The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[Colin Crow]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html#Bonnie-Ray-Williams

Excerpted from my page above:


TONY FRATINI SAID:

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me."

Bingo - do you want me to draw you a schematic?

If he was at the two wheeler - he could see all the way to the SN, David.

He couldn't see anything to the EAST because he was at the SOUTHEAST corner.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You actually think a person who is ALREADY AS FAR EAST AS HE COULD POSSIBLY BE on the sixth floor would say something like this?....

"I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building."

Hilarious!

The above quote by Bonnie Ray Williams quite obviously indicates that the one place on the sixth floor where he definitely WAS NOT located was the Sniper's Nest (i.e., the far southeast corner).

This is quite simple.....The following Officers provided statements in one form or another regarding the position of the chicken and or lunch sack. Mooney, McCurley, Faulkner, Craig, Hill, Weatherford, Brewer and Boone. These observations where generally made before the arrival of Fritz. All are consistent with the contents located in the SN.

David's argument on his page does not address this fact and simply states that Mooney was mistaken.

David quotes Williams WC testimony. Williams was an unreliable witness as I have shown by his various statements prior to his appearance before the WC. He had motive to be deceptive about his movements. He was on the 6th floor until about 5 minutes before the shots. He had eaten in the SN and for some reason decided to vacate his position around that time.

More gold for you to mine.

[David Von Pein]

More gold for you to mine.

No need to. It's already been hashed out (probably multiple times) in my Part 914.

It's the usual "Everybody Is A Liar Except Lee Oswald" situation. I've seen it dozens of times. (Just ask DiEugenio. He's got more liars than the current White House staff employs. IOW, the more liars, the better.)

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes. And it's just exactly what many "CTers" do as well. I.E. --- the CTer will quote excerpts from somebody's posts [including mine] and put them on their own sites and then the CTer comments on those quoted excerpts. Happens every day. And always will, of course. Such as at CTer Pat Speer's website. I wish there were more sensible CTers like Pat Speer. Not that Pat doesn't have some really goofy notions about the JFK case at times too [he surely does]; but, overall, he's certainly one of the more reasonable and sensible "CTers" to occupy the planet. Such as when he said the following at the EF forum recently....


PAT SPEER SAID:

I am of two minds on this subject.

1. Yes, DVP's extracts were edited to help his arguments. That is annoying. But at least he quoted his discussions accurately. As a result, a number of his extracts showed his short-mindedness, to the extent even that a newbie stumbling on his site would undoubtedly side against him.

2. The idea that one can not quote public statements without the approval of the person making these statements is short-sighted, IMO. And extremely damaging to the goals of the members of this forum. If someone writes something outrageous, or dead wrong, these statements should not be withheld as personal property, or any such thing. I make dozens if not hundreds of references to online discussions on my website. I quote online discussions with LNers and CTs alike. Some of the quotes involve eyewitnesses (I met so and so and they told me such and such). But most of them reveal mind-set. I use McAdams' own words against him. I use DVP's own words against him. And yes, I use the words of CT's like Fetzer against them.

It should be noted, moreover, that among the best quotes I've been able to get via the various JFK forums are quotes from Dale Myers, in which he (badly, IMO) defends his SBT animation. I received these quotes via a middleman who took my complaints about Myers' animation to the source, begged for a response, and then posted Myers' response on the forums. This middleman--David Von Pein.

It should be noted, furthermore, that at least one blogger who is not a member of the forums picked up on my online discussion (via DVP) with Myers, and exposed Myers' questionable methodology to thousands of readers who presumably never read the forums.

So...to my way of thinking, this is how it should work. Anyone who is a public figure (which perhaps should be defined as anyone who has written a published book on the subject, made a TV appearance on the subject, or even, written extensively on a personal website on the subject) is fair game, and has no real gripe when they are accurately quoted extensively. But anyone who is not a public figure (i.e. the majority of those on this forum) is not fair game, and should only be quoted by name with permission, should they ask this to be the case. This does not, to be clear, prevent someone such as DVP from quoting them anonymously, moreover. In such case, an extract or article could be written exposing inaccurate CT thinking or inaccurate LN thinking by attributing the quote to "anonymous CT" or "anonymous LN."

My two cents.


PAT SPEER LATER SAID:

This forum was conceived as a place where people can share ideas about the assassination...and have them read by people from all over the world. When it was set up, there were a number of "private" forums, where people shared ideas with a small group of people. Most of those forums have since disappeared, along with the vast majority of the posts on these forums. Those wishing to join private forums now join Facebook groups, and have their posts read by perhaps as many as 20 or 30 people, as opposed to the 100 to 1,000 that are likely to read a post on this forum.

Taking this forum private so no one can copy the words of those uncomfortable with the idea someone might copy and paste their words elsewhere on the internet would be silly, IMO. It's WHY this forum was founded, for crying out loud. John Simkin used posts from this forum to fill in blanks on his Spartacus website. He never asked for permission to quote posts on his website. It was John's hope this website would become a Spartacus-like resource used by people around the world. So he contacted a number of researchers, writers and witnesses, asked them to join, and allowed newbies like myself to join in the discussion. Thankfully, the vast majority of these posts are still available for study.

Feel free to copy and paste this post anywhere you like.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/page/25/?tab=comments#comment-405552

And it's just exactly what many "CTers" do as well.

That's a childish "the other guy does it, so I am allowed to do it" argument that just doesn't convince.

Happens every day

Does it? I have never seen a site like that. Can you provide a link to such a site?

I have to admit that I do not read your site and haven't done so for some time. This is because the first time I ended up on your site somewhat by accident, I noticed that you had used one of my postings (that was part of a back and forth discussion) on this forum and you added your own reply, which I totally disagreed with and felt was a completely unfair misrepresentation of what my actual point was. When I looked if I could reply I found I couldn't and that for me was enough to ignore your site ever since. If you wanted to engage my comments in a proper discussion, you could have done so on this forum, but you did not do so and I can only conclude that was for a self serving purpose.

Want to talk about free speech? Give those to who you reply with ridicule and misrepresenation on your own site the possibility to do so!

[John Mytton]

Hmmmm… but taking parts of conversations on other forums and placing them on your propaganda site for you to attack and ridicule whatever and whenever you want without the other persons involved in the original conversation having any access to your site to reply …….. that's freedom of speech in your mind?

All CT's except you of course Martin, see themselves as Oswald's defence lawyers and usually in court after the defence has presented their case the Prosecution gives their final summation and thus has the last word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_argument

JohnM

[John Mytton]

How does the feeling of having the consent to do what you do compare to your theft and betrayal?

Betrayed? Did David edit any of the verbatim posts that he transferred?

JohnM

[David Von Pein]

And it's just exactly what many "CTers" do as well.

That's a childish "the other guy does it, so I am allowed to do it" argument that just doesn't convince.

But you're never going to get angry at a CTer who is doing it, right? (Of course I'm right.)

I have to admit that I do not read your site and haven't done so for some time. This is because the first time I ended up on your site somewhat by accident, I noticed that you had used one of my postings (that was part of a back and forth discussion) on this forum and you added your own reply, which I totally disagreed with and felt was a completely unfair misrepresentation of what my actual point was. When I looked if I could reply I found I couldn't and that for me was enough to ignore your site ever since. If you wanted to engage my comments in a proper discussion, you could have done so on this forum, but you did not do so and I can only conclude that was for a self serving purpose.

Got a link to it so I can check it out?

Why do you think it was a discussion that didn't occur originally at THIS forum? Because if it was a discussion that originated at THIS forum, then my reply that appears on my blog is very likely IDENTICAL to the reply I gave you on THIS forum too.

Want to talk about free speech? Give those to who[m] you reply with ridicule and misrepresenation [sic] the possibility to do so!

Oh, you mean the way Pat Speer does on his website (where no one can directly reply on his site to his criticisms and/or ridicule either)?

And the constant "misrepresentation" whine from CTers is getting tiresome. That's a false accusation, IMO.

[Martin Weidmann]

All CT's except you of course Martin, see themselves as Oswald's defence lawyers and usually in court after the defence has presented their case the Prosecution gives their final summation and thus has the last word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_argument

JohnM

One trick pony at work….

C'mon John, you can do far better that this…..

Btw, who decided that I am a CT? Or does one automatically become a CT when one doesn't agree with LNs and their highly questionable arguments?