Jump to content
The Education Forum

FROM FRED LEUCHTER to VINCENT BUGLIOSI


Recommended Posts

The function of Fred Leuchter is to provide scientific context for the Holocaust denial (HD) position.

The imagined strengths of Leuchter's arguments and the methodologies and data that inform them are irrelevant to this operation. The goal all along had been to apply the imprimatur of science to HD, which in turn now serves as a source of respectability for subsequent like-minded "scholars."

In terms of the subject of this forum, we can cite Alvarez, Lattimer, Guinn, and Specter as being chief among first-generation science deniers and the role models for Rahn, McAdam, Posner, Russo, Myers, and now Bugliosi (at least one of whom is known to embrace HD and to treasure his collection of recorded Nazi marches -- no kidding!).

Theirs and their masters' is a war for the minds and hearts not of our generation (we were lost no later than late morning, CST, 11/24/63), but of those to come. It matters not that all of these charlatans have been revealed for who they are and what they represent. Their work has been done.

Don't agree? Then why does the wholly discredited SBT/fiction and the wholly discredited "science" and "evidence" upon which it was predicated continue to wreak havoc with truth and justice?

We can't kill it, first because it has been allowed to be presented as science, and now because we continue to show collegiality and respect for the liars and/or fools who would mire us in endless debate of the long-settled howdunit question.

(When I write "we" I surely generalize; know that I know.)

On another thread there recently was an attempt to restart the Occam's Razor operation. I was one of many who pointed out the stupidity of such an approach to analysis of the intel op that was/is the JFK assassination and coverup. But to my knowledge I'm the only contributor to state that I treat the OC argument with utter contempt in the JFK case, I harbor disrespect and scorn for its proponent, and to respond in any other fashion would be to play into the hands of truth deniers.

I am not arguing that we must avoid responding to the truth deniers. Rather, I am urging all of us to characterize our responses with a mixture of well-deserved ridicule and contempt. Don't merely point out how, for instance, the SBT has been proven to be a fiction; further indicate the true motivations of those who would continue to embrace discredited, wholly ridiculous theories in service to the darkest imaginable poltical, cultural, and social agendas.

This is war.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The function of Fred Leuchter is to provide scientific context for the Holocaust denial (HD) position.

The imagined strengths of Leuchter's arguments and the methodologies and data that inform them are irrelevant to this operation. The goal all along had been to apply the imprimatur of science to HD, which in turn now serves as a source of respectability for subsequent like-minded "scholars."

In terms of the subject of this forum, we can cite Alvarez, Lattimer, Guinn, and Specter as being chief among first-generation science deniers and the role models for Rahn, McAdam, Posner, Russo, Myers, and now Bugliosi (at least one of whom is known to embrace HD and to treasure his collection of recorded Nazi marches -- no kidding!).

Theirs and their masters' is a war for the minds and hearts not of our generation (we were lost no later than late morning, CST, 11/24/63), but of those to come. It matters not that all of these charlatans have been revealed for who they are and what they represent. Their work has been done.

Don't agree? Then why does the wholly discredited SBT/fiction and the wholly discredited "science" and "evidence" upon which it was predicated continue to wreak havoc with truth and justice?

We can't kill it, first because it has been allowed to be presented as science, and now because we continue to show collegiality and respect for the liars and/or fools who would mire us in endless debate of the long-settled howdunit question.

(When I write "we" I surely generalize; know that I know.)

On another thread there recently was an attempt to restart the Occam's Razor operation. I was one of many who pointed out the stupidity of such an approach to analysis of the intel op that was/is the JFK assassination and coverup. But to my knowledge I'm the only contributor to state that I treat the OC argument with utter contempt in the JFK case, I harbor disrespect and scorn for its proponent, and to respond in any other fashion would be to play into the hands of truth deniers.

I am not arguing that we must avoid responding to the truth deniers. Rather, I am urging all of us to characterize our responses with a mixture of well-deserved ridicule and contempt. Don't merely point out how, for instance, the SBT has been proven to be a fiction; further indicate the true motivations of those who would continue to embrace discredited, wholly ridiculous theories in service to the darkest imaginable poltical, cultural, and social agendas.

This is war.

Charles

Charles

Do you have any evidence for the claims you make in the first two paragraphs?

Incidentally - and perhaps more importantly - can you explain why you believe the concept of 'truth denial' has any utility if one's goal is to ascertain the truth?

After all, how can one know what's truth denial and what isn't - until one knows what the truth actually is? How can one know the truth without free debate between differing beliefs and perspectives?

Given its inherent circularity, please explain how this notion (truth denial) helps advance understanding in any way at all?

Also, while it has become fashionable in recent decades to declare War on just about everything (Poverty, Drugs, Terror etc). what grounds do you have for believing that a War against 'Untruth' will be any more successful? Who would you put in charge as Commander in Chief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

1. You wrote: "After all, how can one know what's truth denial and what isn't - until one knows what the truth actually is? How can one know the truth without free debate between differing beliefs and perspectives?" --

Indeed, we are in basic agreement: One simply cannot know the truth absent the exchange of viewpoints you describe. But in the case of the conspiratorial murder of JFK, decades of free debate have settled the issue, the truth is known in terms of the "how" of the event, and further debate can serve no useful purposes other than to prolong the protection and further the balance of the goals of the conspirators.

2. You wrote: "Also, while it has become fashionable in recent decades to declare War on just about everything (Poverty, Drugs, Terror etc). what grounds do you have for believing that a War against 'Untruth' will be any more successful?" --

There were no tender mercies extended in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Shots were fired not just at a single man, but at a government, a people, a way of life. I will resist to the end any notion that we must do less than return the fire. Failure is not an option. And failure, I submit, is what we're about if we content ourselves with polite exchanges of viewpoints.

3. You wrote: "Given its inherent circularity, please explain how this notion (truth denial) helps advance understanding in any way at all?" --

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth. Those who are in a position to understand this yet who continue to deny the truth are complicit in the conspiracy. Understanding of the "who" and "why" of the assassination conspiracy cannot be advanced absent acceptance and spirited championing of the basic "how" truth. Endlessly debating same plays into the hands of those for whom existence depends upon endless debate. Do you have any doubt whatsoever that conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth? If not, say so and act accordingly.

4. You wrote: "Do you have any evidence for the claims you make in the first two paragraphs?" --

I am at a loss to explain the acceptance of nonsense by sensible people except as a tactic in a larger ... wait for it ... war.

A final word about my position on Holocaust Denial may be in order. Acceptance of the historical truth of what has come to be known as the Holocaust in no way absolves those who would trade in that truth for personal and/or nationalistic advantage. I see no moral difference whatsoever between what the state of Israel inflicts upon the Palestinians and what the Nazis inflicted upon the Jews of Europe.

One need not deny the Holocaust in order to decry predatory Zionism. Netanyahu drinks from Goering's gilded chalice. A plague on all their houses.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

1. You wrote: "After all, how can one know what's truth denial and what isn't - until one knows what the truth actually is? How can one know the truth without free debate between differing beliefs and perspectives?" --

Indeed, we are in basic agreement: One simply cannot know the truth absent the exchange of viewpoints you describe. But in the case of the conspiratorial murder of JFK, decades of free debate have settled the issue, the truth is known in terms of the "how" of the event, and further debate can serve no useful purposes other than to prolong the protection and further the balance of the goals of the conspirators.

2. You wrote: "Also, while it has become fashionable in recent decades to declare War on just about everything (Poverty, Drugs, Terror etc). what grounds do you have for believing that a War against 'Untruth' will be any more successful?" --

There were no tender mercies extended in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Shots were fired not just at a single man, but at a government, a people, a way of life. I will resist to the end any notion that we must do less than return the fire. Failure is not an option. And failure, I submit, is what we're about if we content ourselves with polite exchanges of viewpoints.

3. You wrote: "Given its inherent circularity, please explain how this notion (truth denial) helps advance understanding in any way at all?" --

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth. Those who are in a position to understand this yet who continue to deny the truth are complicit in the conspiracy. Understanding of the "who" and "why" of the assassination conspiracy cannot be advanced absent acceptance and spirited championing of the basic "how" truth. Endlessly debating same plays into the hands of those for whom existence depends upon endless debate. Do you have any doubt whatsoever that conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth? If not, say so and act accordingly.

4. You wrote: "Do you have any evidence for the claims you make in the first two paragraphs?" --

I am at a loss to explain the acceptance of nonsense by sensible people except as a tactic in a larger ... wait for it ... war.

A final word about my position on Holocaust Denial may be in order. Acceptance of the historical truth of what has come to be known as the Holocaust in no way absolves those who would trade in that truth for personal and/or nationalistic advantage. I see no moral difference whatsoever between what the state of Israel inflicts upon the Palestinians and what the Nazis inflicted upon the Jews of Europe.

One need not deny the Holocaust in order to decry predatory Zionism. Netanyahu drinks from Goering's gilded chalice. A plague on all their houses.

Charles

Thanks for your courteous reply Charles.

As you point out, we seem to agree about plenty.

I'd like to focus my reply on your third point, a reply to my question: "Given its inherent circularity, please explain how this notion (truth denial) helps advance understanding in any way at all?"

You wrote:

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth. Those who are in a position to understand this yet who continue to deny the truth are complicit in the conspiracy. Understanding of the "who" and "why" of the assassination conspiracy cannot be advanced absent acceptance and spirited championing of the basic "how" truth. Endlessly debating same plays into the hands of those for whom existence depends upon endless debate. Do you have any doubt whatsoever that conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth? If not, say so and act accordingly.

I share your view that "conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth".

However, I'd like to say that I came to that view because I was able to hear all sides of the debate.

There are, in reality, many perspectives on the assassination. There are many theories about what happened, one of which, of course, is the official Warren Commission story.

I found it frustrating at times that there were so many views. How could I ever find a way through the maze of assertion and counter-assertion?

In the end, I feel I made it... at least to what I believe is a better than elementary understanding of this important historical event. I did so by spending a lot of time thinking about it. Especially useful to me were debates between people who already knew a lot more about the topic than I did. In open multi-sided discourse, I find, it is easier to glean who's honest and who isn't, who advances logical arguments and who doesn't.

Now, contrast the 'Holocaust', another significant historical event.

Please note I did not introduce this topic into the thread. You did.

In this case, it is next to impossible to find closely argued dialogue on matters of substance between those who promote the official view about what happened and those who are critics of this official narrative in a fundamental way.

Why is this so?

One thing is for sure. Reluctance to debate is on one side only. The dissenters seek debate. Those who promote (and enforce) the official 'Holocaust' narrative, on the other hand, refuse genuine dialogue, limiting their response to ever-louder assertions that their views are self-evidently correct - and often quite vicious ad hominem attacks on their opponents.

The parallel you seek to draw between these two historical events and their subsequent evaluation as historical events is therefore, IMO, quite misleading.

It is more than 60 years after the Second World War, yet we are still waiting for an open debate about what really happened during that important period of history - a carefully considered dialogue, free from hateful assertions that one side of the debate can only possibly be motivated by malice.

Indeed, not only are we still waiting for the debate.

There is, in fact, an active push - orchestrated by the Zionist lobby - to make such debate illegal worldwide.

I have no doubt that, if this push is successful, it will impinge on our freedom to discuss the JFK assassination (and many other important events).

The books of Michael Collins Piper, for instance, would probably be banned under such a regime. Discussion about the possibility (some would say likelihood) that JFK's murder was coordinated by high-level Zionists would thereby be severely constrained. We might have to refer to Piper's ideas without mentioning him by name. On this forum, Andy would probably argue that threads covering his theories must be deleted to comply with the new law. If ever the precedent is set to close down free speech on one topic - worldwide - it's not hard to imagine its extension to other topics... perhaps to any other topic that might be deemed 'anti-Semitic'.

That is why, IMO, this topic is very important and worth discussing.

Humanity is, IMO, on the brink of a very serious mistake, a mistake that would, in effect, help perpetuate the worst legacies of the Second World War ad infinitum. It should be resisted - especially by historians, whose very subject matter is at stake.

Suppose etymologists were told that, from now on, they could only discuss one of the many families of beetles within pre-determined legal guidelines as to what was true about that subject matter and what was not.

I imagine they would roar with laughter first up... then, when they realized this was not being suggested in jest, they would be utterly outraged.

In this era at least, (most) historians seem to be a more timid and malleable lot.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid,

I too reached the truth in the JFK case in large but hardly exclusive measure by analyzing both sides of the howdunit question.

Accordingly, I do not argue that the truth deniers -- defined as those who, in a position to know how JFK was murdered, yet defend one or more versions of the no-conspiracy falsehood for reasons that can only be sinister in nature -- should be silenced or ignored.

Rather, I am pleading for both a no-holds-barred attack on the Posner/Bugliosi brigades, and for an aggressive presentation of the facts to newcomers to the case in which the LN position is immediately, consistently, scientifically, and logically demonstrated to be what it has been since its pre-assassination inception: a fable, one designed to protect and further enrich the conspirators and disenfranchise Americans and keep a knife at the throats of all humankind.

As for the Holocaust: Yes, I did introduce the old concensus-builder into the mix, so I'm obliged to clarify my related positions.

-- Criminalizing Holocaust Denial is, if I may borrow a term, a crime against humanity.

(I champion, say, Bugliosi's right to deny the conspiratorial JFK truth, but I hold him in utter contempt for doing so, and I would not hesitate to engage him during his upcoming book tour and beyond not in polite debate, but rather in the most bellicose assaults on his arguments and his integrity.)

-- I accept, after studies of the pro and con arguments that have been far more than superficial but far less comprehensive than my work on the JFK case, the historical truth of the systematic extermination of European Jewry by the Nazi state. I do not engage in Holocaust envy, so I accept that the final numbers of victims (six million? more? less?) cannot ever be ascertained. "Millions" tells us all we need to know.

-- I accept that some 20 million Soviets were murdered during the same period -- human beings whose lives were as sacred as those stolen, say, in Auschwitz.

-- I accept as historical fact that the Holocaust has been manipulated by opposing political and cultural forces to justify criminal acts and control the future by controlling the past.

-- I wish to be most clear now: The parallel which I draw between the Holocaust and the JFK assassination relates solely to the manners in which their respective true natures are being denied by the heirs of their respective perpetrators.

If tomorrow the Holocaust were to be proved to be exactly what, say, David Irving says it was/wasn't -- and in the spirit of full disclosure I must state that I have not the slightest expectation that such proof ever will be offered because it simply does not exist -- the truth of conspiracy in JFK will not somehow be "less true."

-- Your take on contemporary historians is on the money.

-- You wrote -- and it's worth reprinting -- "Humanity is, IMO, on the brink of a very serious mistake [by criminalizing Holocaust Ddenial], a mistake that would, in effect, help perpetuate the worst legacies of the Second World War ad infinitum. It should be resisted - especially by historians, whose very subject matter is at stake."

Agreed. And I would further argue that we who champion the conspiratorial truth of the JFK assassination have a special, heightened responsibility to fight against all such laws -- whether or not they are passed.

-- Any reasonably informed, free-thinking, unimpaired individual who would respond to criticism of Zionism by leveling against the critic an unsubstantiated charge of anti-semitism is a fool, a cad, or both.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The function of Fred Leuchter is to provide scientific context for the Holocaust denial (HD) position.

The imagined strengths of Leuchter's arguments and the methodologies and data that inform them are irrelevant to this operation. The goal all along had been to apply the imprimatur of science to HD, which in turn now serves as a source of respectability for subsequent like-minded "scholars."

In terms of the subject of this forum, we can cite Alvarez, Lattimer, Guinn, and Specter as being chief among first-generation science deniers and the role models for Rahn, McAdam, Posner, Russo, Myers, and now Bugliosi (at least one of whom is known to embrace HD and to treasure his collection of recorded Nazi marches -- no kidding!).

Theirs and their masters' is a war for the minds and hearts not of our generation (we were lost no later than late morning, CST, 11/24/63), but of those to come. It matters not that all of these charlatans have been revealed for who they are and what they represent. Their work has been done.

Don't agree? Then why does the wholly discredited SBT/fiction and the wholly discredited "science" and "evidence" upon which it was predicated continue to wreak havoc with truth and justice?

We can't kill it, first because it has been allowed to be presented as science, and now because we continue to show collegiality and respect for the liars and/or fools who would mire us in endless debate of the long-settled howdunit question.

(When I write "we" I surely generalize; know that I know.)

On another thread there recently was an attempt to restart the Occam's Razor operation.

Charles, what is "the Occam's Razor operation"?

I don't see any need to cede the principle of parsimony to the forces covering up

the JFK assassination.

I was one of many who pointed out the stupidity of such an approach to analysis of the intel op that was/is the JFK assassination and coverup.
If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operation

than the "official lone-nut" cover-up, am I some kind of "denier"?

Seems clear to me the original "cover-up" plot was to blame the whole thing on Castro.

The assassins lost control of the cover-up when Oswald was captured alive.

But to my knowledge I'm the only contributor to state that I treat the OC argument with utter contempt in the JFK case, I harbor disrespect and scorn for its proponent, and to respond in any other fashion would be to play into the hands of truth deniers.

I am not arguing that we must avoid responding to the truth deniers. Rather, I am urging all of us to characterize our responses with a mixture of well-deserved ridicule and contempt. Don't merely point out how, for instance, the SBT has been proven to be a fiction; further indicate the true motivations of those who would continue to embrace discredited, wholly ridiculous theories in service to the darkest imaginable poltical, cultural, and social agendas.

I'm all about ridicule and contempt -- I've got plenty of it archived on Google groups

over the last full decade.

My deepest animosity is reserved for CT pet theories based on blatantly false

LN talking points.

In fact, I do not divide the world in LN/CT. I divide the world into those who

acknowledge the historical fact that JFK was shot in the back at the level of

his 3rd Thoracic Vertebra (T3), and those who peg it at T1 or above.

The latter group includes all LNers and a shocking number of CTs.

e.g., this piece of utter fraud:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_ev...ing3--Hunt.html

This is war.

Charles

It's info war. The fact of conspiracy is/was readily established by the

location of the holes in the clothes.

Gaeton Fonzi established this fact over 40 years ago and yet people

bandy about the utterly pernicious notion of "Question of Conspiracy"

and a legion of private armchair detectives doggedly set out to "answer"

this purported "question."

But there hasn't been any "Question" about it, not since Fonzi first published

photos of the shirt and it's too-low-for-SBT bullet hole back in 1966.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/F...th_Specter.html

I can't help it -- I feel contempt for arguments against the SBT based on anything other

than the clothing evidence.

That whole business with the NAA analysis was a cock-up between Single

Bullet Theorists who posit a "high back wound" whether they were CT or LN.

This is part of an e-mail exchange I had with Jim Marrs back in '02:

Hey Jim,

I'd like to ask your permission to use the following quote from your e-mail:

(quote on)

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder

blades, it reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission

smokescreen, namely that he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't

be misled by the claim that his jacket was somehow bunched up because

hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't bunch up.

Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is

that the single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin

theory doesn't work and therefore there has been a big cover up by the

government....period.

(quote off)

That sums it up to a T.

Much regard,

Cliff Varnell

(emphasis added)

This is Jim's reply to my request.

Howdy Cliff,

Have at it. This IS the core issue of the JFK assassination. After this,

the tramps, missing signs, how many shots, all become just window

dressing. The question then becomes not who killed JFK but who has the

staying power to cover up a crime of this magnitude? This is what

changes his death from a Texas homicide to a coup d'etat.

Best regards,

Jim Marrs

Sadly, the cover-up has taken on a life of its own. 95% of what is written

about the JFK assassination is "window dressing" -- and I don't spare myself

from this assessment.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I thank you, too, for a most challenging reply.

You wrote: "[W]hat is 'the Occam's Razor operation'? I don't see any need to cede the principle of parsimony to the forces covering up the JFK assassination."

Allow me to explain: On the "Political Conspiracies" site, in a topic titled "Eject! Eject! Eject!" by Craig Lamson, I responded to the author's efforts to deny the truth of conspiracy by fallaciously applying the principle of Occam's Razor in analysis of the JFK assassination thusly:

Mr. Lamson writes:

"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."

Not quite.

The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.

The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."

Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.

The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?

Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?

Charles

***

Perhaps I might have been more artful in my prose: The principle of parsimony does not work when applied to analyses of intelligence operations if the data under scrutiny is limited to the cover stories.

You wrote: "If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operation than the 'official lone-nut' cover-up, am I some kind of 'denier'?"

On the contrary: you are a a speaker and champion of the truth.

I find your focus on the SBT lie to be productive, and I applaud your attitude and tone when expounding upon the subject.

Further, I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the materials found at the website you reference. I am all too familiar with its author and his ... problems.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I thank you, too, for a most challenging reply.

You wrote: "[W]hat is 'the Occam's Razor operation'? I don't see any need to cede the principle of parsimony to the forces covering up the JFK assassination."

Allow me to explain: On the "Political Conspiracies" site, in a topic titled "Eject! Eject! Eject!" by Craig Lamson, I responded to the author's efforts to deny the truth of conspiracy by fallaciously applying the principle of Occam's Razor in analysis of the JFK assassination thusly:

Mr. Lamson writes:

"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."

Not quite.

The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.

The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."

Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.

The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?

Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?

Charles

***

Perhaps I might have been more artful in my prose: The principle of parsimony does not work when applied to analyses of intelligence operations if the data under scrutiny is limited to the cover stories.

You wrote: "If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operation than the 'official lone-nut' cover-up, am I some kind of 'denier'?"

On the contrary: you are a a speaker and champion of the truth.

I find your focus on the SBT lie to be productive, and I applaud your attitude and tone when expounding upon the subject.

Further, I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the materials found at the website you reference. I am all too familiar with its author and his ... problems.

Charles

Mr Drago,

I suggest you define my work on the EJECT thread properly.

You wrote:

Mr. Lamson writes:

"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."

Of course I wrote no such thing. I posted a linked article by another author. Your inability to understand the difference casts a HUGE cloud over you sir.

You also wrote the following:

"But in the case of the conspiratorial murder of JFK, decades of free debate have settled the issue, the truth is known in terms of the "how" of the event, and further debate can serve no useful purposes other than to prolong the protection and further the balance of the goals of the conspirators."

So the issue is settled is it? Great. Since you claim to know the "how" then lay it all out for us including the placement of the shooters, the number of shots... everything. Make sure you include all the supporting evidence to back your position that you KNOW the how. Is the debate really over? I doubt it but lets see if you can back that one up.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- Any reasonably informed, free-thinking, unimpaired individual who would respond to criticism of Zionism by leveling against the critic an unsubstantiated charge of anti-semitism is a fool, a cad, or both.

Charles,

Sorry for slicing this small piece from your fine post, but I think it's worth repeating for the benefit of readers.

The Holocaust and the myths that may or may not surround it is a low order issue with me. Exposing those responsible for JFK's assassination is much more important. However, criminalising public debate of the issue is, as John Simkin aptly described it on another thread, daft. It happened, it was horrible, and those responsible were guilty of crimes against humanity. What I can't understand is why this atrocity should be elevated by legal sanction above all of history's other crimes against humanity, to the extent where its mere public discussion is verboten under threat of imprisonment. I agree with Sid Walker on this. Surely this kind of legislation is a throwback to the dark ages. A mistake.

Criticising Zionism attracts nasty retribution, although not quite as fierce as those who question facts surrounding the holocaust. Fortunately, I'm not in the latter group but I'm definitely in the former. The latest charge levelled against Sid is that his motive in questioning the Holocaust orthodoxy is the revival of National Socialism. Such an accusation is a little extreme, I would say.

I've been lucky enough to escape with just the anti-Semite tag I've recieved in discussions in the political debates section. It doesn't bother me because its rubbish. What is a little more disturbing is the subtle inference from some one or two regular posters in the JFK threads that a suspicion of Israeli Government involvement in the assassination is tantamount to anti-Semitism. Hence, any such suspicion equals an agenda against the Jewish people. Of course, they never emerge from behind the bushes and state exactly why one equals the other, because such a claim can't be sustained. They like taking pot shots from behind the bushes, though, without directly committing themselves to the claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- Any reasonably informed, free-thinking, unimpaired individual who would respond to criticism of Zionism by leveling against the critic an unsubstantiated charge of anti-semitism is a fool, a cad, or both.

Charles,

Sorry for slicing this small piece from your fine post, but I think it's worth repeating for the benefit of readers.

The Holocaust and the myths that may or may not surround it is a low order issue with me. Exposing those responsible for JFK's assassination is much more important. However, criminalising public debate of the issue is, as John Simkin aptly described it on another thread, daft. It happened, it was horrible, and those responsible were guilty of crimes against humanity. What I can't understand is why this atrocity should be elevated by legal sanction above all of history's other crimes against humanity, to the extent where its mere public discussion is verboten under threat of imprisonment. I agree with Sid Walker on this. Surely this kind of legislation is a throwback to the dark ages. A mistake.

Criticising Zionism attracts nasty retribution, although not quite as fierce as those who question facts surrounding the holocaust. Fortunately, I'm not in the latter group but I'm definitely in the former. The latest charge levelled against Sid is that his motive in questioning the Holocaust orthodoxy is the revival of National Socialism. Such an accusation is a little extreme, I would say.

I've been lucky enough to escape with just the anti-Semite tag I've recieved in discussions in the political debates section. It doesn't bother me because its rubbish. What is a little more disturbing is the subtle inference from some one or two regular posters in the JFK threads that a suspicion of Israeli Government involvement in the assassination is tantamount to anti-Semitism. Hence, any such suspicion equals an agenda against the Jewish people. Of course, they never emerge from behind the bushes and state exactly why one equals the other, because such a claim can't be sustained. They like taking pot shots from behind the bushes, though, without directly committing themselves to the claim.

Mark,

Interesting, is it not, how ignorance and arrogance regularly arrive in the same coach.

Your points are well taken. If I may expand upon them:

The rights to challenge Holocaust orthodoxy and to charge those who do so with anti-Semitism are inviolate and equally deserving of our best defense.

The obligations of free-thinking men and women to indicate, explain, and scorn the latters' failures of logic and their deeper political agenda are just as pressing, and the advantages to be gained from defending all speech are just as plain.

It was the historian Gordon Craig, in his New York Review of Books analysis of David Irving’s controversial biography of Josef Goebbels, who saw this issue most clearly:

“Recently,” Craig wrote, “when Christopher Hitchins talked with Raul Hilberg, author of the classic text The Destruction of the European Jews, he found him unambiguous on this point. ‘If these people want to speak,’ Hilberg said, ‘let them. It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that’s useful for us. I have quoted Eichmann references that come from a neo-Nazi publishing house. I am not for taboos and I am not for repression.'”

As far as the ongoing struggle for the soul of this nation and the future of this planet is concerned, however, and in the spirit of fair and full disclosure, I must quote an element of Craig's thinking with which I disagree:

“It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth," Craig explained. "What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear, however implausible they may be, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma and shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have an indisputable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views."

I fervantly disagree with Craig's basic premise. Why modify "truth" with "historical" or any other word? I do not "estimate" that John Kennedy was murdered in Dallas on 11/22/63. I do not "estimate" that there is not a scintilla of valid evidence to support a non-conspiratorial explanation for that crime. There is no need to "estimate" that which has been demonstrated to be true by the applications of unbiased scientific investigation and common sense evaluation.

I do agree that the JFK event's versions of David Irving indeed play an "indisputable part" in our honest investigations of the assassination. Their (the well-informed non-crazies) transparently sinister agendas and laughable methods are among the best weapons we have in this ongoing war for history. So yes, we dare not "disregard" the Irvings' views; left unaddressed, they will attain the status of "historical truth."

There can be no moral response to the truth deniers that does not include explanations of their subtexts and good old fashioned ridicule.

So as Craig says, by all means let us put the truth deniers' claims up against the truth -- but within a context that does not afford to them or their "ideas" the slightest collegiality or respect.

Thanks again, Mark, for your thoughts.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I thank you, too, for a most challenging reply.

You wrote: "[W]hat is 'the Occam's Razor operation'? I don't see any need to cede the principle of parsimony to the forces covering up the JFK assassination."

Allow me to explain: On the "Political Conspiracies" site, in a topic titled "Eject! Eject! Eject!" by Craig Lamson, I responded to the author's efforts to deny the truth of conspiracy by fallaciously applying the principle of Occam's Razor in analysis of the JFK assassination thusly:

Mr. Lamson writes:

"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."

Not quite.

The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.

The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."

Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.

The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?

Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?

Charles

Charles,

Going into this discussion I figured that you and I were either on the same page,

or poles apart.

Happily, the former is the case. You see, I'm preparing a website called

occamsrazorjfk.net...

The utility of Occam's Razor is the elimination of assumption from an argument,

or own or other's. We wield William's blade to (1) strengthen our arguments by

paring off our own assumptions, (2) and to demolish opposing arguments based

on unsupported assumption.

For defenders of the SBT to invoke the principle of parsimony, solely because

it is "simpler" to fire 3 shots than 4, is the height of irony.

There is nothing "simple" about an impossibility.

Bullets do not make mid-air course changes on their own power.

Multi-inches of bunched up clothing fabric cannot occupy the same physical

space at the same time as a jacket collar.

This is the non sequitur at the heart of the LNT, in regards to the crucial

physical evidence -- the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket.

1) The Single Bullet Theory requires 2+ inches of JFK's jacket and

2+ inches of his shirt to have elevated in tandem entirely above the

SBT in-shoot at C7/T1.

2) The motorcade photos show that JFK's jacket sometimes had folds

in the upper back.

3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket each elevated 2+ inches entirely

above C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck.

LNers and Vichy CTs trot out this wholly unsupported assumption dressed

as an example of Occam's Razor...Ludicrous in the extreme!

The jacket actually dropped about an inch in Dealey Plaza -- a fact which

directly debunks the theory/fallacy of multi-inch clothing elevation required

by the SBT.

Here's a little poem about the Jefferies and Towner films...

I call this little poem -- "A Fact Cannot Be Plagiarized"

-

The jacket up on Main St.

To fit the S.B.T?

http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv

The jacket down on Elm St.

Four plus shots, conspiracy.

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

-

JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the nape of his neck in the Jefferies film, taken

90 seconds before the shooting.

But JFK's shirt collar was visible in the Towner film, taken just a few seconds before

the shooting.

Perhaps Craig Lamson (if he's reading) will apply Occam's Razor to this observation.

As a supporter of the SBT (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, Mr. Lamson,

if you are reading), will you offer a "simple" explanation as to how JFK's jacket collar

could fall to a normal position at the base of his neck if there were 2+" of his jacket

and 2+" of his shirt bunched up at that same location -- at the base of his neck?

I don't blame you should you decide not to answer, Mr. Lamson.

Any answer other than an intellectually honest one may draw expressions of ridicule

and contempt.

***

Perhaps I might have been more artful in my prose: The principle of parsimony does not work when applied to analyses of intelligence operations if the data under scrutiny is limited to the cover stories.

You wrote: "If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operation than the 'official lone-nut' cover-up, am I some kind of 'denier'?"

On the contrary: you are a a speaker and champion of the truth.

I find your focus on the SBT lie to be productive, and I applaud your attitude and tone when expounding upon the subject.

Further, I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the materials found at the website you reference. I am all too familiar with its author and his ... problems.

Charles

A first-rate obfuscationist, that one, even worse, because he's actually done some valuable

work, gems amid the ego-driven dreck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I thank you, too, for a most challenging reply.

You wrote: "[W]hat is 'the Occam's Razor operation'? I don't see any need to cede the principle of parsimony to the forces covering up the JFK assassination."

Allow me to explain: On the "Political Conspiracies" site, in a topic titled "Eject! Eject! Eject!" by Craig Lamson, I responded to the author's efforts to deny the truth of conspiracy by fallaciously applying the principle of Occam's Razor in analysis of the JFK assassination thusly:

Mr. Lamson writes:

"Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct. It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency."

Not quite.

The principle of parsimony, or the principle of unnecessary plurality, holds that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Sir Isaac Newton asserted it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

And herein lies the rub. William's cutting instrument is shattered when it strikes the granite that is an intelligence operation's cover story or an intelligence operative's legend -- "appearances" or fictions reverse-engineered, if you will, from the great principle precisely to meet its standards -- fictions designed to appear to be simple explanations for events that are by definition complex in the extreme -- fictions created to obscure the underlying truth.

The lone nut fiction/conclusion is dependent for its "proof" on carefully selected "supporting" data (itself for the most part contrived: LHO the loner, the SBT, etc,), carefully rejected conflicting data (where to begin?), and the purposeful confusion of the concepts of "simple" and "simple-minded."

Occam's Razor is WORTHLESS as a tool for direct analysis of intelligence operations, but remains of value when utlilized as a negative template for our investigations.

The SBT would bring a smile to William's face; it is simple, elegant ... and indefensible when viewed in the context of the evidence. But wait ... why look beyond what is elegantly simple ... why dig for, discover, and disseminate the evidence that renders the SBT inoperative when it would be so ... simple ... to accept this simple-minded "theory" and move on?

Any argument for the Lone Nut position that is based upon the validity of the application of Occam's Razor to this case is by definition a sophistry -a "deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

So can we please move on from these elaborately sophistic, egregiously worded "arguments"?

Charles

Charles,

Going into this discussion I figured that you and I were either on the same page,

or poles apart.

Happily, the former is the case. You see, I'm preparing a website called

occamsrazorjfk.net...

The utility of Occam's Razor is the elimination of assumption from an argument,

or own or other's. We wield William's blade to (1) strengthen our arguments by

paring off our own assumptions, (2) and to demolish opposing arguments based

on unsupported assumption.

For defenders of the SBT to invoke the principle of parsimony, solely because

it is "simpler" to fire 3 shots than 4, is the height of irony.

There is nothing "simple" about an impossibility.

Bullets do not make mid-air course changes on their own power.

Multi-inches of bunched up clothing fabric cannot occupy the same physical

space at the same time as a jacket collar.

This is the non sequitur at the heart of the LNT, in regards to the crucial

physical evidence -- the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket.

1) The Single Bullet Theory requires 2+ inches of JFK's jacket and

2+ inches of his shirt to have elevated in tandem entirely above the

SBT in-shoot at C7/T1.

2) The motorcade photos show that JFK's jacket sometimes had folds

in the upper back.

3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket each elevated 2+ inches entirely

above C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck.

LNers and Vichy CTs trot out this wholly unsupported assumption dressed

as an example of Occam's Razor...Ludicrous in the extreme!

The jacket actually dropped about an inch in Dealey Plaza -- a fact which

directly debunks the theory/fallacy of multi-inch clothing elevation required

by the SBT.

Here's a little poem about the Jefferies and Towner films...

I call this little poem -- "A Fact Cannot Be Plagiarized"

-

The jacket up on Main St.

To fit the S.B.T?

http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv

The jacket down on Elm St.

Four plus shots, conspiracy.

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

-

JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the nape of his neck in the Jefferies film, taken

90 seconds before the shooting.

But JFK's shirt collar was visible in the Towner film, taken just a few seconds before

the shooting.

Perhaps Craig Lamson (if he's reading) will apply Occam's Razor to this observation.

As a supporter of the SBT (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, Mr. Lamson,

if you are reading), will you offer a "simple" explanation as to how JFK's jacket collar

could fall to a normal position at the base of his neck if there were 2+" of his jacket

and 2+" of his shirt bunched up at that same location -- at the base of his neck?

I don't blame you should you decide not to answer, Mr. Lamson.

Any answer other than an intellectually honest one may draw expressions of ridicule

and contempt.

***

Perhaps I might have been more artful in my prose: The principle of parsimony does not work when applied to analyses of intelligence operations if the data under scrutiny is limited to the cover stories.

You wrote: "If I posit the view that the assassination was a completely different operation than the 'official lone-nut' cover-up, am I some kind of 'denier'?"

On the contrary: you are a a speaker and champion of the truth.

I find your focus on the SBT lie to be productive, and I applaud your attitude and tone when expounding upon the subject.

Further, I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the materials found at the website you reference. I am all too familiar with its author and his ... problems.

Charles

A first-rate obfuscationist, that one, even worse, because he's actually done some valuable

work, gems amid the ego-driven dreck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...