and what is malicious disinformation?

People have a right to their own opinions; they do not have a right to their own facts. I believe objective facts exist. But, it seems some folks here think facts are merely matters of opinion.

If I were on a scientific website’s forum discussing planets and solar systems, and there were flat-earthers there always chiming in, well… that's their right. But they would certainly be mucking up attempts at serious scientific discussion. I'd have to wonder what their intent for being there was in the first place. And I wouldn't blame anyone who would prefer a slightly more serious-minded forum that did not treat facts as opinions. To me, treating facts as opinions is disrespectful to the concept of truth. I feel truth should be the goal of all of us here.

Lone Nut theorists believe the whole case was solved an hour after it happened. That's their prerogative. Yet somehow they think they have something useful to contribute to the conspiracy theorist’s discussions today. I don't see it. In my eyes, the most the LN’s seem to offer is scorn for those still studying the case. That scorn holds little intellectual value for me. To those of us looking for answers, what do the Lone Nut theorists offer to further our understanding of what really happened? Other than endless variations of “You're a bunch of stupid morons on a silly wild goose chase, because the answer was crystal clear the very moment it happened sixty years ago.”

Again, that's their prerogative to hold that viewpoint. I'll never question that. But it often makes being on this forum tedious and unnecessarily frustrating when it seems every conversation with LN’s offers little more than the opportunity to go back to cover well-trodden ground. It's distracting, and it's hard not to entertain the idea that distraction is their ultimate goal, since truth seems to be a much lesser priority to them.

HERE HERE!