The Book Depository as a Potemkin Village

[Denis Pointing]

Call me overly discerning if you wish but I find it extremely difficult to take seriously any work presented by an absolute raving nut-job and/or possible substance abuser.

Nothing wrong with refusing to believe stuff like interplanetary alien's and space ships being involved in the coup d e'tat.......But you do believe the Warren Report don't you?      That indicates that your reasoning ability falls a little short.......

In its entirety? Not really, no. I've stated plenty of times over the years that, IMO, the WR has plenty of mistakes and inconsistencies in it and some of its top members were probably working to an agender to find LHO guilty and a lone nut. That the WC and I arrived at the same final conclusion is really little more than a coincidence. What I have noticed is that, when it suits you, you frequently use the WR to back up your theories/arguments. You quote it far more often than I do. Considering you're a rabid CT that indicates that your not only a hypocrite but your reasoning ability falls WIDELY short.......

[Walt Cakebread]

In its entirety? Not really, no. I've stated plenty of times over the years that, IMO, the WR has plenty of mistakes and inconsistencies in it and some of its top members were probably working to an agender to find LHO guilty and a lone nut. That the WC and I arrived at the same final conclusion is really little more than a coincidence. What I have noticed is that, when it suits you, you frequently use the WR to back up your theories/arguments. You quote it far more often than I do. Considering you're a rabid CT that indicates that your not only a hypocrite but your reasoning ability falls WIDELY short.......

when it suits you, you frequently use the WR to back up your theories/arguments.

Since you say that you've noticed that I frequently use the WR to back up my theories / arguments it should be very easy for you to cite something from the WR that I embrace.       Please present that .....

[Denis Pointing]

when it suits you, you frequently use the WR to back up your theories/arguments.

Since you say that you've noticed that I frequently use the WR to back up my theories / arguments it should be very easy for you to cite something from the WR that I embrace.       Please present that .....

You're posting history is full of them. I'm not wasting my time, check for yourself. Listen, I know you're a lonely old man and all that but you really need to stop following me all over the forum. I realise you're desperate for attention and feel the need to communicate with people, even if it's only on forums but I'm not your friend, I don't wish to be your friend. Perhaps you could afford to pay someone to keep you company? I really do feel sorry for you etc but you need to stop stalking me. For your own good I'm going to put you on ignore...go pester someone else.

[Walt Cakebread]

You're posting history is full of them. I'm not wasting my time, check for yourself. Listen, I know you're a lonely old man and all that but you really need to stop following me all over the forum. I realise you're desperate for attention and feel the need to communicate with people, even if it's only on forums but I'm not your friend, I don't wish to be your friend. Perhaps you could afford to pay someone to keep you company? I really do feel sorry for you etc but you need to stop stalking me. For your own good I'm going to put you on ignore...go pester someone else.

Mr Poimtless....It appears to me that you're looking in a mirror......

[John Iacoletti]

It may well suit your present purpose to 'ban' us from discussing a part of your work you would obviously prefer hidden but that's not how it works, is it?

He didn't say it was off-limits, he said it was off-topic.  It's called poisoning the well -- a logical fallacy, and Elliott does it all the time.  Whatever Gilbride's views on an unrelated subject are, they have no bearing on the argument presented here.  Just like Michael Griffith's former writings on the civil war have no bearing on his arguments about the acoustical evidence.

[Denis Pointing]

He didn't say it was off-limits, he said it was off-topic.  It's called poisoning the well -- a logical fallacy, and Elliott does it all the time.  Whatever Gilbride's views on an unrelated subject are, they have no bearing on the argument presented here.  Just like Michael Griffith's former writings on the civil war have no bearing on his arguments about the acoustical evidence.

I'm afraid I don't accept that John, if I'm being asked to read someone's research, not just a post but essays etc, then I'm also going to take a look at anything else they've written, that helps me establish their credibility and honesty. That would be true of a LN writer as well as a CT writer. I'll make no apology for admitting, that as soon as I read that Gilbride had authored a book that included chapters claiming that JFK had been assassinated because of aliens and flying saucers his credibility, in my eyes, sank to zero. John, you work your way and allow me to work mine. Fair enough?

[Joe Elliott]

He didn't say it was off-limits, he said it was off-topic.  It's called poisoning the well -- a logical fallacy, and Elliott does it all the time.  Whatever Gilbride's views on an unrelated subject are, they have no bearing on the argument presented here.  Just like Michael Griffith's former writings on the civil war have no bearing on his arguments about the acoustical evidence.

CTers want a double standard. Certainly, when Gerald Posner got into trouble with over plagiarism, no CTer argued that none of these articles he was accused of plagiarizing had anything to do with the JFK assassination, therefore, this talk about plagiarism should be “off topic”. Nor did any LNer argue this.

Question:

Can any one point out a post on this forum or any forum where someone made the claim that bringing up Posner’s plagiarism is “off-topic”?

Question:

If a LNer ever stated somewhere else “I know that whatever the government tells me, I know this is true” that referring to this statement is “off-limits” or “off-topic”? Couldn’t a CTer point out that their views about the Warren Report are questionable because of this statement?

Question:

Why should the views of LNers, not directly connected to the JFK assassination, be considered “off-limits” but the views of CTers are?


And I should also point out, that Mr. Gilbride’s views about the U. S. Government’s involvement with, and covering up of, transactions with space aliens, is not a view of his that is unrelated to the JFK assassination. Because he believes that this was the reason, or a principle reason, for the government assassinating the President. So, it cannot be considered “off-topic”.