Defining Insanity !

[Charles Black]

One of my favorite explanations or depictions of "insanity" is that " When a person or persons, examine the "same problem", by the "same methods", for an extraordinarily long period of time, and are confounded that these continuous examinations all conclude nothing but the same repeated results.....

and they do not understand WHY? ...that this is insanity.

Why are a group of intelligent people so mesmerized by references such as : three gunmen...one missed shot...military ambush....triangulation of fire... snipers perch....grassy knoll....military snipers...high powered rifles....recordings of the number of shots (when we know of sound supression)....Corsican Mafia...."many" missed shots....firecrackers...."head snap"...possibly mis labeled Z frame numbers...number of shooters...location of shooters.....an obviously "planted old rifle"...possible shooters in different buildngs...

After 43 years of reexamining the exact same theories, it would seem that there might be some who would not be embarrased to admit that perhaps there is something wrong with our 43 year old conceptions. After all, there have been some pretty weighty minds who have examined this Same Evidence.

Why, after all of these four decades of investigations, are we not turning up anything new?

Is it possible that some theories which at first may seem "Far Out", may actually be viable ?

Possibly some very simple theories that can answer what we have considered very puzzling questions.

Why do many think, that because that they think in like manner to many others, that the conspirators who exist in a "completely different" world and frame of mind, would necessarily reason in the same manner ? Are conspiracies and political conspirators "PROFILED" ?

Would you not think that assassins would tend to more follow the route travelled by other most "successful assassins" ?

Why do we think that the best way to assasinate a political figure is from a "tall building with a high power rifle"? It has not been done in this manner in other assassnations, both political and non political. Have you ever asked why ? Could the answer be that this is not the most efficient and assured manner in which to take out a single individual ? Do the terms "military sniper", "military ambush" and "triangulation of fire" seem more reasonable than....... "Let's forget all of the BS formalities and just make certain that we kill the S.O.B." !

Perhaps what I consider "insanity" is not thought to be by those in more learned circles.

I personally feel that we should pull our "collective heads " out of our "collective a____" and take a look at the REAL UGLY WORLD much less reasonably, gentlemenly, and intellectually !

If you were seeking advice on the most successful way to rob a bank...would you ask Chomsky or Dillinger?

Charlie Black

[David G. Healy]

One of my favorite explanations or depictions of "insanity" is that " When a person or persons, examine the "same problem", by the "same methods", for an extraordinarily long period of time, and are confounded that these continuous examinations all conclude nothing but the same repeated results.....

and they do not understand WHY? ...that this is insanity.

Why are a group of intelligent people so mesmerized by references such as : three gunmen...one missed shot...military ambush....triangulation of fire... snipers perch....grassy knoll....military snipers...high powered rifles....recordings of the number of shots (when we know of sound supression)....Corsican Mafia...."many" missed shots....firecrackers...."head snap"...possibly mis labeled Z frame numbers...number of shooters...location of shooters.....an obviously "planted old rifle"...possible shooters in different buildngs...

After 43 years of reexamining the exact same theories, it would seem that there might be some who would not be embarrased to admit that perhaps there is something wrong with our 43 year old conceptions. After all, there have been some pretty weighty minds who have examined this Same Evidence.

Why, after all of these four decades of investigations, are we not turning up anything new?

Is it possible that some theories which at first may seem "Far Out", may actually be viable ?

Possibly some very simple theories that can answer what we have considered very puzzling questions.

Why do many think, that because that they think in like manner to many others, that the conspirators who exist in a "completely different" world and frame of mind, would necessarily reason in the same manner ? Are conspiracies and political conspirators "PROFILED" ?

Would you not think that assassins would tend to more follow the route travelled by other most "successful assassins" ?

Why do we think that the best way to assasinate a political figure is from a "tall building with a high power rifle"? It has not been done in this manner in other assassnations, both political and non political. Have you ever asked why ? Could the answer be that this is not the most efficient and assured manner in which to take out a single individual ? Do the terms "military sniper", "military ambush" and "triangulation of fire" seem more reasonable than....... "Let's forget all of the BS formalities and just make certain that we kill the S.O.B." !

Perhaps what I consider "insanity" is not thought to be by those in more learned circles.

I personally feel that we should pull our "collective heads " out of our "collective a____" and take a look at the REAL UGLY WORLD much less reasonably, gentlemenly, and intellectually !

If you were seeking advice on the most successful way to rob a bank...would you ask Chomsky or Dillinger?

Charlie Black

perhap's Charlie, insanity = doing, saying, showing the same thing over and over and over and OVER again, expecting different RESULTS?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Personally!

I wanted a "mental" discharge from the military service.

However, based on the facts that I was in the Mississippi National Guard completely "home free" from active duty service during the SE Asia conflict; that I volunteered for active duty service; and that I also repeatedly volunteered for service in SE Asia,

The US Military deemed that I was most probably "insane" prior to entering active duty.

Difficult to argue with the facts!

Obviously, there are many and varied degrees of insanity!

Signed: The Education Forum's "Lone Nut"

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Charles,

I believe it was Albert Einstein who defined insanity as "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". The 'not understanding why and other misquotes' may be your explicit take on this, or perhaps, more likely, from whomever you stole your bastardised quote. You see, I really don't like quotes that have been obviously, bastardised or blatantly misrepresented.

Thomas Alma Edison experimented over a thousand times with different filaments to get a longer lasting light bulb. Insane? No, absolutely not. (especially as he is the holder of the most patents for an individual) He just did the same thing over and over again; CHANGED HIS VARIABLE; and got different results.

Which genius do we argue with Charles?

For someone who is arguing for the viability of, as you say 'far out' theories; I find you, unusually swift to disregard 'far out' theories you don't agree with e.g. Ashton Gray's. Is there really only one 'far out' theory?

Surely we can all stretch to a few!!!!!

We do have some 'far out' normal, blah blah ideas in common; but I think you've went beyond the pale here!

Gary

[Ashton Gray]

I find you, unusually swift to disregard 'far out' theories you don't agree with e.g. Ashton Gray's.

Why... Gary, have I posited a theory that's "far out"?

If you mean the theory that JFK was shot in the throat (from any location) by a projectile that could pass through a shirt and tie without leaving a hole, that theory is not mine. Please don't ever associate any such nutty ideas with me. I believe that idea must have issued forth from the bowels of Bedlam itself; just look at the feverish popularity it has earned.

Ashton

[Charles Black]

Charles,

I believe it was Albert Einstein who defined insanity as "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". The 'not understanding why and other misquotes' may be your explicit take on this, or perhaps, more likely, from whomever you stole your bastardised quote. You see, I really don't like quotes that have been obviously, bastardised or blatantly misrepresented.

Thomas Alma Edison experimented over a thousand times with different filaments to get a longer lasting light bulb. Insane? No, absolutely not. (especially as he is the holder of the most patents for an individual) He just did the same thing over and over again; CHANGED HIS VARIABLE; and got different results.

Which genius do we argue with Charles?

For someone who is arguing for the viability of, as you say 'far out' theories; I find you, unusually swift to disregard 'far out' theories you don't agree with e.g. Ashton Gray's. Is there really only one 'far out' theory?

Surely we can all stretch to a few!!!!!

We do have some 'far out' normal, blah blah ideas in common; but I think you've went beyond the pale here!

Gary

Gary

You are ignorant enough to be "bastardizing" YOURSELF !

I began my post by quote.... "One of my favorite explanations or depictions of insanity is that...."

I thought that most persons on this forum would many times have heard that oft quoted definition. However you are no doubt ill read enough to have not. So you accused me of plagiarism as a result of you own very apparent stupidity.

I also think that Tom Edison would turn in his grave if he knew than you were calling him "ALMA".

And yes ! As you stated "ALMA" experimented with

"DIFFERENT" filaments.....not the exact same one over an over again.

If you don't have anything worth reading, why not rest your fingers along with your brain.

You made a very needlessly rude attack of a post in which I degraded no one......only questioned our "collective wisdom". Mine was meant to possibly stimulate thought. Yours was meant to be both nasty and degrading.

You certainly are granted my permission to never read my posts.

And by the way......Ashton does an excellent job of defending himself. I don't feel that you are qualified to assist him !

Charlie Black

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Insanity is, at best a pretty meaningless tag to be afflicting anybody with. For a start it is subjective, and can, and has been used with political intent, and purpose, dissidents in the old Soviet Union often found themselves incarcerated in Psychiatric institutions diagnosed as Insane, the reason? as Russia was a workers paradise anyone who dissented against it must be insane, and would remain so until cured of their dangerous delusions. Now, in the main, one either suffers from psychosis or neurosis, both conditions display symptoms which can lead to diagnosis, and hence to treatment. It sure aint perfect, but its the best we have got.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Stephen Turner

[Charles Black]

Stephen

Please accept my apology if you or others felt that my reference to "insanity" was meant to be applied in the "clinical" sense. That certainly was not my intention. Tho a layman, I am able to grasp the meaning of "insanity".

For the welfare of the forum, perhaps you might instruct "Gary" on the definitions of Quote......

"bastardized or blatantly misrepresented"......

he also referred to my "bastardized quotes".

I take the terms "bastardized" and "blatantly misrepresented" very seriously, and feel that they were applied in a quite defamatory and inflamatory manner. I always have and expect always to, defend myself when attacked.

I hope perhaps that he had been drinking and that this isn't his usual method of communicating. Or

perhaps in Ireland, this is acceptable behavior !

But again, my apologies to any and everyone else who may have thought that my reference to "insanity" was meant to be clinical.....I consider it to be common phraseology "here in the colonies".

Charlie Black

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen

Please accept my apology if you or others felt that my reference to "insanity" was meant to be applied in the "clinical" sense. That certainly was not my intention. Tho a layman, I am able to grasp the meaning of "insanity".

For the welfare of the forum, perhaps you might instruct "Gary" on the definitions of Quote......

"bastardized or blatantly misrepresented"......

he also referred to my "bastardized quotes".

I take the terms "bastardized" and "blatantly misrepresented" very seriously, and feel that they were applied in a quite defamatory and inflamatory manner. I always have and expect always to, defend myself when attacked.

I hope perhaps that he had been drinking and that this isn't his usual method of communicating. Or

perhaps in Ireland, this is acceptable behavior !

But again, my apologies to any and everyone else who may have thought that my reference to "insanity" was meant to be clinical.....I consider it to be common phraseology "here in the colonies".

Charlie Black

Charlie, absolutely no need for apologies, and your original post is well taken. I have for years atempted to illicit a logical responce from various Warrenatti types about the use of the word "nut" when applied to LHO. As a term it is an empty bucket, that, unfortunately makes a lot of distracting noise...Steve.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Charles,

My sincerest apologies for my unprovoked, thoughtless and unnecessarily rude reply. I assure you this is uncharacteristic.

I'm quite embarrassed by what I wrote.

And you're quite right about Mr Edison, he would turn in his grave. It was my lights that were out last night!!!

It is no more acceptable in Ireland than it is in Florida, I imagine.

Ashton,

I admire and agree broadly with your work as I've stated previously. The point I was making was - look what happens when someone does try something different to achieve a better result - arguments questioning your theories sometimes in the strongest, rudest terms. Pot, kettle and black here for me.

If you felt offended by my ill made point, please also accept my sincerest apologies

Thanks for your hoped for understandings and forgiveness

Gary

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton,

I admire and agree broadly with your work as I've stated previously. The point I was making was - look what happens when someone does try something different to achieve a better result - arguments questioning your theories sometimes in the strongest, rudest terms. Pot, kettle and black here for me.

If you felt offended by my ill made point, please also accept my sincerest apologies

Gary, I was just pulling your leg—in a sense. (See, if I use smileys, I get accused of smiley abuse, and if I don't use 'em, I get taken too damned seriously).

Mine was a shameless opportunist's commentary on the "shot in the throat—but lookee thar: missed the shirt!" school of... Well, I can't with good conscience call it "thought."

So, no, I wasn't offended at all, but thanks for your concern.

Ashton

[Charles Black]

Gary, Stephen, Ashton

I thank you all for your responses.

Gary, thank you and your apology is appreciated and well taken.

Stephen, you in fact said nothing that was really derogatory....at times, I ignite at too low a temperature.

Ashton, I'm sure that we will continue to disagree on many points tho we are both moving toward the same goal.

I see the misunderstandings that arise as coming from a factor from which we cannot free ourselves.

There are a number of commonly accepted "FACTS".

However beyond this, we must depend upon speculative minds, to form a theory or conclusion from our different speculative viewpoints. None of us ever "knows" if our particular "pet theory" at a particular moment, is correct...OR...that it will not change.

I suppose that we should all be thankful for the ability to form such.....even when we think each other to be "in need of much help"!

Again, I thank you three for your replies.

Charlie Black