Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

Yeah, I don't think too much of the silly Mormon "religion", which only renounced their racist founding principals a decade ago. It's one thing being born into something so stupid but you choose to join it.

Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.

And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

I said you suffered beatings on the other board and posted these examples from the Vietnam topic.

    "You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp.  You really wanted
      an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam.  In other words, if you have to
      do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine.  If you want to firebomb
      Haiphong, fine.    If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
     interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
     "anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
               -- Paul Jolliffe

    "Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
     and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
               -- Benjamin Cole

    "It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
     cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
     and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
     indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
               -- Pat Speer

    "Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
     Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
     read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
     everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
     chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
               -- James Wilkinson

    "You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
     and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
     post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
     ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
     his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
               -- James Wilkinson

    "Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
     logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
               -- Paul Brancato

Can't see where I said who won the debate.

Wow, what a liar you are. What do you think people will think about you if they go read those comments in the context of my posts that they were answering and my responses to their comments? They will see what a royal liar you are. They will see how dishonestly you selected those quotes. They will see that every person you quoted knows next to nothing about the Vietnam War, that their comments were uninformed and erroneous, and that I soundly refuted their arguments.

If anyone doubts this, here are the threads from which Jerry has so dishonestly cherry-picked his handful of comments:

Top 5 Books on JFK & Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28983-top-5-books-on-jfk-vietnam/

Oliver Stone's New Documentary and the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28074-oliver-stones-new-jfk-documentaries-and-the-vietnam-war/

The Myth that JFK Was Killed Over the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29640-the-myth-that-jfk-was-killed-over-the-vietnam-war/

The Kennedy Withdrawal: The Definitive New Book on JFK and Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28669-the-kennedy-withdrawal-the-definitive-new-book-on-jfk-and-vietnam/

[John Mytton]

Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.

And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

Wow, what a liar you are. What do you think people will think about you if they go read those comments in the context of my posts that they were answering and my responses to their comments? They will see what a royal liar you are. They will see how dishonestly you selected those quotes. They will see that every person you quoted knows next to nothing about the Vietnam War, that their comments were uninformed and erroneous, and that I soundly refuted their arguments.

If anyone doubts this, here are the threads from which Jerry has so dishonestly cherry-picked his handful of comments:

Top 5 Books on JFK & Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28983-top-5-books-on-jfk-vietnam/

Oliver Stone's New Documentary and the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28074-oliver-stones-new-jfk-documentaries-and-the-vietnam-war/

The Myth that JFK Was Killed Over the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29640-the-myth-that-jfk-was-killed-over-the-vietnam-war/

Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.
And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

I learn something everyday, are you a Mormon, aren't they the guys who believe and base their religion on Joseph Smith who found the Golden Plates somewhere in America? Hmmm very interesting?!
I've met a lot of Mormon's and the ones who I didn't slam the door in their face, seemed to be committed to doing good and in my "Book of JohnM" I consider that to be an admirable trait!

Wow, what a liar you are.  ....

Jerry can respond for himself but I don't see where he took a side, he simply said you took a beating and from those examples you certainly did. He never said or implied that you won or lost the debate.
Btw, I like how DiEugenio started calling you "Mike" you must have really gotten under his skin, like how he changed "David" Von Pein to "Davey"! Hahaha! DiEugenio is such a Big Baby!

To argue America's participation in the Vietnam war and what JFK would have done, in the biased environment of the rabid Ed Forum takes some Balls, what sort of reaction did you expect?

Re: the Vietnam War, My personal layman's opinion is, we can never truly know what would have happened if JFK stayed alive, but personally I believe that JFK would have done much the same as LBJ because of Kennedy's outspoken belief in the "Domino Theory"

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Jerry can respond for himself but I don't see where he took a side, he simply said you took a beating and from those examples you certainly did. He never said or implied that you won or lost the debate. To argue America's participation in the Vietnam war and what JFK would have done, in the biased environment of the rabid Ed Forum takes some Balls, what sort of reaction did you expect?

In English, if you say someone "took a beating" in a debate, you are saying they lost the debate. I did not even remotely "take a beating" in my exchanges with DiEugenio, Brancato, Wilkinson, Jolliffe, etc. No sentient being who reads my exchanges with them could reach that conclusion. DiEugenio and the few others whom Jerry Organ quoted know very little about the Vietnam War, as anyone can see by reading our exchanges. Anyone who reads those exchanges will see that I caught DiEugenio in numerous severe gaffes about the war, gaffes that are as bad as saying that McGovern won the 1972 election.
 

Btw, I like how DiEugenio started calling you "Mike" you must have really gotten under his skin, like how he changed "David" Von Pein to "Davey"! Hahaha! DiEugenio is such a Big Baby!

That kind of stuff does not bother me. As you say, it shows immaturity. I trounced DiEugenio so badly in our Vietnam exchanges that he resorted to the high-school action of using the forum's "Ignore" function on me so that he doesn't receive notifications if I respond to him.

Re: the Vietnam War, My personal layman's opinion is, we can never truly know what would have happened if JFK stayed alive, but personally I believe that JFK would have done much the same as LBJ because of Kennedy's outspoken belief in the "Domino Theory"

Yes, and that is the position of nearly all JFK scholars. However, DiEugenio and his handful of far-left allies in the Education Forum not only argue that JFK absolutely, positively never would have escalated the war but that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election. Even most liberal scholars reject this Oliver Stone-Fletcher Prouty claim, as I repeatedly pointed out to DiEugenio and his allies.

BTW, DiEugenio and the others whom Organ quoted are big fans and defenders of the anti-Semitic crackpot L. Fletcher Prouty, who claimed that JFK was killed because he was going to pull out of Vietnam after the election, and that General Ed Lansdale was one of the plotters and was in Dealey Plaza on the day of the shooting. You might also be interested to know that some of the guys whom Organ quoted are also 9/11 Truthers, i.e., they believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the WTC towers were brought down with "controlled demolitions," etc.

[Royell Storing]

  John - I know you have your reason(s) for continually posting that JFK Limo scale drawing, but you need to realize that drawing does place Gov Connally DIRECTLY in front of JFK.

[John Mytton]

  John - I know you have your reason(s) for continually posting that JFK Limo scale drawing, but you need to realize that drawing does place Gov Connally DIRECTLY in front of JFK.

Geez Louise, as usual you're absolutely right, at the chosen Zapruder frame 383, Hill has teleported from the Queen Mary onto the rear of JFK's Limo and Jackie has phased a few feet back and to the right and as you alluded to, Kennedy is lying down and his head is left of centre and Connally is also closer to lying on his left side!!!!
Maybe you can post a new graphic and rectify my glaring mistakes? I'll be eternally grateful, thanks in advance!



JohnM

[Royell Storing]

  When you post a visual aid such as above, You also should consider other issues it might call into question or Prove. Up to you, but if you want to continually shoot yourself in the foot, go right ahead.

[John Mytton]

  When you post a visual aid such as above, You also should consider other issues it might call into question or Prove. Up to you, but if you want to continually shoot yourself in the foot, go right ahead.

Huh? As usual you're not making a speck of sense? I trust that the members and readers with an IQ above 7 realize the purpose of a basic plan diagram and not for one second assumed that the seated Kennedy and Connally were statue like mannequins! For instance the Zapruder film proves that at the time of the SBF, both men were perfectly aligned all the way back to Oswald and his rifle in Oswald's Sniper's Nest.



JohnM