JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on August 27, 2019, 02:58:54 AM
-
The ED Forum only exists to be ridiculed, it's just a bunch of angry old men who will throw anybody and everybody under a bus just to defend Oswald, I even recently read DiEugenio getting stuck into Bugliosi's private life, if attacking the messenger is your best argument then maybe it's time to get a life.
Now it's David Von Pein's turn, the Faux Outrage regarding David's web site is seriously over the top. As far as I can tell nobody gave a spombleprofglidnoctobuns two minutes ago and it's not like David was trying to hide anything because he was constantly linking to his site and promoting it every chance he had.
I'm guessing David doesn't receive a cent from his fabulous JFK resources his YouTube channel or from his web site and let's get real all David is doing is posting verbatim quotes of a members questions or doubts and his reply based on the evidence. Why should David post another 500 replies that don't involve him, don't involve the evidence and basically boil down to "anything is possible, speculation, trust no one, etc etc..."?
And chicken bones.
JohnM
-
The ED Forum is a echo chamber. They do not want anyone questioning their CT fictions and I'm sure they've been
wanting to throw DVP off the site for a very long time. They could never mount a case to do so without looking ridiculous
but it looks like they have decided that looking ridiculous is something they can live with. The team that operate that site (Jim Gordon and Co.)
have allowed DiEugenio to push them aside and it's he that now seems to be running the show. Now that Kamp is injecting his special brand of
insanity into the site it has lately become the Mad Hatters Tea Party.
-
My thanks to John and Steve for their support.
If you want to see the ED Forum madness in action, go here....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html
BTW & FTR [For The Record]....
Forum owner/moderator James R. Gordon officially kicked me off of The Education Forum (and prohibited me from logging in and posting any additional comments) as of approximately 11:40 PM EDT on August 26th, 2019.
-
My thanks to John and Steve for their support.
If you want to see the ED Forum madness in action, go here....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html
BTW & FTR [For The Record]....
Forum owner/moderator James R. Gordon officially kicked me off of The Education Forum (and prohibited me from logging in and posting any additional comments) as of approximately 11:40 PM EDT on August 26th, 2019.
Since "J. R." emphasized you had committed no banning offense, I incorrectly offered you this advice.... BTW, the archive.is/ screen shots are images featuring the
same live links as the original. The only difference is the image does not update if a new post is added on the archived page. You still have the option of memoralizing every discussion you participated in on that forum, and each page is housed on a server that should endure because archive.is was conceived to
permanently support cites in Wikipedia articles, anticipating links would change with time.
It is silly, giving in to what amounts to mob rule. Forums do not want to be responsible for the content of posts of members in consideration of potential liability.
This ill informed action taken against you was taken despite emphasizing the posts in the threads represent no ownership interest by the forum owners. The decision
was contrary in that it goes against the stated, intentional arms length relationship of the forum vs. the posters and their posts. They are clearly in the public domain after they are posted since the stated policy of that forum is non-ownership of them. Attribution when you copy and paste them is not an obligation, it is a courtesy.
Earlier you were told you would be blocked (by placing the IP # associated with your posts on the denied access list.) not banned.
Is Your VPN Leaking? | PCMag.com
https://www.pcmag.com/article/354450/is-your-vpn-leaking
May 1, 2019 - But if your VPN is leaking data, there are steps you can take. ... The IP address is how your computers/router talk to servers on the internet. .... Internet Access VPN, NordVPN, and TunnelBear—promise to be leak-free. Sorry
……..
Lord Gordon has issued a new edict, aimed at David von Pein. It is now "enshrined" at this link, that Gordon himself does not consider David von Pein to have
committed any offense prompting his banning.: http://archive.is/pAbhg
NordVPN recently offered a three year deal via Rakuten.com that rebates $43 of the $107.99,
three year fee that would be a more convenient option for David than two other options Mr. Gordon indicated unfamiliarity with. www.archive.org and the more recent and more useful, www.Archive.is , offering a snapshot, complete with working links on the web page image captured and archived. It was conceived to solve the problem of disappearing, linked cites included in Wikipedia articles. Here is an example of the latter.: http://archive.is/Fu9hl (the newly obsolete, Hargrove description and status of Donald O. Norton.) E-Zee P-Zee! Unlike Hargrove, von Pein does not, (to the best of my knowledge) appropriate, without attribution, the original research of others.
-
David, Is there anything the EF crew can do to prevent you continuing to provide a counter argument as you've always done?
-
Thanks for the information, Tom Scully.
But what did you mean when you said that you had "incorrectly offered this advice"?
-
David, Is there anything the EF crew can do to prevent you continuing to provide a counter argument as you've always done?
I really have no idea.
But whatever action Jim Gordon took against me tonight at 11:40 PM hasn't had the effect he thinks it has had --- because I can still access the EF forum and all of its threads (as a non-logged-in visitor). I guess he didn't press the right "Let's Keep DVP Out Forever" button or something.
-
I really have no idea.
But whatever action Jim Gordon took against me tonight at 11:40 PM hasn't had the effect he thinks it has had --- because I can still access the EF forum and all of its threads (as a non-logged-in visitor). I guess he didn't press the right "Let's Keep DVP Out Forever" button or something.)
Now that presents them with a problem doesn't it. Effectively they've achieved nothing other than to smear a bucket load of crap over the EF forum's reputation. :D
-
Now that presents them with a problem doesn't it. Effectively they've achieved nothing other than to smear a bucket load of crap over the EF forum's reputation. :D
Yeah, well, I was probably stupid for even mentioning that I can still view the EF forum. Because now somebody from EF will likely see my post here and run to tell Gordon about it, with Gordon then realizing he didn't press all the buttons he needed to press to keep me out.
Oh, well.
:(
-
Yeah, well I was probably stupid for even mentioning that I can still view the EF forum. Because now somebody from EF will likely see my post here and run to tell Gordon about it, with Gordon then realizing he didn't press all the buttons he needed to press to keep me out.
Oh, well.
:(
David,
If anyone, it would be M.C., the guy who contrived to get me kicked off of the EF in May of 2018.
Just saying ...
-- MWT ;)
-
Yeah, well I was probably stupid for even mentioning that I can still view the EF forum. Because now somebody from EF will likely see my post here and run to tell Gordon about it, with Gordon then realizing he didn't press all the buttons he needed to press to keep me out.
Oh, well.
:(
To keep you out means shutting the door to all visitors. That's a good way of sinking the group.
-
To keep you out means shutting the door to all visitors. That's a good way of sinking the group.
I doubt that. It's probably an "IP address" blockage to keep out just my computer. (But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure.)
-
I doubt that. It's probably an "IP address" blockage to keep out just my computer. (But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure.)
There are very simple (and free) ways to get around that. If it gets to that point I can help as I'm sure many others here can as well.
-
Thanks for the information, Tom Scully.
But what did you mean when you said that you had "incorrectly offered this advice"?
He assumed he had the ability to block you from accessing his forum. I wanted you to know you had options. Most people are associated with consistent IP #'s
associated with each login or post... the one assigned by their home internet provider, and additional ones of their smart phone and perhaps of a computer used at
their job to access the internet. When I edited comments at jfkfacts.org, 2015-16, almost every commenter consistently used the same IP# associated with every comment. You have a right to security and anonymity online. Using duckduckgo.com search and a vpn service like NordVPN affords privacy and security. You have a choice to access the internet from various servers located in the US or in other countries you choose. I just did an IP check and the results displayed my location
as in Seattle. I had selected a US located, NORD server, but I am nowhere close to Seattle.
Your IP# (assigned to your internet access account by your provider ) of, for example, your home WiFi network, is the same even if five computers connect
through that WiFi or cabled router. Opera browser includes a free VPN that changes the IP# websites perceive you are associated with, but you get what you pay for.
All he could do is place the IP# predictably associated with your login and posting activity on the IP# denied list. It has the consequence of entirely blocking access
of most visitors and (former ?) members, but not anyone using a private vpn service like Nord, and besides, that forum is archived at archive.org but it is difficult to locate older threads from that archive.
I anticipate this post resembles an infomericial but I thought you were being treated unfairly.
-
Thanks for the additional info, Tom.
-
From the EF Forum.....
KIRK GALLAWAY SAID:
I think everyone has a right to post here [at The Education Forum]. I think DVP and others, including sometimes myself, have a useful critical function that is otherwise lacking here. I understand people don't want to be quoted out of context. Though it happens all the time in forums like these. The only way it can reflect badly is with other LNers who might frequent DVP's site. Do we have to take ourselves that seriously? Why do we really care that much about what they think?
Still, because I look at DVP's website very infrequently, I can't say how fair he is in these reconstructed arguments. I can imagine some might feel like they are unfairly quoted out of context to be used as a foil for DVP. After all, DVP's central aim is to gain a following by using chosen examples to portray himself as a credible critic of a JFK conspiracy who wins every argument, so what is the purpose of using his opponent's names at all? A compromise could be that DVP agrees to release the forum source, but not specifically the names of the people he was debating unless specifically given consent.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
Kirk,
I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material. As Bart has posted above, DVP was asked to remove the material. On its own, I understand that would have ended the matter. DVP refused to comply.
True, DVP has done this for years, but I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used. Because of this argument I have looked at DVP's site. It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context and edited by him to support the thread he is creating. In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum.
Hopefully the EF will now make it impossible for him to continue to do this.
Finally Kirk, you are absolutely right, everyone has a right to post their opinions here. But DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Since I can no longer respond directly to the numerous lies that James Gordon just gushed forth, I'll post my response at Duncan MacRae's forum instead. (Thank you, Duncan.) ....
Gordon said: "I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material."
That's Lie #1. I give credit to tons of "sources" for the material I post, with links being presented by the dozen. But, actually, I'm not sure what kind of "source credit" Gordon is even referring to here. If he's talking about sourcing the original discussion threads from which I copy posts from the EF forum, then it's an even bigger lie being told by Gordon, because (as I have said many times before) I always provide a link to the original (source) EF thread at the bottom of all of my webpages.
Gordon said: "I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used."
Yeah, that must be why Bart Kamp said this to me just three short days ago:
"Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway." -- B. Kamp
Gordon said: "It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context. .... In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum."
I strongly resent such a charge. Furthermore, it's a really stupid charge in the first place. Since I am merely taking verbatim quotes from the EF forum over to my own site, Gordon must actually think I'm some sort of Houdini or David Copperfield, in that I am apparently able to take those verbatim CTer quotes and (somehow) change the entire belief structure of the conspiracy theorist being quoted. Even though, keep in mind, the quotes are the EXACT VERBATIM WORDS that were written by the CTer at the EF forum before I copied them to another Internet location.
I guess I'm more powerful than I thought! Unbelievable!
In other words --- James R. Gordon is full of spombleprofglidnoctobuns. It appears to me as if he has been significantly influenced by the other conspiracy theorists at the EF forum who also contend that I have taken things "out of context" and have literally "changed" what CTers have posted at the EF forum. But regardless of which CTer utters such garbage, it's still going to be garbage (and a lie).
Gordon said: "DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website."
More lies. See my last comments above. Plus, Gordon should re-read this comment I aimed at him earlier today at the EF forum....
"With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on...I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum." -- DVP
And the bunk about me having "two opinions" on various JFK matters is just...well...bizarre (to say the least).
Where on this Earth did Gordon get the idea that my basic "opinions" about any aspect of the JFK murder case somehow change between the time I post my thoughts at The Education Forum and when I re-post those EXACT SAME VERBATIM COMMENTS at my website?
The only response I can possibly muster after reading such a bizarre allegation is this one....
WTF?
-
From the EF Forum.....
KIRK GALLAWAY SAID:
I think everyone has a right to post here [at The Education Forum]. I think DVP and others, including sometimes myself, have a useful critical function that is otherwise lacking here. I understand people don't want to be quoted out of context. Though it happens all the time in forums like these. The only way it can reflect badly is with other LNers who might frequent DVP's site. Do we have to take ourselves that seriously? Why do we really care that much about what they think?
Still, because I look at DVP's website very infrequently, I can't say how fair he is in these reconstructed arguments. I can imagine some might feel like they are unfairly quoted out of context to be used as a foil for DVP. After all, DVP's central aim is to gain a following by using chosen examples to portray himself as a credible critic of a JFK conspiracy who wins every argument, so what is the purpose of using his opponent's names at all? A compromise could be that DVP agrees to release the forum source, but not specifically the names of the people he was debating unless specifically given consent.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
Kirk,
I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material. As Bart has posted above, DVP was asked to remove the material. On its own, I understand that would have ended the matter. DVP refused to comply.
True, DVP has done this for years, but I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used. Because of this argument I have looked at DVP's site. It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context and edited by him to support the thread he is creating. In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum.
Hopefully the EF will now make it impossible for him to continue to do this.
Finally Kirk, you are absolutely right, everyone has a right to post their opinions here. But DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Since I can no longer respond directly to the numerous lies that James Gordon just gushed forth, I'll post my response at Duncan MacRae's forum instead. (Thank you, Duncan.) ....
Gordon said: "I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material."
That's Lie #1. I give credit to tons of "sources" for the material I post, with links being presented by the dozen. But, actually, I'm not sure what kind of "source credit" Gordon is even referring to here. If he's talking about sourcing the original discussion threads from which I copy posts from the EF forum, then it's an even bigger lie being told by Gordon, because (as I have said many times before) I always provide a link to the original (source) EF thread at the bottom of all of my webpages.
Gordon said: "I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used."
Yeah, that must be why Bart Kamp said this to me just three short days ago:
"Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway." -- B. Kamp
Gordon said: "It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context. .... In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum."
I strongly resent such a charge. Furthermore, it's a really stupid charge in the first place. Since I am merely taking verbatim quotes from the EF forum over to my own site, Gordon must actually think I'm some sort of Houdini or David Copperfield, in that I am apparently able to take those verbatim CTer quotes and (somehow) change the entire belief structure of the conspiracy theorist being quoted. Even though, keep in mind, the quotes are the EXACT VERBATIM WORDS that were written by the CTer at the EF forum before I copied them to another Internet location.
I guess I'm more powerful than I thought! Unbelievable!
In other words --- James R. Gordon is full of spombleprofglidnoctobuns. It appears to me as if he has been significantly influenced by the other conspiracy theorists at the EF forum who also contend that I have taken things "out of context" and have literally "changed" what CTers have posted at the EF forum. But regardless of which CTer utters such garbage, it's still going to be garbage (and a lie).
Gordon said: "DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website."
More lies. See my last comments above. Plus, Gordon should re-read this comment I aimed at him earlier today at the EF forum....
"With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on...I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum." -- DVP
And the bunk about me having "two opinions" on various JFK matters is just...well...bizarre (to say the least).
Where on this Earth did Gordon get the idea that my basic "opinions" about any aspect of the JFK murder case somehow change between the time I post my thoughts at The Education Forum and when I re-post those EXACT SAME VERBATIM COMMENTS at my website?
The only response I can possibly muster after reading such a bizarre allegation is this one....
WTF?
Just what one would expect from someone who allows many foul mouthed members of (References & links to websites which contain pornographic images and/or abusive content directed at members of this Forum is strictly prohibited ) to slowly infiltrate and virtually take over the Ed Forum.
Just what one would expect from a proven Jim DiNobrainio admirer and Bart " Shut That Door" Kamp Bootlicker.
If Gordon was consistent and honourable, the rule he has applied to ban you and others would also apply to DiNobrainio and Kamp.
I'm guessing they might have made large donations to protect their membership.
Money Talks.
-
I see EF moderator and JFK Assassination Forum member "Kathy Becket" is presently lurking on this thread.
I wonder if she'd like to express her opinion on the issue?
-- MWT ;)
-
Did so on the Forum.
-
Are forum discussion participants required to obtain permission before even quoting each other, in the same thread? Is that a "feature" of the latest mandate?
Consider whether it seems more important to you to continue to be allowed to participate vs. what is considered reasonable restriction. Are the rules an affront
to your sensibilities? Do you expect you can endure participating when the goal posts seem to be moved almost hourly under the influence of the loudest demands
of forum posters opposed to your POV?
In the U.S.A. :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2016/05/26/fair-use-in-the-age-of-social-media/#7a407a1d3300
May 26, 2016, 09:34am
Fair Use In The Age Of Social Media
Oliver Herzfeld Contributor
…...
What Is Fair Use?
The Copyright Act codifies the judicially created “fair use” doctrine. Courts have long recognized the need for such a defense because not every act that might violate an owner’s copyrights should amount to an infringement. The fair use defense was created to limit the scope of copyright through an equitable rule of reason. The statute provides, in relevant part, that “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies…, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…, scholarship, or research” is not considered an infringement. Fair use is not, however, limited to the listed purposes. Rather, courts examine the facts of each particular case and weigh and balance the following four factors to determine whether the particular challenged activities constitute fair use or infringement:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
…...
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.....
-
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Libs don't want to debate; they want to shut you up. Now they get to ban you while still enjoying the fruits of your website. Cowardly, but that's who they are.
-
Some of You are More concerned with your feelings being hurt/reputations besmirched vs actually solving this case. You should be bigger than this, but as they like to say in the South, "You ate up with it". Get over Yourself and get back to work. This case has NEVER has been about You.
-
Did so on the Forum.
It seems fair and certainly reasonable to consider a "do over". Delete the Gordon posts, restore David von Pein's login/posting access and endure the protests
of the agenda driven, ignorant, falsely indignant regardless of the intensity of their vitriol, but that will not happen, will it, Kathty?
Why do I assume I have standing to post such a moderate suggestion? John McAdams has damned me with faint praise!:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/cAsvprrKbUQ%5B1-25%5D
Jeff Morley Won't Let Me Comment on JFKFacts
John McAdams
On 7 Sep 2016 19:55:16 -0400, TJ Scully
….While I had some major issues with you -- particularly you calling me
a racist merely because I come from Alabama -- it was true that when
you were moderator debate was quite wide open.
It's really poison when moderation is used to enforce a particular
substantive position on the assassination.
.John
The core, applicable point for this specific issues David finds himself caught up in is excerpted from the excerpted article immediately below this excerpt.:
If you need someone’s permission to quote them in order to argue against their position or expose them as a liar, you would likely never get that permission. And this type of criticism is precisely the purpose of Free Speech and Free Press rights in the first place.…...
https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/copyright-guide/
Copyright Law In 2019 Explained In One Page
by Frank Moraes Last updated: June 27, 2019
…Why you should care
If you run a website you may have to deal with copyright law and related issues from two different sides: as a producer and as a consumer.
If you blog, take photographs, publish music, or otherwise produce copyrightable content, you legally own that content. Whether you want to let other people use it or not is your decision, and there are things you need to know and do in either case.…..
…Intellectual Property and Ownership…..
…This is the situation modern copyright seeks to correct, and it does so by assigning the exclusive right to make use of a work to the one who created it. It acts as a necessary and justified infringement on Freedom of Speech.….
…Copyright is automatic..
...Copyright happens automatically, the minute you set something into a “fixed form” — even if that fixed form is pen scratches on a legal pad. You automatically own the copyright to any creative work of art you produce, the minute you produce it....
….That © sign..
…The copyright symbol carries no legal weight and has no magical effect on the status of your copyright. Forgetting to use it does not cause you to lose your rights related to something you created.…..
…Registering Copyright
Copyright happens automatically, so you don’t need to register a copyright. However, you may wish to do so....
…..Take legal action against someone who infringes on your copyright.
That last one is key. You cannot sue someone for infringing your copyright unless your copyright is registered.
If you expect to be suing people for infringement, you may want to register your copyright. Likewise, if you have no other way to prove the date of your creation (which may be the case for unpublished works), registration may be a good idea.
Registration of a copyright does not need to be immediate. If you can definitively establish the date of your authorship by other means, you can (in theory) wait to register your copyright until there is a reason to sue (that is, once someone has begun infringing on your work).
…Poor Man’s Copyright.…
…The US Copyright office is very clear that mailing a copy of your work to yourself has no legal effect.….
……Copyright is a restriction on free speech.
…However, the restriction carries its own costs which may be harmful to society.
If you need someone’s permission to quote them in order to argue against their position or expose them as a liar, you would likely never get that permission. And this type of criticism is precisely the purpose of Free Speech and Free Press rights in the first place.……
….Fair Use is gray
It cannot be stressed enough: fair use is a gray area. There are some uses that are clearly Fair, and some that are clearly infringement, but ultimately Fair Use is determined by a judge if and only if a case is brought to trial, which rarely happens....
…..In England and the United Kingdom, the guidelines are more specific than in the US or Canada, similar to the Australian rules. Fair Dealing there is limited to:
Non-commercial research and private study
Criticism, review, and quotation
News reporting
Satire and parody
Illustration for teaching.
A snapshot in time of the page including your comment, IOW, not a "live" link to the page.:
http://archive.is/yGe5Y
(I assume Wikipedia has consulted lawyers who approve of this resource...)
Begs the question...can a non-U.S. person residing outside the U.S. declare content created by a U.S. person located in the U.S., copyrighted in the U.S.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_archive.is#Copyright_and_robots.txt
…..
Copyright and robots.txt[edit]
Archive.is removes archived pages by request of copyright holders per the U.S. DMCA;[5] requests can be made with the "Report abuse" link on archive.is archived pages. …...
Re-hosting U.S. copyrighted material without permission may be a violation of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) – for this reason, to avoid implicating Wikipedia in violations of copyright laws and incurring DMCA take-down requests, archive.is should be used with some caution regarding U.S.-copyrighted content.
-
Quien sabe.?
-
It seems fair and certainly reasonable to consider a "do over". Delete the Gordon posts, restore David von Pein's login/posting access and endure the protests
of the agenda driven, ignorant, falsely indignant regardless of the intensity of their vitriol, but that will not happen, will it, Kathty?
If you need someone’s permission to quote them in order to argue against their position or expose them as a liar, you would likely never get that permission. And this type of criticism is precisely the purpose of Free Speech and Free Press rights in the first place.…...
…….
A rather fragile belief system? If it is perceived to require this level of protection from criticism, how robust could it be?
http://archive.is/yGe5Y
Posted 12 hours ago
I believe this matter may now be resolved. I will keep an eye out for him, but I believe DVD is no longer able to enter the site and therefore copy members work.
James
luddite: a person opposed to new technology or ways of working. "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
"DVD" ?? David "von Dasterdly" ??
The FBI is helpless, It is twenty stories tall. What can we do? Who can we call? Call Tobor, the Eighth Man. Call Tobor, the Eighth Man. Faster than a rocket. Quicker than a jet. He's the mighty ...
A temporary, "poor man's" solution affording you a secondary IP#....
Free VPN | Browser with built-in VPN | Download | Opera
https://www.opera.com/computer/features/free-vpn
Looking for more privacy online? Opera browser now integrates a free, unlimited VPN feature. Download Opera with built-in VPN at the official opera.com site.
Katey bar the door! We must shut down the forum and remove all of its content! Critic von Pein cannot be stopped from trespassing against us!
Can nothing stop CT critic von Pein from obtaining the drug he craves....our forum posts?
https://web.archive.org/web/20190814200846/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/forum/126-jfk-assassination-debate/
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Steve,
EDIT:
Seein' as how you're a big Trump supporter, maybe you should consider relocating to the so-called Education Forum so that James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio and "Robert Wheeler," et al., can convert you to some sort of Putin-and-Trump-benefiting CT.
-- MWT ;)
-
My thanks to John and Steve for their support.
If you want to see the ED Forum madness in action, go here....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1330.html
BTW & FTR [For The Record]....
Forum owner/moderator James R. Gordon officially kicked me off of The Education Forum (and prohibited me from logging in and posting any additional comments) as of approximately 11:40 PM EDT on August 26th, 2019.
David, I want to commend you on your outstanding site with all the JFK material you archived, including all the amazing Cincinnati Reds games you assembled. Great stuff you have and I plan on viewing more of it.
Seems to me, that a certain couple of individuals were using your taking of posts off the site and archiving it on your site as an excuse to remove you as a member. There are no "copyright laws" when an individual posts on a public forum. Anything they choose to post is fair game and can be used by anybody who views that site. Just like when a individual sends out a tweet on Twitter, any person can quote the tweet and offer their own rebuttal. Not sure why they would be angry over that fact, unless they didn't like appearing to be wrong on your site for all to see.
Gordon trying to add his own "copyright law" is a total joke and basically they have no right to remove you as a member on the grounds they claim presents a "violation". There is nothing that is prohibited by using quotes from what another person posted.
Anyway, if you still want to view their site, you can use a free VPN and they won't be able to block you from viewing any material. Gordon has failed and clearly doesn't know what he is doing.
-
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Libs don't want to debate; they want to shut you up. Now they get to ban you while still enjoying the fruits of your website. Cowardly, but that's who they are.
Sorry, it's the right wingers who are the fascists who try to silence the opposition through intimidation and false representation. When pro NFL Football players took a knee during the anthem to bring awareness to police brutality, it was Donald Trump and his racist hatemongers who falsely misrepresented what the players were doing demanding boycotts of the NFL and trying to silence an individual's freedom of speech through direct intimidation. Learn what your're talking about before you post false comments.
-
David, I want to commend you on your outstanding site with all the JFK material you archived, including all the amazing Cincinnati Reds games you assembled. Great stuff you have and I plan on viewing more of it.
Seems to me, that a certain couple of individuals were using your taking of posts off the site and archiving it on your site as an excuse to remove you as a member. There are no "copyright laws" when an individual posts on a public forum. Anything they choose to post is fair game and can be used by anybody who views that site. Just like when a individual sends out a tweet on Twitter, any person can quote the tweet and offer their own rebuttal. Not sure why they would be angry over that fact, unless they didn't like appearing to be wrong on your site for all to see.
Gordon trying to add his own "copyright law" is a total joke and basically they have no right to remove you as a member on the grounds they claim presents a "violation". There is nothing that is prohibited by using quotes from what another person posted.
Anyway, if you still want to view their site, you can use a free VPN and they won't be able to block you from viewing any material. Gordon has failed and clearly doesn't know what he is doing.
Thanks, Rick. But I'm still able to view the EF site (as of right now anyway). Evidently Gordon didn't block me like he think he did. I can't "log in", but I can view every thread.
Re: Copyright....
What do you say about this (below)? Does this apply to people posting stuff on "Internet Forums" or not? ~shrug~....
https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+everything+automatically+copyrighted%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja66zK1KTkAhVSba0KHST2DQ4Qzmd6BAgLEAo&biw=1280&bih=578
-
Thanks, Rick. But I'm still able to view the EF site (as of right now anyway). Evidently Gordon didn't block me like he think he did. I can't "log in", but I can view every thread.
Re: Copyright....
What do you say about this (below)? Does this apply to people posting stuff on "Internet Forums" or not? ~shrug~....
https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+everything+automatically+copyrighted%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja66zK1KTkAhVSba0KHST2DQ4Qzmd6BAgLEAo&biw=1280&bih=578
People's opinions on a public forum are not copyrighted. If you want to copyright a song or poem you just wrote, you have to physically get a copyright for it. If someone posted lyrics to a song they wrote on a forum, there is no copyright since they didn't obtain one. It just isn't automatically copyrighted after they posted it. As long as you don't alter their comments and provide a link to where it's from, there is no claim for copyright for them to claim. Just like what people post on facebook or twitter, their quotes can be used and copied for other users as a rebuttal to what they write.
-
David, I want to commend you on your outstanding site with all the JFK material you archived, including all the amazing Cincinnati Reds games you assembled. Great stuff you have and I plan on viewing more of it.
Seems to me, that a certain couple of individuals were using your taking of posts off the site and archiving it on your site as an excuse to remove you as a member. There are no "copyright laws" when an individual posts on a public forum. Anything they choose to post is fair game and can be used by anybody who views that site. Just like when a individual sends out a tweet on Twitter, any person can quote the tweet and offer their own rebuttal. Not sure why they would be angry over that fact, unless they didn't like appearing to be wrong on your site for all to see.
Gordon trying to add his own "copyright law" is a total joke and basically they have no right to remove you as a member on the grounds they claim presents a "violation". There is nothing that is prohibited by using quotes from what another person posted.
Anyway, if you still want to view their site, you can use a free VPN and they won't be able to block you from viewing any material. Gordon has failed and clearly doesn't know what he is doing.
Beware free VPNs and always check with sites like 'What's My IP?' before going to a particular site.
I personally wouldn't be caught dead w/o my encrypted tunnel.
-
People's opinions on a public forum are not copyrighted. If you want to copyright a song or poem you just wrote, you have to physically get a copyright for it. If someone posted lyrics to a song they wrote on a forum, there is no copyright since they didn't obtain one. It just isn't automatically copyrighted after they posted it. As long as you don't alter their comments and provide a link to where it's from, there is no claim for copyright for them to claim. Just like what people post on facebook or twitter, their quotes can be used and copied for other users as a rebuttal to what they write.
Well, that's what I have always thought too.
But if what you just said is truly the case, then explain this....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pQ3qoDv9OW4/XWYG9v7EHYI/AAAAAAABSbY/huGRASX90gIt2oPRVpP_4mWiMGLeqwQuACLcBGAs/s725/Copyright-Info.png)
-
It sounds as though Michael thinks the EF should be a mutual xxxxxxxxxxxx society.
-- MWT ::)
Their donations far outweigh this forum's
Just sayin'
-
Copyright laws are quite confusing. For example what amount of content can be considered as fair use? Seems there is no consensus on that.
Fred
-
Steve,
EDIT:
Seein' as how you're a big Trump supporter, maybe you should consider relocating to the so-called Education Forum so that James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio and "Robert Wheeler," et al., can convert you to some sort of Putin-and-Trump-benefiting CT.
-- MWT ;)
Graves,
You don't know anything about me. Are you attempting to bait me? You already had posts removed by Duncan yesterday related your immature rantings. See, you were hanging out at those cesspits like the Jew hating Education Forum and that other dump, Deep Politics. You got the boot in the arse from those forums and now you've decided to set up shop here. Showing us just what an obnoxious little child you were on those sites and are now being here. This is the JFK Assassination Forum not the Graves hates Trump site. The Russians did it. We got your point. Do you have anything else ? You're boring, you're stranded on an island all by yourself, you're a stagnant puddle. Grow up.
-
Graves,
You don't know anything about me. Are you attempting to bait me?
Graves is a master baiter.
-
Graves is a master baiter.
That he is.
Wicked smart too.
-
Graves is a master baiter.
Yeah, probably whilst fantasising about the Russians.
-
Yeah, I think you're probably right. Both forums were just looking for an excuse to get rid of you. Truth is you simply weren't wanted. Now Duncan's closed down your precious thread on this forum...starting to get the hint yet?
No, he'll just turn every other thread into his personal whine-fest.
-
Graves,
You don't know anything about me. Are you attempting to bait me? You already had posts removed by Duncan yesterday related your immature rantings. See, you were hanging out at those cesspits like the Jew hating Education Forum and that other dump, Deep Politics. You got the boot in the arse from those forums and now you've decided to set up shop here. Showing us just what an obnoxious little child you were on those sites and are now being here. This is the JFK Assassination Forum not the Graves hates Trump site. The Russians did it. We got your point. Do you have anything else ? You're boring, you're stranded on an island all by yourself, you're a stagnant puddle. Grow up.
Steve,
We all evolve, or at least we should.
When I was still a member there (i.e., until May 2018, iirc), I didn't notice that the EF was particularly "Jew-hating," but wouldn't be surprised that it is. Any particular members in mind? Did I ever post anything there that smacked of "Jew-hating"?
I believe the reason I got banned from there was because James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio and his wanna-be proteges didn't like my pro-CIA, anti-KGB, anti-GRU "rants" and my informing them, among other things, that Duran's and Azcue's "Blond Oswald in Mexico City" must have been short, skinny, blond-haired, very thin-faced KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov, and ... gasp ... that an Oswald impersonator (probably Russian) who was volunteered the made-radioactive-by-KGB name "Kostikov" (over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA Soviet Embassy phone line on 10/02/63), was volunteered this radioactive gem by none other than Ivan Obyedkov (mis-transcribed as "Byetkov*?" in Angleton's 1975 Church Committee testimony), the Soviet Embassy security guard whom CIA believed was working for it, but who was, in fact, a triple-agent -- i.e., still loyal to the Kremlin -- etc.
Deep Politics Forum? Ancient history. Anecdote: I recently sent Dawn a FB "message" in which I gently admonished her not for calling me an "idiot" there (which I undoubtedly am), but for claiming that I had (allegedly) claimed (at the EF, I suppose) that I was a lawyer, which I'm not -- having gone to law school for only one year (and proud to say that I didn't flunk out -- I could have stayed in "on probation" -- LOL) -- something I gently suggested to her was still free to read about in my fascinating EF "bio".
(Have you read it yet? Wouldn't be surprised if you have, actually.)
So Dawn kinda apologized and reworded, post haste, her old offending post at DPF ... and, well ... that's that, I suppose.
Nope, I have no use for Deep Politics Forum, even though the man (P.D.S.) who coined the phrase (as far as I know) did, last year, tell John Newman in a youtube video that Tennent H. Bagley, via Newman, had convinced him that Nosenko was a false defector, sent to the U.S. to discredit (true defector) Golitsyn.
But I ramble ...
-- MWT ;)
PS So, you aren't a Donald "Useful Idiot" Trump supporter, after all, Steve?
(If not, there might actually be hope for you, yet ...)
-
Graves,
You don't know anything about me. ….
Arrest of Black Professor Is "Teachable Moment" for Cambridge
https://www.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=44861
Jul 26, 2009 - Arrest of Black Professor Is "Teachable Moment" for Cambridge ... learn why a dispute between Professor Henry Louis Gates and Sergeant James ... ALLEN: Just next door lives Priscilla McMillan, a Cambridge resident most ...
I too would prefer to avoid the atmosphere here degrading to the "dog eat dog," virtual lynch mob atmosphere over at another locale where the dead body of von Pein ain't even cold yet. Thoughts?
Steve and Tommy, I am sure you are both busy individuals and we all live thousands of miles apart, but it is a small world. Is there even a remote possibility we could meet up at McMillan's one of these nights, and invite her out for a beer or two.....and maybe talk "things" out?
-
...
Steve and Tommy, I am sure you are both busy individuals and we all live thousands of miles apart, but it is a small world. Is there even a remote possibility we could meet up at McMillan's one of these nights, and invite her out for a beer or two.....and maybe talk "things" out?
Tom "Mister Coy" Scully,
Why so inscrutable all-the-time?
-- MWT ;)
PS Pardon my German.
PPS Only if you can get LICOOKY-1 to tag along ...
-
I too would prefer to avoid the atmosphere here degrading to the "dog eat dog," virtual lynch mob atmosphere over at another locale where the dead body of von Pein ain't even cold yet. Thoughts?
Steve and Tommy, I am sure you are both busy individuals and we all live thousands of miles apart, but it is a small world. Is there even a remote possibility we could meet up at McMillan's one of these nights, and invite her out for a beer or two.....and maybe talk "things" out?
Anytime Mr. Scully, although not much of a beer drinker. I've fallen for Jefferson's small batch Bourbon.
For future reference it's not Cambridge it's The Peoples Republic of Cambridge. They weren't next door neighbors but did occupy the same neighborhood in the Harvard Square area.
-
Ah, the memories on the Ed Forum. Go to the About Me page:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/7252-michael-walton/?tab=field_core_pfield_11
Here was my last post over there:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24949-prs-agents-glen-bennett-howard-norton-covert-monitors-of-threats-to-jfk/?tab=comments#comment-379635
But I believe the one that got me really thrown out for good (they kindly call it TWO POSTS PER DAY - HAHA!) was because I went up against one of their sacred cows:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24927-who-changed-the-motorcade-route/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-379522
What a lot of people don't realize is that the Ed Forum was set up as a money-making scheme for out there and way our there authors to sell their wares about the Kennedy case. You know, so the suckers would spend their cash and allow them to make money off of them.
Sadly, the echo chamber there continues. When one of their "experts" came over here about his ridiculous Z film alteration theory, I easily rebutted it:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1315.msg47205.html#msg47205
So what happens? He just goes right on back to the chamber and it's still going strong over there - all loud and hollow LOL:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/page/50/?tab=comments#comment-405668
-
When the conspiracy types don’t believe they’re getting enough confirmation bias over their pet individual theory, they jump ships like rats, infesting other domains with their poison. Dark, brooding and paranoid, they haven’t changed in some 55 years. DVP has the patience of a saint.
-
When the conspiracy types don’t believe they’re getting enough confirmation bias over their pet individual theory, they jump ships like rats, infesting other domains with their poison. Dark, brooding and paranoid, they haven’t changed in some 55 years. DVP has the patience of a saint.
Paul,
Not sure if being banned is the same as "jumping ship," but I can think of three former members who are here, now, due to the former, and whose "take" on the assassination couldn't be more diverse.
Regardless, since the vast majority of EF moderators and members fervently believes that the evil, evil, evil CIA, in some combo with the evil, evil, evil Military Industrial Complex, killed JFK, what then do individual CIA-haters need to do to remain "in the fold"?
Firmly believe that Prayer Person is Oswald?
Firmly believe that the Zapruder film has been altered?
Firmly disbelieve The Single Bullet Theory?
Firmly believe that James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio is the greatest thing since sliced cheese?
Anything else?
-- MWT ;)
-
When the conspiracy types don’t believe they’re getting enough confirmation bias over their pet individual theory, they jump ships like rats, infesting other domains with their poison. Dark, brooding and paranoid, they haven’t changed in some 55 years. DVP has the patience of a saint.
Where can we go to hear your opinions about the blacks, asians and the unemployed???
DVP most likely still thinks JFK's memory is worth defending. That's commitment for you, and in that department at least, he's probably in very safe hands on the EF. When that ship sinks he'll follow your rats through hell rather than except a long ride with you on your nice clean lone boat.
I don't even know the man btw but I'm well aware of his commitment and passion. Think that passion will last with you? What will you talk about after the third day? I know and I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with cats! Those damn cats and their crazy theories.
-
DVP most likely still thinks JFK's memory is worth defending.
I most certainly do.
And I can't imagine any reasonable person thinking otherwise.
-
Hilarious how these brainiacs defend the probable killer of Kennedy, and yet call us the haters.
Bill,
As you probably know by now, I attribute the ironic and sad situation situation we find ourselves in as "Lone Nutters" to the fact that 90 years of "KGB" active measures counterintelligence operations, artfully interwoven since 1961 with strategic deception counterintelligence operations (beginning with GRU colonel Dimitri Polyakov's "volunteering" in N.Y.C. to secretly work for the CIA and the FBI) in order to accomplish KGB's new-in-1959 "Monster Plot" goal of taking zombie-like control of CIA through the application and utilization of inside man/outside man "feedback loops," have taken their toll not only on our body politic (witness the ascension to the presidency of "useful idiot" you-know-who), but even on our way of so-called "thinking" about historical events like the assassination of JFK.
Thanks for your moral support, btw.
-- MWT ;)
PS And now for a little "light entertainment".
This is what Polyakov got in Moscow around 1980 long after he'd left the U.S. and actually started spying for the CIA, around 1966, in Burma, India, and in Moscow.
Why, you ask, did the KGB so highly publicize his arrest?
Answer: To make CIA and FBI to continue to mistakenly believe he'd been working for them (CIA and FBI) while he was still in N.Y.C. (at the U.N.).
LOL
From Tennent H. Bagley's 2014 PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars
The affair called “Tophat” may be the most complex and least understood of all the spy episodes of the Cold War. CIA insiders have called it their greatest spying success against the Soviet Union—which it may have been—but unbeknownst to them, the KGB's hand had lain behind it. An extraordinary twist had transformed it from a KGB provocation to a CIA triumph. The Soviet unit that launched the operation—the KGB's internal-security directorate (Second Chief Directorate—SCD) kept it so secret that they allowed only two people in the KGB's entire foreign intelligence directorate (First Chief Directorate—FCD) to know even of its existence. As a result, even today, a quarter-century after the Cold War and a half-century after it began, the story remains only partly known—East or West—and no one can answer with authority all the questions it left hanging.
Among the unknowns lurks a KGB mole inside the CIA.
The first breach in the wall of security surrounding this case came long after the end of the Cold War, from one of those two KGB foreign-directorate higher-ups who knew. (fn 7)
Thanks to him we can now see that the “Tophat” story really began long before Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) Colonel Dmitry Polyakov contacted American Intelligence, not then in late 1961 but almost five years earlier, at that shocking moment in 1957 when the KGB learned (from a mole inside CIA—see #3 below) that a traitor was stripping the country's military secrets. So damaging was this leak, so widespread its political and strategic implications, that the investigation was taken over by the chief of Soviet counterintelligence himself, KGB General Oleg Gribanov, “the Soviet J. Edgar Hoover.”
In mid-November 1958 he had GRU Lieutenant Colonel Pyotr S. Popov recalled on a ruse from his post in East Berlin, arrested, and interrogated.
Popov confessed. For six years he had been passing to the CIA secrets of Soviet weapons developments and tactics for atomic warfare. In addition, he had opened up his own service to the CIA: the GRU's procedures, some of its spies abroad, and hundreds of its officers. The GRU chief, General Mikhail A. Shalin, was fired, and in early December, the KGB chief Ivan Serov himself moved over to replace him and straighten things out.
But to Oleg Gribanov this shattering of the GRU looked more like opportunity than disaster.
Long experience had taught his organization that in counterintelligence work, “he who takes the initiative, all other things being equal, achieves the best results.” (fn 8 )
Not to wait passively to detect spies but to go out aggressively to find them (or make them). Working on this principle, the KGB had formed, taken over, and manipulated organizations of resistance to their own regime. They had used these fraudulent structures to expose and mislead their opponents inside the country and abroad; to maneuver hostile intelligence services onto false paths, and to get into contact with their personnel with the aim of compromising them and recruited them as moles. So successful had they been that some of these operations like “Trust” and “Sindikat-2” of the 1920s became celebrated in Soviet history, novels, and films, and this “aggressive counterintelligence” [nastupatelnost'] became the KGB's “guiding principle.” (fn 9)
By the 1970s the KGB had “mastered complex undercover agent-operational schemes” and infiltrated Western intelligence services by “presenting our [Soviet] trusted agents for their recruitment, … conducting operational games using methods similar to those used in the 1920s and 1930s, [and …] recruiting staff personnel of American Intelligence.” KGB people “are obliged to carefully study this postwar experience.” (fn 10)
Gribanov was inspired by all that. Looking over the debris of Popov's betrayal he saw that this fund of GRU secrets—now exposed and no longer truly secret—offered a weapon he could turn back against American Intelligence. He code-named the Popov affair “Boomerang.”
To wield this weapon Gribanov created a new “14th Department” within his internal-counterintelligence directorate and gave it the mission of “mounting complicated counterintelligence operations and operational games to penetrate foreign intelligence services.” (fn 11) He would direct it personally, but installed as its chief his principal assistant during their investigation and interrogation of Popov, Colonel Valentin Zvezdenkov.
Together they set out to hand the CIA yet another high GRU officer, but this time their own. He would re-use Popov's information (and a bit more) to win the CIA's trust and in the best tradition of nastupatelnost' would expose it, lead it astray, and draw its officers into compromising situations.
Here some intelligence professionals say “Stop!” Hand the enemy a spy from inside your own ranks? Unthinkable! No intelligence service would take such a risk. So firmly did the CIA leaders believe this that in the 1970s and 1980s they even adopted it as a rule of thumb to judge the bona fides of Soviet walk-ins: if one was a Soviet intelligence officer, he was ipso facto a genuine defector. (fn 12)
That false faith burns brightly in America to this day. As recently as 2013 an FBI “counterintelligence expert” stated flatly, “The KGB would never send a staff officer as a false defector.” (fn 13)
The truth was—and is—quite different. Gribanov's new 14th Department (and other KGB components) did it time and again, from within both the GRU and KGB. General Sergey Kondrashev spoke after the Cold War of “repeated” proposals for such operations in his own FCD disinformation unit. He himself had been invited to shift over to the SCD to help Gribanov run the Nosenko provocation. Another KGB veteran even thought that “most” of the CIA spies inside the KGB who were betrayed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames in 1985 were in fact loyal staffers pretending to help the CIA. (fn 14)
The Mysterious Polyakov
For this particular enterprise Gribanov and Zvezdenkov chose GRU Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Polyakov. (fn 15) As a first step they dispatched him in October 1959 to New York, where he had already served in the past, as a military functionary in the Soviet delegation to the United Nations. The operation was not truly launched until two years later, however, because Polyakov had first to establish himself in his cover position, and then because Gribanov delayed the operation while dealing with an unexpected complication. Having discovered a new, real traitor within the GRU, Colonel Oleg Penkovsky, Gribanov had to weigh the effects on his planned operation. So not until the fall of 1961, after safely “cornering [Penkovsky] like a bear in its den,” 16 As expressed by the Soviet Prosecutor at a press conference at the time of Penkovsky's trial in May 1963.
[Google Scholar]
did Gribanov feel ready to launch the operation.
Polyakov asked an American military officer to put him in touch with the CIA.
The FBI made the contact, it being their jurisdiction, and for several months they met him secretly in New York (codenaming him “Tophat”). Enthusiastic at the time about what Polyakov was revealing, fifteen years later the FBI looked back and wondered whether Polyakov had been deceiving them during those months. He had wasted their time on useless trails, and nothing he had told them had importantly damaged the Soviet Union beyond what Popov had earlier reported.
After a few months in New York, Polyakov returned to Russia in the fall of 1962 and was not heard from until years later, when he told via a Moscow dead drop, that he would soon come out again. He did, in 1966, as Soviet military attaché and GRU chief in Rangoon, Burma. Because operations abroad are the CIA's jurisdiction, the FBI soon turned over contact to the Agency, which continued to meet Polyakov in Burma from then until his tour of duty expired in 1969.
In his early meetings with Polyakov, CIA case officer Jim F. had the strong impression that he was dealing with a KGB plant, but after a time he noted such dramatic improvement in the reporting that he became convinced that Polyakov was genuinely cooperating. 17 As Jim F. told a close colleague on the operation, who told me in 1970.
[Google Scholar]
For years thereafter, Polyakov continued direct and indirect contacts with the CIA, turning over priceless military and intelligence secrets first in Rangoon, then in Moscow, and then in two separate tours of duty in New Delhi where he enjoyed the rank of one-star general, making him the highest-ranked secret source that CIA ever had in Soviet Russia.
But then, in May 1980, the operation came to an abrupt end. On the pretext of a supposed meeting of military attachés, Polyakov was recalled to Moscow and never heard from again.
Ten years later, in 1990, out of the blue, the Soviets announced that they had arrested Polyakov, tried him in secret for being a CIA spy, and executed him. Their publicity chose to date the arrest as 1986, the trial and execution as March 1988.
It took another dozen years to begin explaining these oddities: the secret trial, so unlike Penkovsky's; the lack of even a fuzzy explanation of how the KGB had caught Polyakov; the inexplicable dates; and unusual publicity. The only KGB foreign-operations officer who had known of the SCD's operation, General Sergey Kondrashev (the KGB deputy for disinformation mentioned above), years later revealed to me that Gribanov had sent Polyakov out in the first place. 18 The circumstances of Kondrashev's revelation are described in Tennent H. Bagley, Spymaster, pp. 213–216.
[Google Scholar]
“But they executed Polyakov!” I said. “Why would the KGB execute a man whom they themselves had sent out to commit this treason?”
“Because they found out he was giving you more than he was supposed to.”
“Found out? How?”
Kondrashev answered: “Through some source inside American Intelligence.”
He would say no more. But the question hung there: Who could have known exactly how much Polyakov was reporting to CIA?
It had to be someone inside CIA's Soviet operations staff. And someone still undiscovered. Two Americans who knew something of the Polyakov case were later discovered to have been traitors, but neither of them could be the answer. Robert Hanssen of the FBI had told the Soviets in 1979 about Polyakov's 1962 cooperation in New York, but of course he knew nothing of what Polyakov later reported to the CIA. And even in the unlikely event that CIA traitor Aldrich Ames had learned the full details of Polyakov's reporting, Ames did not begin betraying until 1985, five years after the KGB had recalled Polyakov on a ruse and terminated the operation.
Not one of the later-discovered CIA traitors could even remotely have been aware of these details. In fact, only a handful of specially-placed CIA operatives even knew that the Agency had a relationship with Polyakov, much less what Polyakov was reporting. In each report that the CIA passed to military and other government agencies it disguised the source and attributed reports on different subjects to different sources.
The whole gamut of Polyakov's reporting could have been known only to his CIA handlers and those dealing with his raw reports.
So the question hangs: Who told the KGB what Polyakov was telling the CIA?
Footnotes
7. I base my account of the affair on the most recent revelations from inside both CIA and KGB. The American details were recounted by the responsible CIA desk officers Sandra Grimes and Jeanne Vertefeuille in their book Circle of Treason (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2012), pp. 26–54. The Soviet side was revealed to me by KGB Lieutenant General Sergey A. Kondrashev and reported in my book Spymaster: Startling Revelations of a Soviet KGB Chief, pp. 213–222.
8. Istoriya Sovetskikh Organov Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti; Uchebnik [Hereafter: The History of Soviet Organs of State Security; A Textbook] (Moscow: KGB Higher School, 1977), classified TOP SECRET. Page references are to an English translation.
9. So defined in the KGB's own in-house secret dictionary, brought out by Vasily Mitrokhin and published in English as KGB Lexicon (London: Frank Cass, 2002), p. 261.
10. The History of Soviet State Security Organs; A Textbook. These quotes are from Chapter 10, parts 3 and 4 and conclusions.
11. As defined by the KGB itself, per the Internet: www.soldat. ru
12. Milton Bearden, former head of CIA's Soviet Division (citing his predecessor Burton Gerber) and his co-author James Risen, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB (London: Century, 2003), pp. 20–23.
13. David Major, cited by David Wise in “When the FBI Spent Decades Hunting for a Soviet Spy on its Staff,” Smithsonian Magazine, October 2013.
14. Aleksandr Kouzminov , Biological Espionage: Special Operations in the Soviet and Russian Foreign Intelligence Services in the West (London: Greenhill Books, 2005), p. 59.
15. They picked him, said Kondrashev, at least partly because Polyakov had already had “a certain contact.” That might have been his contact with Popov when escorting a GRU Illegal operative named Margarita Tairova from Moscow to Berlin for Popov to dispatch onward to New York. At the time Popov expressed unease because he had never known Polyakov in illegal-support work. Another such pertinent contact would be Polyakov's contact with GRU Illegal Kaarlo Tuomi who came under FBI control but turned back later to Soviet control. (See my Spy Wars, pp. 171–172, and Spymaster, pp. 196, 216, and 291n7.)
(continued ...)
-
Bill,
As you probably know by now, I attribute the ironic and sad situation situation we find ourselves in as "Lone Nutters" to the fact that 90 years of "KGB" active measures counterintelligence operations, artfully interwoven since 1961 with strategic deception counterintelligence operations (beginning with GRU colonel Dimitri Polyakov's "volunteering" in N.Y.C. to secretly work for the CIA and the FBI) in order to accomplish KGB's new-in-1959 "Monster Plot" goal of taking zombie-like control of CIA through the application and utilization of inside man/outside man "feedback loops," have taken their toll not only on our body politic (witness the ascension to the presidency of "useful idiot" you-know-who), but even on our way of so-called "thinking" about historical events like the assassination of JFK.
Thanks for your moral support, btw.
-- MWT ;)
PS And now for a little "light entertainment".
This is what Polyakov got in Moscow around 1980 long after he'd left the U.S. and actually started spying for the CIA, around 1966, in Burma, India, and in Moscow.
Why, you ask, did the KGB so highly publicize his arrest?
Answer: To make CIA and FBI to continue to mistakenly believe he'd been working for them (CIA and FBI) while he was still in N.Y.C. (at the U.N.).
LOL
From Tennent H. Bagley's 2014 PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars
The affair called “Tophat” may be the most complex and least understood of all the spy episodes of the Cold War. CIA insiders have called it their greatest spying success against the Soviet Union—which it may have been—but unbeknownst to them, the KGB's hand had lain behind it. An extraordinary twist had transformed it from a KGB provocation to a CIA triumph. The Soviet unit that launched the operation—the KGB's internal-security directorate (Second Chief Directorate—SCD) kept it so secret that they allowed only two people in the KGB's entire foreign intelligence directorate (First Chief Directorate—FCD) to know even of its existence. As a result, even today, a quarter-century after the Cold War and a half-century after it began, the story remains only partly known—East or West—and no one can answer with authority all the questions it left hanging.
Among the unknowns lurks a KGB mole inside the CIA.
The first breach in the wall of security surrounding this case came long after the end of the Cold War, from one of those two KGB foreign-directorate higher-ups who knew. (fn 7)
Thanks to him we can now see that the “Tophat” story really began long before Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) Colonel Dmitry Polyakov contacted American Intelligence, not then in late 1961 but almost five years earlier, at that shocking moment in 1957 when the KGB learned (from a mole inside CIA—see #3 below) that a traitor was stripping the country's military secrets. So damaging was this leak, so widespread its political and strategic implications, that the investigation was taken over by the chief of Soviet counterintelligence himself, KGB General Oleg Gribanov, “the Soviet J. Edgar Hoover.”
In mid-November 1958 he had GRU Lieutenant Colonel Pyotr S. Popov recalled on a ruse from his post in East Berlin, arrested, and interrogated.
Popov confessed. For six years he had been passing to the CIA secrets of Soviet weapons developments and tactics for atomic warfare. In addition, he had opened up his own service to the CIA: the GRU's procedures, some of its spies abroad, and hundreds of its officers. The GRU chief, General Mikhail A. Shalin, was fired, and in early December, the KGB chief Ivan Serov himself moved over to replace him and straighten things out.
But to Oleg Gribanov this shattering of the GRU looked more like opportunity than disaster.
Long experience had taught his organization that in counterintelligence work, “he who takes the initiative, all other things being equal, achieves the best results.” (fn 8)
Not to wait passively to detect spies but to go out aggressively to find them (or make them). Working on this principle, the KGB had formed, taken over, and manipulated organizations of resistance to their own regime. They had used these fraudulent structures to expose and mislead their opponents inside the country and abroad; to maneuver hostile intelligence services onto false paths, and to get into contact with their personnel with the aim of compromising them and recruited them as moles. So successful had they been that some of these operations like “Trust” and “Sindikat-2” of the 1920s became celebrated in Soviet history, novels, and films, and this “aggressive counterintelligence” [nastupatelnost'] became the KGB's “guiding principle.” (fn 9)
By the 1970s the KGB had “mastered complex undercover agent-operational schemes” and infiltrated Western intelligence services by “presenting our [Soviet] trusted agents for their recruitment, … conducting operational games using methods similar to those used in the 1920s and 1930s, [and …] recruiting staff personnel of American Intelligence.” KGB people “are obliged to carefully study this postwar experience.” (fn 10)
Gribanov was inspired by all that. Looking over the debris of Popov's betrayal he saw that this fund of GRU secrets—now exposed and no longer truly secret—offered a weapon he could turn back against American Intelligence. He code-named the Popov affair “Boomerang.”
To wield this weapon Gribanov created a new “14th Department” within his internal-counterintelligence directorate and gave it the mission of “mounting complicated counterintelligence operations and operational games to penetrate foreign intelligence services.” (fn 11) He would direct it personally, but installed as its chief his principal assistant during their investigation and interrogation of Popov, Colonel Valentin Zvezdenkov.
Together they set out to hand the CIA yet another high GRU officer, but this time their own. He would re-use Popov's information (and a bit more) to win the CIA's trust and in the best tradition of nastupatelnost' would expose it, lead it astray, and draw its officers into compromising situations.
Here some intelligence professionals say “Stop!” Hand the enemy a spy from inside your own ranks? Unthinkable! No intelligence service would take such a risk. So firmly did the CIA leaders believe this that in the 1970s and 1980s they even adopted it as a rule of thumb to judge the bona fides of Soviet walk-ins: if one was a Soviet intelligence officer, he was ipso facto a genuine defector. (fn 12)
That false faith burns brightly in America to this day. As recently as 2013 an FBI “counterintelligence expert” stated flatly, “The KGB would never send a staff officer as a false defector.” (fn 13)
The truth was—and is—quite different. Gribanov's new 14th Department (and other KGB components) did it time and again, from within both the GRU and KGB. General Sergey Kondrashev spoke after the Cold War of “repeated” proposals for such operations in his own FCD disinformation unit. He himself had been invited to shift over to the SCD to help Gribanov run the Nosenko provocation. Another KGB veteran even thought that “most” of the CIA spies inside the KGB who were betrayed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames in 1985 were in fact loyal staffers pretending to help the CIA. (fn 14)
The Mysterious Polyakov
For this particular enterprise Gribanov and Zvezdenkov chose GRU Lieutenant Colonel Dmitry Polyakov. (fn 15) As a first step they dispatched him in October 1959 to New York, where he had already served in the past, as a military functionary in the Soviet delegation to the United Nations. The operation was not truly launched until two years later, however, because Polyakov had first to establish himself in his cover position, and then because Gribanov delayed the operation while dealing with an unexpected complication. Having discovered a new, real traitor within the GRU, Colonel Oleg Penkovsky, Gribanov had to weigh the effects on his planned operation. So not until the fall of 1961, after safely “cornering [Penkovsky] like a bear in its den,” 16 As expressed by the Soviet Prosecutor at a press conference at the time of Penkovsky's trial in May 1963.
[Google Scholar]
did Gribanov feel ready to launch the operation.
Polyakov asked an American military officer to put him in touch with the CIA.
The FBI made the contact, it being their jurisdiction, and for several months they met him secretly in New York (codenaming him “Tophat”). Enthusiastic at the time about what Polyakov was revealing, fifteen years later the FBI looked back and wondered whether Polyakov had been deceiving them during those months. He had wasted their time on useless trails, and nothing he had told them had importantly damaged the Soviet Union beyond what Popov had earlier reported.
After a few months in New York, Polyakov returned to Russia in the fall of 1962 and was not heard from until years later, when he told via a Moscow dead drop, that he would soon come out again. He did, in 1966, as Soviet military attaché and GRU chief in Rangoon, Burma. Because operations abroad are the CIA's jurisdiction, the FBI soon turned over contact to the Agency, which continued to meet Polyakov in Burma from then until his tour of duty expired in 1969.
In his early meetings with Polyakov, CIA case officer Jim F. had the strong impression that he was dealing with a KGB plant, but after a time he noted such dramatic improvement in the reporting that he became convinced that Polyakov was genuinely cooperating. 17 As Jim F. told a close colleague on the operation, who told me in 1970.
[Google Scholar]
For years thereafter, Polyakov continued direct and indirect contacts with the CIA, turning over priceless military and intelligence secrets first in Rangoon, then in Moscow, and then in two separate tours of duty in New Delhi where he enjoyed the rank of one-star general, making him the highest-ranked secret source that CIA ever had in Soviet Russia.
But then, in May 1980, the operation came to an abrupt end. On the pretext of a supposed meeting of military attachés, Polyakov was recalled to Moscow and never heard from again.
Ten years later, in 1990, out of the blue, the Soviets announced that they had arrested Polyakov, tried him in secret for being a CIA spy, and executed him. Their publicity chose to date the arrest as 1986, the trial and execution as March 1988.
It took another dozen years to begin explaining these oddities: the secret trial, so unlike Penkovsky's; the lack of even a fuzzy explanation of how the KGB had caught Polyakov; the inexplicable dates; and unusual publicity. The only KGB foreign-operations officer who had known of the SCD's operation, General Sergey Kondrashev (the KGB deputy for disinformation mentioned above), years later revealed to me that Gribanov had sent Polyakov out in the first place. 18 The circumstances of Kondrashev's revelation are described in Tennent H. Bagley, Spymaster, pp. 213–216.
[Google Scholar]
“But they executed Polyakov!” I said. “Why would the KGB execute a man whom they themselves had sent out to commit this treason?”
“Because they found out he was giving you more than he was supposed to.”
“Found out? How?”
Kondrashev answered: “Through some source inside American Intelligence.”
He would say no more. But the question hung there: Who could have known exactly how much Polyakov was reporting to CIA?
It had to be someone inside CIA's Soviet operations staff. And someone still undiscovered. Two Americans who knew something of the Polyakov case were later discovered to have been traitors, but neither of them could be the answer. Robert Hanssen of the FBI had told the Soviets in 1979 about Polyakov's 1962 cooperation in New York, but of course he knew nothing of what Polyakov later reported to the CIA. And even in the unlikely event that CIA traitor Aldrich Ames had learned the full details of Polyakov's reporting, Ames did not begin betraying until 1985, five years after the KGB had recalled Polyakov on a ruse and terminated the operation.
Not one of the later-discovered CIA traitors could even remotely have been aware of these details. In fact, only a handful of specially-placed CIA operatives even knew that the Agency had a relationship with Polyakov, much less what Polyakov was reporting. In each report that the CIA passed to military and other government agencies it disguised the source and attributed reports on different subjects to different sources.
The whole gamut of Polyakov's reporting could have been known only to his CIA handlers and those dealing with his raw reports.
So the question hangs: Who told the KGB what Polyakov was telling the CIA?
Footnotes
7. I base my account of the affair on the most recent revelations from inside both CIA and KGB. The American details were recounted by the responsible CIA desk officers Sandra Grimes and Jeanne Vertefeuille in their book Circle of Treason (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2012), pp. 26–54. The Soviet side was revealed to me by KGB Lieutenant General Sergey A. Kondrashev and reported in my book Spymaster: Startling Revelations of a Soviet KGB Chief, pp. 213–222.
8. Istoriya Sovetskikh Organov Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti; Uchebnik [Hereafter: The History of Soviet Organs of State Security; A Textbook] (Moscow: KGB Higher School, 1977), classified TOP SECRET. Page references are to an English translation.
9. So defined in the KGB's own in-house secret dictionary, brought out by Vasily Mitrokhin and published in English as KGB Lexicon (London: Frank Cass, 2002), p. 261.
10. The History of Soviet State Security Organs; A Textbook. These quotes are from Chapter 10, parts 3 and 4 and conclusions.
11. As defined by the KGB itself, per the Internet: www.soldat. ru
12. Milton Bearden, former head of CIA's Soviet Division (citing his predecessor Burton Gerber) and his co-author James Risen, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB (London: Century, 2003), pp. 20–23.
13. David Major, cited by David Wise in “When the FBI Spent Decades Hunting for a Soviet Spy on its Staff,” Smithsonian Magazine, October 2013.
14. Aleksandr Kouzminov , Biological Espionage: Special Operations in the Soviet and Russian Foreign Intelligence Services in the West (London: Greenhill Books, 2005), p. 59.
15. They picked him, said Kondrashev, at least partly because Polyakov had already had “a certain contact.” That might have been his contact with Popov when escorting a GRU Illegal operative named Margarita Tairova from Moscow to Berlin for Popov to dispatch onward to New York. At the time Popov expressed unease because he had never known Polyakov in illegal-support work. Another such pertinent contact would be Polyakov's contact with GRU Illegal Kaarlo Tuomi who came under FBI control but turned back later to Soviet control. (See my Spy Wars, pp. 171–172, and Spymaster, pp. 196, 216, and 291n7.)
(continued ...)
Another off-topic wall of the same-ole, same-ole stuff that Thomas posts everyfreakinwhere!
-
Hilarious how these brainiacs defend the probable killer of Kennedy, and yet call us the haters.
Not nearly as hilarious as how you sling around the term “probable killer”.
-
Not nearly as hilarious as how you sling around the term “probable killer”.
Iacoletti,
Would you rather he'd said, "The probable killer blob"?
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacoletti,
Would you rather he'd said, "The probable killer blob"?
-- MWT ;)
Another useless aside from the master baiter.
-
Another useless aside from the master baiter.
Iacoletti,
You ought to know all about "master baiting," seein' as how you're continually saying all you can see now are blobs.
My God, didn't they warn you when you were a child?
-- MWT ;)
-
You ought to know all about "master baiting," seein' as how you're continually saying all you can see now are blobs.
Well given that I’ve never said “all I can see are blobs” even once (much less “continually”), this is just more fake news from Tommy the prevaricator.
-
Well given that I’ve never said “all I can see are blobs” even once (much less “continually”), this is just more fake news from Tommy the prevaricator.
Iacoletti,
But those three slowly moving vertical objects (one of which was wearing a blue headscarf like your "Karen Westbrook" in the Zapruder film) on the Pergola Patio in the Towner film just look like blobs to you, right?
Bermuda shorts-wearing blobs?
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacoletti,But those three slowly moving vertical objects (one of which was wearing a blue headscarf like your "Karen Westbrook" in the Zapruder film) on the Pergola Patio in the Towner film just look like blobs to you, right? Bermuda shorts-wearing blobs?-- MWT ;)
Thomas, try to stay with-it, the topic at hand. Just give it a try.
-
Thomas, try to stay with-it, the topic at hand. Just give it a try.
See my last post, M.C.
-- MWT ;)
PS Have you sent that letter to John Newman and Peter Dale Scott yet?
You're gonna set 'em both right on Nosenko, right, and Newman right on Golitsyn, as well?
-
Thomas, try to stay with-it, the topic at hand. Just give it a try.
Yeah, he tries to turn every thread into his pet obsession.
-
Yeah, he tries to turn every thread into his pet obsession.
Iacoletti,
Which one?
-- MWT ;)
-
I guess the test will be: How will Duncan react after DVP’s 55 posts grow to 1000 posts, while his (DVP’s) trophy wall builds-out with content from unhappy members of Duncan’s Forum.
And, how ‘bout this. David has an extensive site, with a following. Perhaps David should open a forum, and wee all see how we like them apples. We’ll see how David manages that situation.
-
Brian,
Why the hyperbole?
Wouldn't banning be sufficient?
Like M.C. manipulated K.B. into banning me in May of 2018?
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy ;)
Thommy deleted his qualifier, “(apparently)” in the above post; where the “.” sits after “K.B”
-
Thommy deleted his qualifier, “(apparently)” in the above post; where the “.” sits after “K.B”
Why, you little "snitch," you!
(And here I thought you were just a widdle pro-Kremlin firebwand ...)
-- MWT ;)
-
I guess the test will be: How will Duncan react after DVP’s 55 posts grow to 1000 posts, while his (DVP’s) trophy wall builds-out with content from unhappy members of Duncan’s Forum.
And, how ‘bout this. David has an extensive site, with a following. Perhaps David should open a forum, and wee all see how we like them apples. We’ll see how David manages that situation.
Michael,
Yep.
That'll really be something, won't it?
-- MWT ;)
PS You gonna keep 'em apprised of the situation?
Duncan, that is?
-
Wqell, sure.
....
Because I've read Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book Spy Wars and 2014 PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars, Mark Riebling's 1994 book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, and ...
-- MWT ;)
Tommy, If I worked at a coffee shop,
And every day you came in and told me to read something that you wanted me to read...
And day after day I made your coffee while telling you that I wasn’t going to read your chit..
And, every day, while I made your coffee...
You persisted..
And I told you to bugger-off..
And you did not bugger-off
...
Well...
....
I imagine that, at some point, you would not like the way that I prepeared your coffee.
Now,
Question:
What do you do, especially if you want a nice cup of coffee?
My feeling, Tommy, is that you come-up with the wrong answer to that question.......
..... over and over and over and over and over and over, again...
-
.....
Michael,
Don't you think you should report me ... you know, to try to get me banned?
How's that letter to Newman and Scott coming along, btw?
You're gonna set 'em straight by turning them onto Richards J. Heuer's 1987 Five Paths to Judgment, aren't you, seein' as how they probably missed it and everything? Or was it John L. Hart's so-called "The Monster Plot Report," because although it's been known about forever, and Hart did give perjured testimony to the HSCA, the report itself wasn't made public until 2017, a fact that professors Newman and Scott probably didn't realize!
(LOL)
Cheers!
-- MWT ;)
PS Maybe B. can arrange it for you.
-
Michael,
Don't you think you should report me ... you know, to try to get me banned?
.......
-- MWT ;)
PS Maybe B. can arrange it for you.
-
Michael,
I hear they used to catapult diseased and stinking carrion over walls to sicken the people.
Maybe you should volunteer.
As a catapult operator, that is.
-- MWT ;)
-
Michael,
I hear they used to catapult diseased and stinking carrion over walls to sicken the people.
Maybe you should volunteer.
As a catapult operator, that is.
-- MWT ;)
-
Brian,
Why the hyperbole?
Wouldn't banning be sufficient?
Like M.C. manipulated K.B. into banning me in May of 2018?
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy ;)
Tommy, why don’t you reveal, for the first time, while all of your followers are fluttering around, to an international audience......
..... drum roll.....
The offense for which you received the dreaded “two posts per day” fate?
What reason was given to you for your sentence?
-
Tommy, why don’t you reveal, for the fisrst time, while all of your followers are fluttering around, to an international audience......
..... drum roll.....
The offense for which you received the dreaded “two posts per day” fate?
What reason was given to you for your sentence?
Michael,
It takes two to tangle.
Wanna dance?
Cheers!
-- MWT ;)
Got writer's block halfway through the letter?
The one you're going to send to Newman and Scott?
-
....
Like M.C. manipulated K.B. into banning me in May of 2018?
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy ;)
Thrice said does not make it so....
-
Tommy, why don’t you reveal, for the first time, while all of your followers are fluttering around, to an international audience......
..... drum roll.....
The offense for which you received the dreaded “two posts per day” fate?
What reason was given to you for your sentence?
Come on Thomas, inguiring minds want to know, Tell us what they said!
-
Thrice said does not make it so....
I got screen shots, Mike.
Regardless, as far as my waning fan base is concerned, I guess you're right -- most of the 4,900 "views" my "Monster Plot" thread in the "Off Topic" section got over a period of about two weeks were probably people who were absolutely fascinated by your grossly over-enlarged cut-and-paste jobs from HSCA perjurer John L. Hart's report by kinda the same name.
But probably not by your rational, well-formulated rebuttals, because ... well, let's face it ... you didn't have any.
-- MWT ;)
-
I got screen shots, Mike.
.......
Screen shots of what?
You claim the there was a conspiracy to get you put on the “two posts” list. I say that that is nonsense. Why don’t you tell us the reason that you were given? Or, were you not given an explanation?
-
Come on Thomas, inguiring minds want to know, Tell us what they said!
Honestly, Michael, it's OK...we really don't give a toss.
-
Honestly, Michael, it's OK...we really don't give a toss.
I get that, but it is on-topic, and he is accusing me of conspiring with a moderator to get him “tossed”. I obviously can’t prove that I did not do something (it’s a law of logic), but he should be able to prove what he says I did. He should do it; instead of accusing me without providing proof. Part of the story is what he was told the reason was for his being “tossed”; but he won’t share that either. He’ll just go on making unfounded claims. I know that most members don’t care, but I want it on the record that his claims are BS and he had an opportunity to prove his claim and that he declined.
-
Beware free VPNs and always check with sites like 'What's My IP?' before going to a particular site.
I personally wouldn't be caught dead w/o my encrypted tunnel.
Very true and good information. I used the free one as an example if he just wanted to view the forum.
-
Well, that's what I have always thought too.
But if what you just said is truly the case, then explain this....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pQ3qoDv9OW4/XWYG9v7EHYI/AAAAAAABSbY/huGRASX90gIt2oPRVpP_4mWiMGLeqwQuACLcBGAs/s725/Copyright-Info.png)
if a person on a forum in conversation wrote the word "LOL", they wouldn't have a copyright on that. If they were presenting their own works that had a copyright, then yes, but not for a forum discussion. If that was the case the nobody could use quotes or info on the net.
-
Also, a hastily imposed after the fact forum "copyright rule" in order to deter a person from using information has no grounds for "copyright". Gordon added a ridiculous "copyright rule" at the last minute after people complained about it. That is not a valid copyright. A person who's confident in their research should have no problem with others copying their info as long as it isn't taken out of context.
As long as you are using your writings on the site that's in conversation with another member, there is no "copyright" on that because, you're engaging in a discussion. Your own words belong to you and you are free to use your own words.
-
OK. Thanks, Rick.
-
Also, a hastily imposed after the fact forum "copyright rule" in order to deter a person from using information has no grounds for "copyright". Gordon added a ridiculous "copyright rule" at the last minute after people complained about it. That is not a valid copyright. A person who's confident in their research should have no problem with others copying their info as long as it isn't taken out of context.
As long as you are using your writings on the site that's in conversation with another member, there is no "copyright" on that because, you're engaging in a discussion. Your own words belong to you and you are free to use your own words.
Rick. the relevant comment in your post is " so long as it isn't taken out of context." DVP take note.
-
Rick, the relevant comment in your post is " so long as it isn't taken out of context." DVP take note.
Ray, maybe you can help me repair any "out of context" quotes that I have transferred to my website from the JFK forums. Would you be so kind as to provide a few examples of where you think I have quoted conspiracy theorists "out of context" on my website/blog.
After I take a good look at your examples, we'll see if I agree with you or not regarding the "out of context" matter.
In the event that I do agree with you on any of the quotes you cite, I will do my best to add more CTer "context" back into the quote(s) by checking out the complete original discussion(s) and putting in additional CTer quotes as warranted in order to enhance the "context" that almost all CTers at The Education Forum seem to think I have left completely out of virtually every single CTer quote I have ever transferred from the EF to my own site.*
* And that's how I can tell that this persistent "out of context" refrain has been blown up to ludicrous proportions by the CTers. Because to think that I have actually quoted the CTers "out of context" every single time I've quoted a conspiracist in the last 10+ years is, to put it bluntly, just plain crazy. A few CTer excerpts I've quoted on my site could possibly use a little more "context", I'll readily admit that possibility. But to hear the EF CTers tell it, I have never once quoted a CTer properly in my whole life. And that overboard notion is flat-out silly.
-
Ray, maybe you can help me repair any "out of context" quotes that I have transferred to my website from the JFK forums. Would you be so kind as to provide a few examples of where you think I have quoted conspiracy theorists "out of context" on my website/blog.
After I take a good look at your examples, we'll see if I agree with you or not regarding the "out of context" matter.
In the event that I do agree with you on any of the quotes you cite, I will do my best to add more CTer "context" back into the quote(s) by checking out the complete original discussion(s) and putting in additional CTer quotes as warranted in order to enhance the "context" that almost all CTers at The Education Forum seem to think I have left completely out of virtually every single CTer quote I have ever transferred from the EF to my own site.*
* And that's how I can tell that this persistent "out of context" refrain has been blown up to ludicrous proportions by the CTers. Because to think that I have actually quoted the CTers "out of context" every single time I've quoted a conspiracist in the last 10+ years is, to put it bluntly, just plain crazy. A few CTer excerpts I've quoted on my site could possibly use a little more "context", I'll readily admit that possibility. But to hear the EF CTers tell it, I have never once quoted a CTer properly in my whole life. And that overboard notion is flat-out silly.
Hi David, I don’t want to belabor the point, but, the context in which members made their comments was in an active and ongoing debate. That context can’t be restored on your site, the subject can’t be revisited, discussion prior to and after your quoted material is part of the context that is not possible to reproduce in your format. Mambers come to different and changed understandings of subject matter, especially when a thread evolves over months or years. Your format strips the quotes, that you have captured, of that context. There really is no getting around any of these facts.
-
[Members] come to different and changed understandings of subject matter, especially when a thread evolves over months or years.
And one of the biggest "changes" in subject matter recently at the EF forum is this....
Three-and-a-half years ago, not a single EF member cared enough about my archived EF discussions to request that I remove the EF/CTer posts from my site, nor did anyone insist that I be banned from the EF because of my archiving. Nobody cared enough in 2016 to do either of those things. Nobody.
Fast forward to 2019 ---
"I want my stuff removed, NOW!" -- Bart Kamp; 8/25/2019
"Von Pein....TAKE MY WORDS OFF YOUR WEBSITE!" -- Jim Hargrove; 8/25/2019
"If Von Pein does not remove this crap from his website pronto then I have no interest in being here [at EF] and will ask for the removal of all my posts/material since it gets misrepresented and twisted by Von Pein." -- Bart Kamp; 8/26/2019
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DTVzpohVGjE/Wy2zB1cNF7I/AAAAAAABPNQ/4hWiVdgippoRjsqbdcXvJcCbHEP1UsLDQCLcBGAs/s300/Easter-Egg-Logo.png) (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/?do=findComment&comment=405482)
What a difference three years can make.
And I think it's laughable to think that Internet conspiracy believers would be likely to exhibit ANY "changed understandings of subject matter" and have their minds changed by anyone when it comes to virtually any aspect of the JFK case. Unless, of course, it's a CTer who's willing to dive even deeper into the conspiracy pool than he already was. Because from my experience in dealing with them, JFK conspiracy advocates are certainly among the most rigid-thinking people on the planet when it comes to the topic of a "JFK conspiracy".
And, yes, it's also true that LNers are pretty rigid in their thinking too. But the difference is: LNers have a little something called "All The Evidence" and "Oswald's Actions" on their side to enhance their rigidity.
-
And one of the biggest "changes" in subject matter recently at the EF forum is this....
Three-and-a-half years ago, not a single EF member cared enough about my archived EF discussions to request that I remove the EF/CTer posts from my site, nor did anyone insist that I be banned from the EF because of my archiving. Nobody cared enough in 2016 to do either of those things. Nobody.
Fast forward to 2019 ---
"I want my stuff removed, NOW!" -- Bart Kamp; 8/25/2019
"Von Pein....TAKE MY WORDS OFF YOUR WEBSITE!" -- Jim Hargrove; 8/25/2019
"If Von Pein does not remove this crap from his website pronto then I have no interest in being here [at EF] and will ask for the removal of all my posts/material since it gets misrepresented and twisted by Von Pein." -- Bart Kamp; 8/26/2019
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DTVzpohVGjE/Wy2zB1cNF7I/AAAAAAABPNQ/4hWiVdgippoRjsqbdcXvJcCbHEP1UsLDQCLcBGAs/s300/Easter-Egg-Logo.png) (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/?do=findComment&comment=405482)
What a difference three years can make.
And I think it's laughable to think that Internet conspiracy believers would be likely to exhibit ANY "changed understandings of subject matter" and have their minds changed by anyone when it comes to virtually any aspect of the JFK case. Unless, of course, it's a CTer who's willing to dive even deeper into the conspiracy pool than he already was. Because from my experience in dealing with them, JFK conspiracy advocates are certainly among the most rigid-thinking people on the planet when it comes to the topic of a "JFK conspiracy".
And, yes, it's also true that LNers are pretty rigid in their thinking too. But the difference is: LNers have a little something called "All The Evidence" and "Oswald's Actions" on their side to enhance their rigidity.
David, you shucked and jived around my whole point about context. A forum is a context of ongoing discussion and debate. Your trophy wall takes those discussions out of that context. There is no getting around that.
-
David, you shucked and jived around my whole point about context. A forum is a context of ongoing discussion and debate. Your trophy wall takes those discussions out of that context. There is no getting around that.
You're being silly. I provide plenty of "context" on my site relating to the SUB-TOPICS being discussed.
But you seem to have this odd notion in your head that every single discussion I archive has been stripped of all of its context relating to those sub-topics being discussed. But as I said before, that notion is too ridiculous to contemplate.
Bottom Line---
Michael Clark and other CTers like him are just looking for a reason to bash an LNer. It's as simple as that.
-
I think some people take this little 'hobby' far too seriously. A 50-year-old murder shouldn't be the most important thing in someone's life. Addiction to the internet is dangerous and unhealthy. When it stops being fun..STOP!!
-
Can I be on your list too?
I've put Brian on my 'snore' list. This means I read what he posts, but fall asleep in the middle of one of his many run-on sentences.......... zzzzzzzzzzz (gettin' some 'z's?)
Guess I can't call him Albert anymore, huh?
-
I've put Brian on my 'snore' list. This means I read what he posts, but fall asleep in the middle of one of his many run-on sentences.......... zzzzzzzzzzz (gettin' some 'z's?)
Guess I can't call him Briananymore, huh? Wasn't there an existential philosopher by the name of Albert Camus?
-
David, It is obvious that Kamp and Hargrove are among the biggest kooks at the EF. They have orchestrated your exit from that place so they can spout crap unchallenged by you. I'm afraid you are a victim of your own success.
-
David, It is obvious that Kamp and Hargrove are among the biggest kooks at the EF. They have orchestrated your exit from that place so they can spout crap unchallenged by you. I'm afraid you are a victim of your own success.
You have hit it on the head. They want a big sandbox where they can float their theories unchallenged. And David got in the way of that so he had to be gotten rid of and they finally figured out a way to do that.
-
I'm a writer. There are basic rights of authorship, and courtesy among other writers.
Understanding David's process, This occurred member to member on the ED Forum.
He quoted the words exactly as written, posted them on to his own site, and added his own commentary to it.
So David --
If I said something to you that was CT (which, I'm not, by the way), and you took the words exactly as I wrote them.
And post them on your website, but then you went on to say,
"CTers are nothing but hypocrites when it comes to any discussion about JFK's autopsy report."
"And you know perfectly well WHY Humes started that fire, but, like all scumbag CTers, you'll totally ignore Humes' perfectly reasonable (and proper) reason for doing it."
"But it's par for the course for many conspiracy theorists. They couldn't care less how many people they accuse of being murderers and liars on the flimiest of evidence (which amounts, really, to no "evidence" at all --- a gut feeling is more than enough "evidence" for the John Armstrongs of the world)".
Here you have these actual assorted last word responses to an original post at the ED Forum. (not actually mine)
Insults really. How do you know what I know about, the autopsy of Pres. Kennedy?
Making blanket statements and insults such as these, without my ability to respond on your website, seems unfair, don't you think?
It also doesn't seem like it would be easy to find my post on your site, or to know if it was even there.
I'm troubled by, why you would not just extend the courtesy and take it down?
I see a lot of insults and bashing with a handful of the usual's at DVP, and that, seems to make it all like a game of spite in the end.
The context of the work was within the ED Forum.
It was a member to member discussion. What you did, amounted to going behind his back.
There is no fair reason not to keep a member to member discussion on the forum.
There is no reason not to allow a fair response by the author to any of his words placed on another public viewed forum.
Any forum has the right to protect it's content from being taken out of context by another member of that forum.
It also has an obligation to post a statement promising the removal of any work, requested by the author of that work.
Public discussion forum or not, what you write on record belongs to you, unless you agree that your posts become property of the forum,
and that should be clearly stated on the site.
The actual filing of a copyright application is for the allowance of statutory damages, for that, you are protected for 3 months without it.
Any "original work of authorship" is subject to copyright protection the moment that it is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression."
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/12/can-i-say-my-blog-is-copyrighted-basics.html
Any author, of anything written, has the right to demand his work be taken down if he/she perceives the work is taken out of context.
If you did the above to me, I would complain to the ED Forum, and then first ask, then demand, you take my words off of your website.
Writers can file legal take down notice upon the webmaster, but again, why not just extend that courtesy?
-
Brian, Your last (very long) paragraph is well worth reading. You've summed it up rather nicely.
-
I'm a writer. There are basic rights of authorship, and courtesy among other writers.
Understanding David's process, This occurred member to member on the ED Forum.
He quoted the words exactly as written, posted them on to his own site, and added his own commentary to it.
So David --
If I said something to you that was CT (which, I'm not, by the way), and you took the words exactly as I wrote them.
And post them on your website, but then you went on to say,
"CTers are nothing but hypocrites when it comes to any discussion about JFK's autopsy report."
"And you know perfectly well WHY Humes started that fire, but, like all scumbag CTers, you'll totally ignore Humes' perfectly reasonable (and proper) reason for doing it."
"But it's par for the course for many conspiracy theorists. They couldn't care less how many people they accuse of being murderers and liars on the flimiest of evidence (which amounts, really, to no "evidence" at all --- a gut feeling is more than enough "evidence" for the John Armstrongs of the world)".
Here you have these actual assorted last word responses to an original post at the ED Forum. (not actually mine)
Insults really. How do you know what I know about, the autopsy of Pres. Kennedy?
Making blanket statements and insults such as these, without my ability to respond on your website, seems unfair, don't you think?
It also doesn't seem like it would be easy to find my post on your site, or to know if it was even there.
I'm troubled by, why you would not just extend the courtesy and take it down?
I see a lot of insults and bashing with a handful of the usual's at DVP, and that, seems to make it all like a game of spite in the end.
The context of the work was within the ED Forum.
It was a member to member discussion. What you did, amounted to going behind his back.
There is no fair reason not to keep a member to member discussion on the forum.
There is no reason not to allow a fair response by the author to any of his words placed on another public viewed forum.
Any forum has the right to protect it's content from being taken out of context by another member of that forum.
It also has an obligation to post a statement promising the removal of any work, requested by the author of that work.
Public discussion forum or not, what you write on record belongs to you, unless you agree that your posts become property of the forum,
and that should be clearly stated on the site.
The actual filing of a copyright application is for the allowance of statutory damages, for that, you are protected for 3 months without it.
Any "original work of authorship" is subject to copyright protection the moment that it is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression."
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/12/can-i-say-my-blog-is-copyrighted-basics.html
Any author, of anything written, has the right to demand his work be taken down if he/she perceives the work is taken out of context.
If you did the above to me, I would complain to the ED Forum, and then first ask, then demand, you take my words off of your website.
Writers can file legal take down notice upon the webmaster, but again, why not just extend that courtesy?
Hi Peter,
I suggest you do a little more work in order to get your facts straight before you come in here and start scolding me and hitting me on the hand with your verbal ruler.
First of all, two of the three quotes you cited above (#1 and #2) did not even originate at The Education Forum at all. (Not nearly everything I have archived at my site started out at the EF forum.) Those two quotes were made by me at another JFK forum entirely (the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup, which is an unmoderated forum). Hence, the word "scumbag" was being tossed around by both myself and the conspiracy theorist I was responding to (a person going by the name of "Boris"---which isn't his real name).
And as everyone can see (if they had bothered to look first), "Boris" started the "scumbag" insults. I merely reciprocated in kind in my next post, which is available in its original form at the Usenet forum HERE (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/QfPBFz-geGY/2VbHCeMRBQAJ). And as you can see if you click HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1327.html), I have merely transferred to my site the exact verbatim quotes that appear in the original discussion, which is what I always do when a discussion comes straight from a "forum" (vs. my quoting an "article" or a "book excerpt").
And the reason I could tell immediately that the "scumbag" post didn't originate at the EF forum, is because I would never dare call somebody a "scumbag" while posting at EF. The moderators would frown upon that severely. So I hold (held) my tongue a lot when posting there.
The "CTers are nothing but hypocrites" quote also appears in the same acj forum discussion as the "scumbag" quote---HERE (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/QfPBFz-geGY/PzDeIlgPBQAJ). So, once again, it's not something that I added after the fact when I moved the discussion to my own website.
The third quote you used also first appeared on a JFK forum. It was, indeed, the EF forum this time (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-403311), but since I was quoting someone (John Armstrong) who isn't a member of any online forum that I belong to, I added (at my site) a direct link to Armstrong's whole article from which I culled the quoted excerpt. Which everyone can see HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1326.html#Armstrong-Quote-And-Link) (please note the blue link attached to the word "Said" within the words "John Armstrong Said").
So Peter Goth is just flat-out wrong when he says I take various quotes which first originated at the EF forum and then "added" my "own commentary to it". Talk about "misrepresentation". Peter just engaged in it himself in his last post. Because if a discussion started out at the EF forum (or any JFK forum), all I have done in those instances (as I just proved three times above) is to copy and paste the exact same words that I have already written at a JFK forum over to my own site. They're the very same (public) words---at both the JFK forum and then my own site. So I'd appreciate it if certain people would stop insisting otherwise. Because those people obviously don't know what the heck they're talking about.
-
Hi Peter,
I suggest you do a little more work in order to get your facts straight before you come in here and start scolding me and hitting me on the hand with your verbal ruler.
First of all, two of the three quotes you cited above (#1 and #2) did not even originate at The Education Forum at all. (Not nearly everything I have archived at my site started out at the EF forum.) Those two quotes were made by me at another JFK forum entirely (the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup, which is an unmoderated forum). Hence, the word "scumbag" was being tossed around by both myself and the conspiracy theorist I was responding to (a person going by the name of "Boris"---which isn't his real name).
And as everyone can see (if they had bothered to look first), "Boris" started the "scumbag" insults. I merely reciprocated in kind in my next post, which is available in its original form at the Usenet forum HERE (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/QfPBFz-geGY/2VbHCeMRBQAJ). And as you can see if you click HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1327.html), I have merely transferred to my site the exact verbatim quotes that appear in the original discussion, which is what I always do when a discussion comes straight from a "forum" (vs. my quoting an "article" or a "book excerpt").
And the reason I could tell immediately that the "scumbag" post didn't originate at the EF forum, is because I would never dare call somebody a "scumbag" while posting at EF. The moderators would frown upon that severely. So I hold (held) my tongue a lot when posting there.
The "CTers are nothing but hypocrites" quote also appears in the same acj forum discussion as the "scumbag" quote---HERE (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/QfPBFz-geGY/PzDeIlgPBQAJ). So, once again, it's not something that I added after the fact when I moved the discussion to my own website.
The third quote you used also first appeared on a JFK forum. It was, indeed, the EF forum this time (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-403311), but since I was quoting someone (John Armstrong) who isn't a member of any online forum that I belong to, I added (at my site) a direct link to Armstrong's whole article from which I culled the quoted excerpt. Which everyone can see HERE (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1326.html#Armstrong-Quote-And-Link) (please note the blue link attached to the word "Said" within the words "John Armstrong Said").
So Peter Goth is just flat-out wrong when he says I take various quotes which first originated at the EF forum and then "added" my "own commentary to it". Talk about "misrepresentation". Peter just engaged in it himself in his last post. Because if a discussion started out at the EF forum (or any JFK forum), all I have done in those instances (as I just proved three times above) is to copy and paste the exact same words that I have already written at a JFK forum over to my own site. They're the very same (public) words---at both the JFK forum and then my own site. So I'd appreciate it if certain people would stop insisting otherwise. Because those people obviously don't know what the heck they're talking about.
Nobody is scolding you.
You've turned this into some other argument, nobody said you didn't quote the words.
It was my mistake about which forum, I'm new here.
I'm asking you why you wouldn't just take something down if the author requested it?
The fact that are calling all CTs hypocrites and scumbags, makes no difference to me if you posted it before or after.
It's just a dumb thing to say.
Do you add commentary to postings you take off other websites?
If so, do you give the author the opportunity to know it's there, as well as the chance to respond? how?
Do you let the author know it's there even without commentary?
If the author requests a take down, do you oblige?
-
Nobody is scolding you.
You've turned this into some other argument, nobody said you didn't quote the words.
It was my mistake about which forum, I'm new here.
I'm asking you why you wouldn't just take something down if the author requested it?
The fact that are calling all CTs hypocrites and scumbags, makes no difference to me if you posted it before or after.
It's just a dumb thing to say.
Do you add commentary to postings you take off other websites?
If so, do you give the author the opportunity to know it's there, as well as the chance to respond? how?
Do you let the author know it's there even without commentary?
If the author requests a take down, do you oblige?
This whole episode is really interesting. And Peter gets to the heart of the matter. I am truly surprised at David’s choice here. I really though that David valued being part of the debate. He chose his desire to archive his debates over the continued participation in the debates at the EF. I did not think he would make that choice. One could argue that it was a matter of principle but no one does; if David has made that argument, I have missed it. That argument would carry no weight with me, however. How could you argue having the right to take material from one context, a malleable dynamic context, and carry it off, frozen in time for the self adulation of a member of that forum, especially when they don’t like it?
It’s just plain wrong, and even David doesn’t have the gall to say that it is ethical; for that I give him credit. His only argument is (parody alert) “well, I’ve been doing it for so long now, I just can’t stop”.
-
And, regardless of what LNers say, I think most of us see it as a loss. I don’t thing we like an echo chamber. I think we like having our thoughts and arguments challenged. Everyone is at risk of believing his own BS at times and acceps a check on that, even if they are too small to admit it.
-
The EF is an evidence free zone. BS is allowed to take wing and evidence is buried deep underground. Whatever useful purpose it once served it is now redundant. DVP was pretty much told, several times, by several prominent posters at EF to piss off and there wasn't a single voice of rebuke from a moderator or administrator. It became obvious months ago that there was a plan forming to create a situation that would result in his expulsion. Nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise. That place (EF) is an echo chamber or just as bad it becomes a silent place where even the most outrageous theory is presented without even a murmur of a challenge referencing evidence.
-
Nobody is scolding you.
It sure sounded like it to me.
You've turned this into some other argument. Nobody said you didn't quote the words. It was my mistake about which forum, I'm new here.
I'm asking you why you wouldn't just take something down if the author requested it?
Because, to get down to the brass tacks of the matter, I truly don't think for one minute that the quotes/excerpts that I have archived at my site really bother the CTers enough for them to start insisting I remove their quotes from my site. And to see the virtual proof that what I just said is the truth, just look at the first three pages of this EF thread (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/). That thread was started in February of 2016, and it took a resurrection of the discussion in 2019 for anyone to even begin to demand that their posts be removed from my site (plus to demand I be kicked off of the EF forum, to boot).
That three-year delay that it took for a single CTer to give a damn is telling me something right there.
The fact that [you] are calling all CTs hypocrites and scumbags, makes no difference to me if you posted it before or after. It's just a dumb thing to say.
Many (many!) conspiracy theorists that I have encountered are hypocrites. (Without a doubt.)
And some CTers are scumbags. (Such as "Boris" at acj, plus a few others I won't mention here.)
I guess sometimes the truth can hurt.
But, like you said, you're new here. It takes a few years of regularly dealing with Internet conspiracy theorists for the true nature of them to finally sink in.
Do you add commentary to postings you take off other websites? If so, do you give the author the opportunity to know it's there, as well as the chance to respond? How?
Yes, I certainly have added my commentary to things I've grabbed off "non-forum" websites. And CTers do the exact same thing. (Go HERE (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/page/18/?tab=comments#comment-405375) and HERE (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/page/25/?tab=comments#comment-405552) and HERE (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/page/27/?tab=comments#comment-405644) to read some examples of CTers doing it.)
Conspiracists have quoted me (and many others) on their own websites, which are non-forum websites that I cannot respond to. But I couldn't care less about the fact that they have done that. I've always thought of it as a compliment if someone wants to quote me on their site. I never once felt the urge to gripe about it in even the slightest way --- even though I do think I've been quoted "out of context" on occasion. But I still never felt compelled to throw a hissy fit about the mere fact that I have been quoted on somebody else's website without my express "permission" being given. I've never expected someone to ask for permission to quote something I have already written on a public webpage.
And I sure don't recall ever getting a heads-up from the CTer who was quoting me to inform me that they have just quoted me on their site. Why would that ever happen anyway? In my experience, it never does. And I'd never expect such a "heads-up" to be written either.
So maybe CTers should get the idea out of their heads that a guy named DVP is the only person in the world who has ever copied the public words written by another person to use on his own personal website. Because, let's face reality, such a thing is happening thousands of times every day. And the only people I've ever heard complaining about it are a few outer-fringe JFK conspiracy theorists.
-
Rick. the relevant comment in your post is " so long as it isn't taken out of context." DVP take note.
Ray, maybe you can help me repair any "out of context" quotes that I have transferred to my website from the JFK forums. Would you be so kind as to provide a few examples of where you think I have quoted conspiracy theorists "out of context" on my website/blog.
After I take a good look at your examples, we'll see if I agree with you or not regarding the "out of context" matter.
In the event that I do agree with you on any of the quotes you cite, I will do my best to add more CTer "context" back into the quote(s) by checking out the complete original discussion(s) and putting in additional CTer quotes as warranted in order to enhance the "context" that almost all CTers at The Education Forum seem to think I have left completely out of virtually every single CTer quote I have ever transferred from the EF to my own site.*
* And that's how I can tell that this persistent "out of context" refrain has been blown up to ludicrous proportions by the CTers. Because to think that I have actually quoted the CTers "out of context" every single time I've quoted a conspiracist in the last 10+ years is, to put it bluntly, just plain crazy. A few CTer excerpts I've quoted on my site could possibly use a little more "context", I'll readily admit that possibility. But to hear the EF CTers tell it, I have never once quoted a CTer properly in my whole life. And that overboard notion is flat-out silly.
Crickets.
-
Let me preface this by saying as with all things in life there are good and bad. I have never posted at the EF, as with this forum, the noise to signal ratio there seems to have increased over recent years. Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.
As someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?
I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.
PS Since the last crash of this forum it would be impossible to provide working links to the original discussion. Therefore posting the original quote from David's site into Google etc would not enable someone interested in discovering the original discussion.
-
Since the last crash of this forum it would be impossible to provide working links to the original discussion. Therefore posting the original quote from David's site into Google etc would not enable someone interested in discovering the original discussion.
Yes, that's correct. And that is very disappointing to me too, because even though CTers evidently feel that I am making a deliberate attempt to quote them "out of context" (which I will vehemently deny until Hell freezes over), I am always displeased whenever I don't have a "Source" link to the original forum discussion to provide on my webpages. And, unfortunately, many of my archived links to Duncan's forum that previously worked before January 2018 are now dead and unavailable due to the crash/hacking.
I have many times searched the Wayback Machine to try and find a working "source" link for a thread that has died. And that technique has worked several times (mostly for deleted EF forum threads), but it often does not work and thusly I'm not able to always provide a link to the source conversation. Which, of course, means that in those instances, my webpages are likely the ONLY location on the Web where one can view ANY portion of the original forum discussion, which is kind of a GOOD thing---is it not? I think it is anyway.
-
Let me preface this by saying as with all things in life there are good and bad. I have never posted at the EF, as with this forum, the noise to signal ratio there seems to have increased over recent years. Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.
As someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?
I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.
PS Since the last crash of this forum it would be impossible to provide working links to the original discussion. Therefore posting the original quote from David's site into Google etc would not enable someone interested in discovering the original discussion.
I have never posted at the EF, as with this forum, the noise to signal ratio there seems to have increased over recent years.
Indeed.
(Bold emphasis mine, not Colin's)
-
I have many times searched the Wayback Machine to try and find a working "source" link for a thread that has died. And that technique has worked several times (mostly for deleted EF forum threads), but it often does not work and thusly I'm not able to always provide a link to the source conversation. Which, of course, means that in those instances, my webpages are likely the ONLY location on the Web where one can view ANY portion of the original forum discussion, which is kind of a GOOD thing---is it not? I think it is anyway.
Not sure I follow you there. Might need to explain why?
PS Did you routinely post the original forum conversation link for each individual you quoted? I could see on some occasions but was far from the norm.
In any event, if they are no longer available at least a notification that these are selected (and assembled) by you and likely only parts of wider discussions from a number of JFK assassination fora.
Just sayin’.
-
Not sure I follow you there. Might need to explain why?
Because if it weren't for my archiving of those now-deleted excerpts, nobody could see ANY of it at all because it's been lost into cyberspace.
You think that's bad that at least certain portions of a now-deleted discussion are still available (at my site)?
PS Did you routinely post the original forum conversation link for each individual you quoted? I could see on some occasions but was far from the norm.
I don't normally provide a link to each individual post, no. But many times I do (if I feel it's warranted, mainly due to the long length of a post to which I am only excerpting a small portion). But I always provide a link to the original thread (or threads) where those individual quotes are located (if those links are available). I embed the link(s) inside the date(s) near the bottom of my webpages.
In any event, if they are no longer available at least a notification that these are selected (and assembled) by you and likely only parts of wider discussions from a number of JFK assassination fora.
Just sayin’.
And are there any additional hoops you think I should jump through in order to please the people who think I am a "scumbag" and a "disinformation agent" and "an accessory after the fact to murder"?
I could always bake each CTer a big cake and pretend that I have a huge amount of respect for the vast majority of Internet JFK conspiracy theorists, even though most of those CTers pretty much ignore every single piece of evidence in the JFK case which points to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.
After all, we want to make sure all CTers are happy and content, right?
::)
-
It became obvious months ago that there was a plan forming to create a situation that would result in his expulsion. Nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise.
That’s just ridiculous. A new guy was shocked to find out what David was doing, and that reinvigorated the debate about the issue. Then you have the fact that members stepped in to support the site recently and the atmosphere is affected by that. Your take on the conspiracy is pretty fun though.
-
Because if it weren't for my archiving of those now-deleted excerpts, nobody could see ANY of it at all because it's been lost into cyberspace.
You think that's bad that at least certain portions of a now-deleted discussion are still available (at my site)?
I don't normally provide a link to each individual post, no. But many times I do (if I feel it's warranted, mainly due to the long length of a post to which I am only excerpting a small portion). But I always provide a link to the original thread (or threads) where those individual quotes are located (if those links are available). I embed the link(s) inside the date(s) near the bottom of my webpages.
And are there any additional hoops you think I should jump through in order to please the people who think I am a "scumbag" and a "disinformation agent" and "an accessory after the fact to murder"?
I could always bake each CTer a big cake and pretend that I have a huge amount of respect for the vast majority of Internet JFK conspiracy theorists, even though most of those CTers pretty much ignore every single piece of evidence in the JFK case which points to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.
After all, we want to make sure all CTers are happy and content, right?
::)
Perhaps you missed these comments.....
Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.
As someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal".
Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.
From someone who doesn’t think you are a paid scumbag......and you can quote me.
Does that disqualify me as a CT?
-
That’s just ridiculous. A new guy was shocked to find out what David was doing, and that reinvigorated the debate about the issue. Then you have the fact that members stepped in to support the site recently and the atmosphere is affected by that. Your take on the conspiracy is pretty fun though.
Of course you will defend the indefensible. That's why you are here. Try as you might but the EF has been seen by all to have crapped in its own nest. I think DVP is better off out of the place and over time the EF will be the big loser.
-
When Steve Howsley said this....
"It became obvious months ago that there was a plan forming to create a situation that would result in his [DVP's] expulsion."
....he might have been referring (at least in part) to the absolutely absurd "Forum Rule" that led to this February 2019 discussion (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1310.html) (archived at my website, of course), during which I was literally ORDERED by the EF owner to start a new thread at the EF forum and apologize to the forum owner for something I said at a completely DIFFERENT Internet site.
That's how ridiculous the EF Forum "rules" are. And, IMO, that whole bizarre episode was "created" totally by the forum owner. It wasn't created by me. It was an over-reaction by Mr. Gordon. And I think even a lot of CTers would agree with that assessment.
-
Perhaps you missed these comments.....
Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.
As someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal".
Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.
From someone who doesn’t think you are a paid scumbag......and you can quote me.
Does that disqualify me as a CT?
No, I didn't miss those comments at all, Colin. I appreciate those kind sentiments. Thank you.
And, no, you're not disqualified as a "CT" (unless you've completely flipped sides and have become an LNer since I last talked with you). But, based on our conversations in the past, you're certainly one of the friendlier CTers I've run across on the Internet. :-)
-
To Dave VP,
I've always wanted to ask you this. You're obviously a staunch supporter of the official theories and their subsequent conclusions. That Oswald murdered Kennedy all by himself, that all shots were fired by him, that he murdered Tippit all by himself, and that Jack Ruby, also acting alone, went down into the basement and murdered Oswald because he was patriotic and wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the turmoil of coming to Dallas and testifying at Oswald's trial.
You don't seem to be a Kennedy hater since you post all manner of radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts and such on your site. You've created a nice historical record of Kennedy. Now, I also know that you run ads on that site so I don't know if your motives are truly altruistic.
But anyway, back to that pesky question I wanted to ask you. Do you not find anything - anything at all - in this case that's just a tiny bit odd, that goes just a little bit beyond the pale of it being coincidental? Anything that just seems like it couldn't happen that way because it just seems ever so slightly implausible?
Now, I'm asking you this for an honest discussion and I'm not trying to stir any spombleprofglidnoctobuns with you here. And please don't post all manner of links to your site here. I'd like to hear it from you directly. Because, let's face it, there are plenty of LN crazies out there as well CT crazies. Like many CT crazies do, posting crazy spombleprofglidnoctobuns about Oswald's teeth and math formulas related to the Z film and the Russians did it, there are also LN crazies posting all kinds of crazy animated GIFs and such and often dodging genuine debate.
So I'd like to just hear your thoughts on this, about why you think it's 100% Oswald, all of the time.
-
I'm amazed he thinks he can bash the moderator elsewhere, and then expect to continue to post there.
-
I'm amazed he thinks he can bash the moderator elsewhere, and then expect to continue to post there.
Because that moderator has no right to restrict what I choose to say (even about him) on another Internet location. It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
And I cannot believe anyone (even a staunch CTer) would be defending such an incredibly unfair "rule" as this one which is on the books at EF:
"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership—either from within the forum or outside the forum—may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."
And keep in mind that the above idiotic rule also applies to merely "casting aspersions" about the FORUM ITSELF (as a whole)! Not JUST about its individual members.
It's mind-bogglingly Unconstitutional.
-
Constitutional free speech does not apply on internet forums. I refer to Alex Jones vs. YouTube as an example.
-
Because that moderator has no right to restrict what I choose to say (even about him) on another Internet location. It's called FREE SPEECH.
And I cannot believe anyone (even a staunch CTer) would be defending such an incredibly unfair "rule" as this one which is on the books at EF:
"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership—either from within the forum or outside the forum—may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."
And keep in mind that the above idiotic rule also applies to merely "casting aspersions" about the FORUM ITSELF (as a whole)! Not JUST about its individual members.
It's mind-bogglingly Unconstitutional.
Bash your employer on Facebook and see what happens.
That's free speech isn't it?
the key is "...expects to come back and post."
Do you think posting is a right? - or a privilege?
You're being allowed to post here, aren't you?
- could you bash the mgmnt here on fb..and expect to post?
-
Because that moderator has no right to restrict what I choose to say (even about him) on another Internet location. It's called FREE SPEECH.
And I cannot believe anyone (even a staunch CTer) would be defending such an incredibly unfair "rule" as this one which is on the books at EF:
"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership—either from within the forum or outside the forum—may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."
And keep in mind that the above idiotic rule also applies to merely "casting aspersions" about the FORUM ITSELF (as a whole)! Not JUST about its individual members.
It's mind-bogglingly Unconstitutional.
Dave - did you see my post above before it got buried by rambling? Do you care to reply?
-
Bash your employer on Facebook and see what happens.
That's free speech isn't it?
the key is "...expects to come back and post."
Do you think posting is a right? - or a privilege?
You're being allowed to post here, aren't you?
- could you bash the mgmnt here on fb..and expect to post?
You don't get it at all, do you?
-
Dave - did you see my post above before it got buried by rambling? Do you care to reply?
Yes, I saw it. I'm working on it right this minute.
-
To Dave VP,
I've always wanted to ask you this. You're obviously a staunch supporter of the official theories and their subsequent conclusions. That Oswald murdered Kennedy all by himself, that all shots were fired by him, that he murdered Tippit all by himself, and that Jack Ruby, also acting alone, went down into the basement and murdered Oswald because he was patriotic and wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the turmoil of coming to Dallas and testifying at Oswald's trial.
You don't seem to be a Kennedy hater since you post all manner of radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts and such on your site. You've created a nice historical record of Kennedy. Now, I also know that you run ads on that site so I don't know if your motives are truly altruistic.
But anyway, back to that pesky question I wanted to ask you. Do you not find anything - anything at all - in this case that's just a tiny bit odd, that goes just a little bit beyond the pale of it being coincidental? Anything that just seems like it couldn't happen that way because it just seems ever so slightly implausible?
Now, I'm asking you this for an honest discussion and I'm not trying to stir any spombleprofglidnoctobuns with you here. And please don't post all manner of links to your site here. I'd like to hear it from you directly. Because, let's face it, there are plenty of LN crazies out there as well CT crazies. Like many CT crazies do, posting crazy spombleprofglidnoctobuns about Oswald's teeth and math formulas related to the Z film and the Russians did it, there are also LN crazies posting all kinds of crazy animated GIFs and such and often dodging genuine debate.
So I'd like to just hear your thoughts on this, about why you think it's 100% Oswald, all of the time.
Dave - here is my earlier post.
-
You don't get it at all, do you?
what don't I get?
you don't own this platform.
-
Sorry, it's the right wingers who are the fascists who try to silence the opposition through intimidation and false representation. When pro NFL Football players took a knee during the anthem to bring awareness to police brutality, it was Donald Trump and his racist hatemongers who falsely misrepresented what the players were doing demanding boycotts of the NFL and trying to silence an individual's freedom of speech through direct intimidation. Learn what your're talking about before you post false comments.
his racist hatemongers who falsely misrepresented what the players were doing demanding boycotts of the NFL
Who tried to silence him? He silenced himself. You can have it both ways and he did. The whole idea was to get attention so why are you complaining? You're just fueling the nonsense. Freedom of speech is what he got but you can't accept that his attempts to hide behind it wore off. If he wanted to play games why is he in retreat? Answer: Because freedom of speech doesn't apply where you are employed but he got his attention and you fell for the excuse of police brutality when it really was attention he wanted for himself. If he believed what he suckered you into believing, then why didn't the fraud do it when he was in the Super bowl instead of when he was playing his own fantasy football? He is a dysfunctional headcase. And don't be screaming racism just because you have nothing intelligent to say. Plus you may well be projecting. On the other hand, I am German and I hate everyone equally, therefore, I do not discriminate
-
To Dave VP,
I've always wanted to ask you this. You're obviously a staunch supporter of the official theories and their subsequent conclusions. That Oswald murdered Kennedy all by himself, that all shots were fired by him, that he murdered Tippit all by himself, and that Jack Ruby, also acting alone, went down into the basement and murdered Oswald because he was patriotic and wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the turmoil of coming to Dallas and testifying at Oswald's trial.
You don't seem to be a Kennedy hater since you post all manner of radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts and such on your site. You've created a nice historical record of Kennedy. Now, I also know that you run ads on that site so I don't know if your motives are truly altruistic.
But anyway, back to that pesky question I wanted to ask you. Do you not find anything - anything at all - in this case that's just a tiny bit odd, that goes just a little bit beyond the pale of it being coincidental? Anything that just seems like it couldn't happen that way because it just seems ever so slightly implausible?
Now, I'm asking you this for an honest discussion and I'm not trying to stir any spombleprofglidnoctobuns with you here. And please don't post all manner of links to your site here. I'd like to hear it from you directly. Because, let's face it, there are plenty of LN crazies out there as well CT crazies. Like many CT crazies do, posting crazy spombleprofglidnoctobuns about Oswald's teeth and math formulas related to the Z film and the Russians did it, there are also LN crazies posting all kinds of crazy animated GIFs and such and often dodging genuine debate.
So I'd like to just hear your thoughts on this, about why you think it's 100% Oswald, all of the time.
Hi Michael,
The simple answer (which I still think is the best one) regarding why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only killer of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit is....
Because all of the evidence (plus Oswald's very incriminating actions on both November 21 and 22 of 1963) point to that "simple" conclusion.
And I've seen nothing produced by any conspiracy theorist over the years that would make me want to start to believe that ALL of the "Oswald Did It" evidence was phony, fake, or created from whole cloth by the authorities.
And if that evidence WASN'T faked or manufactured, then Lee Oswald is certainly a guilty double-murderer. (Everyone--even CTers--can surely agree with that last statement---right?)
As far as there being anything that gives me pause when it comes to believing in Oswald's sole guilt....
The biggest "mystery" (for me) in the whole JFK case, as I have admitted many times in the past, continues to be the one sub-topic that has had me scratching my head the most---and that is:
Why did so many witnesses at Parkland Hospital in Dallas (and even some witnesses at Bethesda) truly believe there was a large wound in the occipital area of JFK's head? It's rather inexplicable to me that many different medical professionals could say they saw something which the autopsy photographs and X-rays prove was simply NOT THERE at the back of President Kennedy's head.
But when assessing this "Back Of The Head" controversy, we must seek and find the BEST evidence to try and explain the contradictions....wouldn't everyone agree?
And, in my opinion, the photos and X-rays of the deceased President, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of JFK's autopsy on 11/22/63 (which are pictures and X-rays that "had not been altered in any manner", per Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm)), certainly would (and should, IMO) qualify as the "Best Evidence" when it comes to this topic concerning the important question of Where were the wounds located on JFK's head?
And since I have no better explanation than the one Dr. Michael Baden provided for author Vincent Bugliosi in a telephone call between those two men on January 8, 2000, I will continue to prop up Dr. Baden's explanation as the probable correct one:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Byh8chSlVZw/XBrTkEFdk2I/AAAAAAABQeI/BirDwNY3DgstQ3xyCYgaKRPozw5aIPNWwCLcBGAs/s777/Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wounds.png) (http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com#The-Head-Wounds)
[Click the Baden quote above for an Easter Egg link.]
------------------
I know you said you didn't want to be bothered with any of my ubiquitous website links, but I'm going to provide the link to my "BOH" series anyway. It can help to further explore and flesh out my thoughts about the strange "Back Of The Head" matter:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds
-
what don't I get?
you don't own this platform.
Such an angry display from someone who has been here for just 3 days. :D
-
Such an angry display from someone who has been here for just 3 days. :D
You hear a tone in that?
- it seems stance changes around here, pretty quickly.
I'm just trying to find what I'm missing..perhaps you can tell me.
How about this... David too...
If I owned a radio station, and you were one of my jocks.
One night, you had a bad dinner at Olive Garden, and the next day you went on the air bashing OG, and I fire you.
Would you have needed a rule for that in writing before you went on the air?
-
If I owned a radio station, and you were one of my jocks.
One night, you had a bad dinner at Olive Garden, and the next day you went on the air bashing OG, and I fire you.
Would you have needed a rule for that in writing before you went on the air?
But in that example, I'm not an employee of Olive Garden. So how is that situation analogous to the situation with me at the EF forum?
~shrug~
IMO, your above example would have been more akin to the "EF / DVP" situation if you would have had me (as a disc jockey) bashing my boss at the radio station, instead of bringing in a third party (Olive Garden) for me to bash.
~a second shrug~
-
But in that example, I'm not an employee of Olive Garden. So how is that situation analogous to the situation with me at the EF forum?
~shrug~
IMO, your above example would have been more akin to the "EF / DVP" situation if you would have had me (as a disc jockey) bashing my boss at the radio station, instead of bringing in a third party (Olive Garden) for me to bash.
~a second shrug~
It has nothing to do with who it is you bash.
Do you think you can go on my air and bash Olive Garden?
and yes you can say whatever you want and here's the key part, expect to come back to work tomorrow?
you can't. you don't get that?
-
It has nothing to do with who it is you bash.
Do you think you can go on my air and bash Olive Garden? - and yes you can say whatever you want and here's the key part, expect to come back to work tomorrow?
After having thought about your "Olive Garden" example for a few more minutes....I'd say:
The radio station was definitely wrong to fire me for merely expressing my opinion about the bad experience I had at the OG restaurant. It's not a valid enough reason for firing a disc jockey (IMO). Not nearly valid enough. Again----it's Free Speech. As long as I didn't get TOO severe in my OG criticism (such as threatening to kill the lousy waitress or blow up the building), I'd say that my on-air criticism of the Olive Garden Restaurant located at 10206 North Michigan Road in Carmel, Indiana, would not be enough of a reason for being axed by the radio station (where I had been employed since 1971, btw).
Do you think my negative comments about a restaurant was the FIRST TIME in the radio station's history that an on-air personality went "off script" and said something of a "Negative" nature about a restaurant or another person or a Government or an automobile manufacturer or anything else? Come now, my good man. Let's get real.
Tomorrow (if I'm re-hired at the station), I'm going to bash O.J. Simpson, because I think he was a murderer. Will I be fired for a second time for expressing another of my opinions?
:)
-
After having thought about your Olive Garden example for a few more minutes....I'd say:
The radio station was definitely wrong to fire me for merely expressing my opinion about the bad experience I had at the OG restaurant. It's not a valid reason for firing a disc jockey (IMO). Not nearly valid enough. Again----it's Free Speech. As long as I didn't get TOO severe in my OG criticism (such as threatening to kill the lousy waitress or blow up the building), I'd say that my on-air criticism of the Olive Garden Restaurant located at 10206 North Michigan Road in Carmel, Indiana, would not be enough of a reason to fire me from the radio station (where I had been employed since 1971, btw).
Do you think my negative comments about a restaurant were the FIRST TIME in the radio station's history that an on-air personality went "off script" and said something of a "Negative" nature about a restaurant or another person or a Government or an automobile manufacturer or anything else? Come now, my good man. Let's get real.
Tomorrow (if I'm re-hired at the station), I'm going to bash O.J. Simpson, because I think he was a murderer. Will I be fired for a second time for expressing another of my opinions?
:)
Here we go out of context
you turned bashing into merely expressing an opinion - not what I'm talking about
we are talking about bashing, what did you say about the EF moderator? -
-
Here we go out of context you turned bashing into expressing an opinion
Huh? They ARE the same thing. The BASHING is the OPINION.
You need sleep I think.
we are talking about bashing, what did you say about the EF moderator? -
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1310.html
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gu40AqBEHQQ/XHPbdvj5RvI/AAAAAAABQ2Y/sQO6OHIhpjMTh_0UVj42olW44eQwqwk2QCLcBGAs/s1600/DVP-Facebook-Post.png)
-
Huh? They ARE the same thing. The BASHING is the OPINION.
You need sleep I think.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1310.html
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gu40AqBEHQQ/XHPbdvj5RvI/AAAAAAABQ2Y/sQO6OHIhpjMTh_0UVj42olW44eQwqwk2QCLcBGAs/s1600/DVP-Facebook-Post.png)
not really, if you call the moderator incompetent and that you have proved it?
would the moderator here allow that from a member to another platform? -
I wouldn't allow you to come back.
-
would the moderator here allow that from a member to another platform? -
If that moderator believes in Free Speech, yes, of course he would allow it.
I wouldn't allow you to come back.
Then you're not a very good (or fair) moderator.
-
Hi Michael,
The simple answer (which I still think is the best one) regarding why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only killer of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit is....
Because all of the evidence (plus Oswald's very incriminating actions on both November 21 and 22 of 1963) point to that "simple" conclusion.
And I've seen nothing produced by any conspiracy theorist over the years that would make me want to start to believe that ALL of the "Oswald Did It" evidence was phony, fake, or created from whole cloth by the authorities.
And if that evidence WASN'T faked or manufactured, then Lee Oswald is certainly a guilty double-murderer. (Everyone--even CTers--can surely agree with that last statement---right?)
As far as there being anything that gives me pause when it comes to believing in Oswald's sole guilt....
The biggest "mystery" (for me) in the whole JFK case, as I have admitted many times in the past, continues to be the one sub-topic that has had me scratching my head the most---and that is:
Why did so many witnesses at Parkland Hospital in Dallas (and even some witnesses at Bethesda) truly believe there was a large wound in the occipital area of JFK's head? It's rather inexplicable to me that many different medical professionals could say they saw something which the autopsy photographs and X-rays prove was simply NOT THERE at the back of President Kennedy's head.
But when assessing this "Back Of The Head" controversy, we must seek and find the BEST evidence to try and explain the contradictions....wouldn't everyone agree?
And, in my opinion, the photos and X-rays of the deceased President, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of JFK's autopsy on 11/22/63 (which are pictures and X-rays that "had not been altered in any manner", per Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm)), certainly would (and should, IMO) qualify as the "Best Evidence" when it comes to this topic concerning the important question of Where were the wounds located on JFK's head?
And since I have no better explanation than the one Dr. Michael Baden provided for author Vincent Bugliosi in a telephone call between those two men on January 8, 2000, I will continue to prop up Dr. Baden's explanation as the probable correct one:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Byh8chSlVZw/XBrTkEFdk2I/AAAAAAABQeI/BirDwNY3DgstQ3xyCYgaKRPozw5aIPNWwCLcBGAs/s777/Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wounds.png) (http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com#The-Head-Wounds)
[Click the Baden quote above for an Easter Egg link.]
------------------
I know you said you didn't want to be bothered with any of my ubiquitous website links, but I'm going to provide the link to my "BOH" series anyway. It can help to further explore and flesh out my thoughts about the strange "Back Of The Head" matter:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds
Dr. Baden's explanation as the probable correct one:
Actually, what he says creates reasonable doubt. Why is this reasonable to say? Because for him to he is probably correct could just as easily be invalid. You can not dismiss the fact that between the period of Parkland post-trauma room, and the Bethesda autopsy an illegal act occurred whereby the body of JFK was forcibly taken against the law. Is this how you make your conclusions. That is quite arrogant for you to pass off information to others that in your eyes is "probably correct". At every turn, you dismiss or excuse everything that does not follow a narrative, that BTW is supposed to be what you need to support allegations. What a place for you to be lazy, it is one thing to have an opinion but to act like you can dismiss the serious errors shows you should just gather information stop with your unreasonable opinions and the poor me act
-
If that moderator believes in Free Speech, yes, of course he would allow it.
Then you're not a very good (or fair) moderator.
You compromised the platform you speak on.
you did it to yourself.
-
You compromised the platform you speak on.
you did it to yourself.
That's nonsense.
-
You hear a tone in that?
- it seems stance changes around here, pretty quickly.
I'm just trying to find what I'm missing..perhaps you can tell me.
How about this... David too...
If I owned a radio station, and you were one of my jocks.
One night, you had a bad dinner at Olive Garden, and the next day you went on the air bashing OG, and I fire you.
Would you have needed a rule for that in writing before you went on the air?
:D In that scenario you'd be working for me.
-
That's nonsense.
The lowest point about this whole matter is how unimportant this discussion is. DVP’s relevance can be swapped out with two letters.. “WC”. He represents nothing more. There are so many more people that have been lost to the research community who are of unestimable value, whose loss is worth far more words of debate. And, there are curious, nascent thinkers and future researchers who DVP’s trophy wall and propaganda are meant to discourage. It’s a waste of time and attention upon which he thrives and through which he counts his victories.
-
The lowest point about this whole matter is how unimportant this discussion is. DVP’s relevance can be swapped out with two letters.. “WC”. He represents nothing more. There are so many more people that have been lost to the research community who are of unestimable value, whose loss is worth far more words of debate. And, there are curious, nascent thinkers and future researchers who DVP’s trophy wall and propaganda are meant to discourage. It’s a waste of time and attention upon which he thrives and through which he counts his victories.
If the discussion is so unimportant then why are you here?
It's my opinion that Dave's contribution to JFK research far outweighs the combined efforts of most people at the EF. He has demolished the 2 x LHO and mother madness and has exposed the prayer man theory as nonsense leaving it nowhere else to go until there is more than a photographic blob to examine.
-
And if that evidence WASN'T faked or manufactured, then Lee Oswald is certainly a guilty double-murderer. (Everyone--even CTers--can surely agree with that last statement---right?)
Wrong.
-
David, while we have your engagement could we explore the following example that uses a direct quote from me here.......http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html
COLIN CROW SAID:
The consolidated evidence indicates BRW lied and spent time before vacating the SN leaving his chicken sandwich unfinished.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Beautiful. One more "liar" to add to a CTer's list. What a surprise. Everybody's a liar except Lee Harvey.
COLIN CROW SAID:
Who moved the chicken twice, David? If BRW is truthful it goes from the two wheeler to the SN and back to the two wheeler.
BRW did not vacate his position until just a few minutes before the shots. Why not take his uneaten chicken with him?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch.
I think Luke Mooney was incorrect about the precise location where the bones were found. There's also confusion over the FIFTH or SIXTH floor for the chicken remnants, as Tom Alyea and Gerald Hill discuss in this 1993 video....
The following was reposted almost a year ago on the forum.......it was a verbatim copy of the previous analysis of the previous forum before the crash....ie some years old
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg32329.html#msg32329 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg32329.html#msg32329)
Time to tackle Ball and Belin's questions with the evidence available to us. First up.....where was the lunch found.
Chicken Bone Story
Bonnie Ray Williams stated that he ate his lunch near the windows on the south side of the sixth floor.
Luke Mooney was first on the scene of the SN. His initial report mentions the lunch.
COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date: November 23 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's office at 505 Main Street, Dallas, When President Kennedy and the motorcade passed by. Within a few seconds after he had passed me and the motorcade had turned the corner I heard a shot and I immediately started running towards the front of the motorcade and within seconds heard a second and a third shot. I started running across Houston Street and down across the lawn to the triple underpass and up the terrace to the railroad yards. I searched along with many other officers, this area, when Sheriff Bill Decker came up and told me and the Officers Sam Webster and Billy Joe Vickery to surround the Texas School Book Depository building. As we approached the two big steel wire gates to the building dock at the back of the building on Elm Street side, we saw that the loading dock had locks on it and I then pulled the steel gates closed and requested of a citizen standing there to see that no-one came out or went in until I could get a uniformed officer there, which he did. Officers Webster, Victory, and myself took to the building. Officers Webster and Victory took the stairs and I told them I would take the freight elevator. At the time I got on the elevator two women who work in the building got on the elevator, saying they wanted to go to their office. As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off. I got out on the floor with these women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Vickery went up to the 7th floor. I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books. I was at that time also checking for open windows and fire escapes. I found where someone had been using a skill saw in laying some flooring in one corner of this floor and I then went to the 7th floor and was assisting in searching it out and crawled into the attic opening and decided it was too dark and came down to order flash lights. I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of the half opened window and signalled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webster, Victory, and McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing. At this time I continued to search this 6th floor along with many other officers and within a few minutes, I heard Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone holler out that he had found the rifle near the staircase between some rows of cartons. We continued to search the building for a suspect.
Note that Mooney does not mention the lunch prior to discovery of the SN.
McCurley's Report
Officer A. D. McCurley, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office (Statement 11/22/63)
Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.
Officer Jack Faulkner
There were also some chicken bones. Evidently he had chicken for his lunch. There were people that worked with him that had left maybe at noon. I don't know where they went because I didn't investigate that part of it. I've also heard of a bag which carried the rifle, but I never saw that. It could have been there, but I didn't notice it.
From "No More Silence: An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy" - Larry A. Sneed
Officer Roger Craig, Deputy Sheriff
Mr. BELIN - About how soon after they were found did you see them, laying on the floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, a couple of minutes. I went right on over there. I was at the far north end of the building. The cartridges were on the southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN - Well, how did you know they had been found there? Did someone yell---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; someone yelled across the room that "here's the shells."
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember who that was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I couldn't recognize the voice.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did you do?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. BELIN - Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. BELIN - How big a sack was that?
Mr. CRAIG - It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. BELIN - Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. CRAIG - Yeah,--uh-huh.
Gerald Hill also recalls the finding of the SN and the Chicken Leg and Bag of top of the SN Boxes
Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect.
I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield.
That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment, which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
At this point, I asked the deputy sheriff to guard the scene, not to let anybody touch anything, and I went over still further west to another window about the middle of the building on the south side and yelled down to the street for them to send us the crime lab.
Harry Weatherford
The 11-23-63 report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford notes "I came down to the 6th floor, and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said "here are some shells." I went over to where he was and saw 3 expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade."
Officer Brewer
Mr. BELIN. Did you go and take a look at the cartridge cases?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. How many cartridge cases did you see?
Mr. BREWER. Three.
Mr. BELIN. Where were they?
Mr. BREWER. They were there under, by the window.
Mr. BELIN. What window?
Mr. BREWER. In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. BELIN. See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. BREWER. Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece at chicken.
Officer Haygood
Mr. BELIN. You saw some shells there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them?
Mr. HAYGOOD. They were there under the window.
Mr. BELIN. Which window?
Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. South side or east side?
Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. BELIN. See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. BALL. Where was that?
Mr. HAYGOOD. There at the same location where the shells were.
Eugene Boone
Mentions seeing the chicken before discovering the rifle in his Oral History with the 6th Floor Museum.
Feel free to update your archived discussion accordingly with any my quotes and the link.
-
Feel free to update your archived discussion accordingly with any [of] my quotes and the link.
Thanks.
I'd like to get a working link to what you called "Part 4" of your "Bags & Bones" series. The Part 4 link I have now doesn't work and I can't find a version at the Wayback for that one. (I found Wayback links for Parts 1 thru 3, however, which was nice.)
By any chance, is the text you quoted above the same as some of your "Part 4" article? If so, I could link that on my site as "Part 4", to replace the current dead link.
EDIT: After looking at Colin's synopsis of his "Part 4" article, I assume the above text is not related, because evidently the original "Part 4" pertains to Rowland's & Brennan's statements. But if you (Colin) still have that PART 4 text on your computer, is it possible for you to re-post it on this forum (or maybe in a PDF document I could download)?
-
Thanks.
I'd like to get a working link to what you called "Part 4" of your "Bags & Bones" series. The Part 4 link I have now doesn't work and I can't find a version at the Wayback for that one. (I found Wayback links for Parts 1 thru 3, however, which was nice.)
By any chance, is the text you quoted above the same as some of your "Part 4" article? If so, I could link that on my site as "Part 4", to replace the current dead link.
EDIT: After looking at Colin's synopsis of his "Part 4" article, I assume the above text is not related, because evidently the original "Part 4" pertains to Rowland's & Brennan's statements. But if you (Colin) still have that PART 4 text on your computer, is it possible for you to re-post it on this forum (or maybe in a PDF document I could download)?
David, now that I remember I decided to approach that topic from a different perspective that the original in the thread I quoted from last year. I do have all parts copied but before I can post I would need to update the picture links that relate to the text. I might try and convert each part into a PDF as you suggest.
-
I might try and convert each part into a PDF as you suggest.
That would be great. Thanks. (I've recently gained an added affection for PDF files. I'm not really sure why, but I really like the PDF format for some reason.) :)
-
That would be great. Thanks. (I've recently gained an added affection for PDF files. I'm not really sure why, but I really like the PDF format for some reason.) :)
So do you continue to believe Mooney was mistaken given the weight of evidence of the initial existence of the chicken lunch in the SN?
-
So do you continue to believe Mooney was mistaken given the weight of evidence of the initial existence of the chicken lunch in the SN?
Yes, of course Mooney was mistaken. The proof of that fact is in Bonnie Ray's testimony.
-
Yes, of course Mooney was mistaken. The proof of that fact is in Bonnie Ray's testimony.
And Harry Weatherford was mistaken too....
Harry Weatherford
The 11-23-63 report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford notes "I came down to the 6th floor, and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said "here are some shells." I went over to where he was and saw 3 expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade."
There are another 5 or so who saw remnants of the lunch in the SN before Fritz arrived. Are they all mistaken too?
Perhaps you can point out how Bonnie Ray's testimony proves they were all mistaken.
-
:D In that scenario you'd be working for me.
Thumb1: right. good one.
-
That's nonsense.
You cannot say whatever you want on a media platform you do not own, and then expect to be allowed to contnue using that platform. The owner not allowing you to continue, is not a violation of free speech.
There is restraint and compliance. I'm sorry you didn't learn that responsibility in your radio days.
-
@ moderator of this forum:
What would happen to the posting rights
if a member, went on to their own fb page, and said,
"you [mod] are definitely an incompetent as far as the JFK case and evidence are concerned, esp, SBT."
-
@ moderator of this forum:
What would happen to the posting rights
if a member, went on to their own fb page, and said,
"you [mod] are definitely an incompetent as far as the JFK case and evidence are concerned, esp, SBT."
Nothing would happen, an obvious misidentification would have been made.
I would say to the member "You are confusing me with James Gordon, the incompetent Clog licking Admin of the Ed Forum" :)
-
Nothing would happen, an obvious misidentification mistake would have been made.
I would say to the member "You are confusing me with James Gordon, the incompetent Clog licking Admin of the Ed Forum" :)
HA HA.
I'll clarify, something that actually insults YOU.
-
@ moderator of this forum:
What would happen to the posting rights
if a member, went on to their own fb page, and said,
"you [mod] are definitely an incompetent as far as the JFK case and evidence are concerned, esp, SBT."
Peter...Peter, Peter Pumpkin Eater (I know...had to say this because Halloween is my favorite holiday) --
Can you kinda, sorta stick to a somewhat reasonable discussion of the Kennedy case please? This is not the "shooting the spombleprofglidnoctobuns at the dingy bar" forum. It's a "JFK was murdered" forum.
You're kinda, sorta all over the place here, burying other posts related to why we're here. And you may want to start by sharing your own JFK narrative here, Like Dave VP took the time to do.
So take that final drag of your Kool Menthol, down your last shot and start pecking away. Here, I'll help you...
Here's what I think happened in the JFK case...
-----
???
-----
Thanks.
-
That's a valid point,
if it actually is a case of denying free speech, a judge should be able force the EF to reinstate.
How far from the bench will you be before you hear him stop laughing at you?
-
That would be great. Thanks. (I've recently gained an added affection for PDF files. I'm not really sure why, but I really like the PDF format for some reason.) :)
Adobe Acrobat is a great program for Mac users involved in content-creation, especially back in the day when my clients were Windows-only. Acrobat keeps the formatting of layouts etc intact, including fonts. The 'king of cross-platform'.
-
Yes, of course Mooney was mistaken. The proof of that fact is in Bonnie Ray's testimony.
Couldn't you just as easily say "of course Bonnie Ray was mistaken. The proof of that fact is in Mooney's testimony"?
-
Adobe Acrobat is a great program for Mac users involved in content-creation, especially back in the day when my clients were Windows-only. Acrobat keeps the formatting of layouts etc intact, including fonts. The 'king of cross-platform'.
"back in the day.."
LOL! No xxxx Bill. PDFs work on both sides of the fence.
-
That's a valid point,
if it actually is a case of denying free speech, a judge should be able force the EF to reinstate.
How far from the bench will you be before you hear him stop laughing at you?
Uh, Peter..
The topic in JFK. Assassination. Take a drag...
Thoughts...?
-
"back in the day.."
LOL! No xxxx Bill. PDFs work on both sides of the fence.
Duh, no sh*t. Note that I related my experience from my side of the fence.
You f'kn OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es attack everything.
-
Duh, no sh*t.
You f'kn OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es attack everything
You are very sensitive :( :( :'( :'( BS:
-
You f'kn OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es attack everything.
This is the guy who had a hissy-fit when he thought he was being called a lemming.
-
when did I do that? - because a judge would laugh at you. I am serious, and my point is...
DVP , nor do you, or I, on this forum, has the right to say whatever he/she wants on a medium he/she doesn't own. That is not a valid violation free speech.
Peter Goth still doesn't "get it". Incredible.
-
As per Mr. Crow's recommendation I dropped by Von P's salvage yard and took a look at three random junk piles (use search function to pick specific number):
#193 is prompted by Rob Caprio asking VP to prove Oswald owned a 40.2 inch rifle before proving Oswald lied. The response is essentially a rant with no reference to any evidence to support the VP claims (straight out of the WC report). Link at bottom of pile shows that excerpt originated from a google group and that Caprio responded in detail to the rant; #193 on it's own is utter trash.
#809 starts out with a quote by a B. Lecloux (context unknown as Amazon link is dead) presumably related to Bugliosi on the Tippit murder. Standard rant about CTs claiming all evidence is faked which derails into more alleged CT assertions related to the Bethesda autopsy....WTF? Useless trash.
#1307 surprise, this pile contained a nugget: link to Ian Griggs' interview with Johnny Brewer. Deep pile related to Postal/Brewer interaction and their description of Oswald, context unknown as link to ED forum is dead. Somehow the discussion digresses into the Carcano/Mauser dispute! VP tries to attribute Postal quote "ruddy looking to me" to Brewer as Postal didn't really see Oswald slip in to the TT. Doesn't really work as Brewer knew Oswald from selling him a pair of shoes and would know he didn't have a ruddy complexion. The Griggs link certainly outweighs the time otherwise wasted.
There are currently 1331 of these ASSORTED ARGUMENTS....good luck!
One man's "junk piles" and "useless trash" is another man's gold mine.
-
Peter Goth still doesn't "get it". Incredible.
please tell me. I've already asked twice.
-
Perhaps you can point out how Bonnie Ray's testimony proves they were all mistaken.
Couldn't you just as easily say "of course Bonnie Ray was mistaken. The proof of that fact is in Mooney's testimony"?
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 the guy who had a hissy-fit when he thought he was being called a lemming.
This is the guy who won't tell us who the 'you guys' he is referring to are, in his post charging these said 'you guys' with being lemmings.
-
please tell me. I've already asked twice.
You apparently "don't get" my argument about how I think it's not right for the owner of a forum to be able to tell a forum member what they can and cannot say at ANOTHER Internet locality.
You think it's perfectly fair and proper for James R. Gordon to be able to dictate to me what I can say on Facebook (or any other website that is NOT OWNED by Jim Gordon)?
If you answer "Yes" to my last inquiry, maybe you should think about moving to a country where the term "Freedom Of Speech" means nothing at all.
-
You apparently "don't get" my argument about how I think it's not right for the owner of a forum to be able to tell a forum member what they can and cannot say at ANOTHER Internet locality.
You think it's perfectly fair and proper for James R. Gordon to be able to dictate to me what I can say on Facebook (or any other website that is NOT OWNED by Jim Gordon)?
If you answer "Yes" to my last inquiry, maybe you should think about moving to a country where the term "Freedom Of Speech" means nothing at all.
Not what I said.
You can say whatever you want, anywhere you want.
He has no requirement to allow you to remain as a consequence of that action.
-
You can say whatever you want, anywhere you want.
He has no requirement to allow you to remain as a consequence of that action.
Sounds to me as though you still don't "get it".
-
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."
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).
Why has no supporter here of the official story ever addressed this question.......?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.0.html
Why not go there one and all and respond?
-
You apparently "don't get" my argument about how I think it's not right for the owner of a forum to be able to tell a forum member what they can and cannot say at ANOTHER Internet locality.
You think it's perfectly fair and proper for James R. Gordon to be able to dictate to me what I can say on Facebook (or any other website that is NOT OWNED by Jim Gordon)?
If you answer "Yes" to my last inquiry, maybe you should think about moving to a country where the term "Freedom Of Speech" means nothing at all.
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?
-
You apparently "don't get" my argument about how I think it's not right for the owner of a forum to be able to tell a forum member what they can and cannot say at ANOTHER Internet locality.
You don’t get it... you are stealing from and betraying peple. You are taking the work and lifeblood of people, which is placed in a repository of thought, debate and sharing, tearing it apart, and creating a pastiche of self adulation and self glorification. It’s just weird and creepy to me, but I respect the feelings of my fellows who correctly point out that it is also wrong.
-
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?
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
-
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.
......
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
How does the feeling of having the consent to do what you do compare to your theft and betrayal?
-
You don’t get it... you are stealing from and betraying peple [sic]. You are taking the work and lifeblood of people, which is placed in a repository of thought, debate and sharing, tearing it apart, and creating a pastiche of self adulation and self glorification. It’s just weird and creepy to me, but I respect the feelings of my fellows who correctly point out that it is also wrong.
Notice how Michael Clark has now decided to mix up the two different sub-topics. In the last quote of mine he was responding to, I wasn't talking about the "DVP Copies CTers' Posts And Puts Them On His Site" topic. I was talking about something completely different---about how Gordon forced me to apologize to him in public because of something I said at another website. It had nothing to do with my copying CT posts to my site. But Clark has decided he's going to merge the two separate topics to make me look more like a rotten dirty thief.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jhSmmTGa5GQ/VW9qb5iy1WI/AAAAAAABGdo/zM050_8Z9S0/s1600/Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif)
-
How does the feeling of having the consent to do what you do compare to your theft and betrayal?
Hilarious misdirection (again) by Clark.
Speer's "Feel free to copy..." remark at the bottom of his second post above was obviously made tongue-in-cheek. He was MOCKING the rule that he clearly thinks is wrong.
Time for Michael Clark to get new reading (or comprehension) glasses I guess.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
Martin from my original post in this thread a few days ago......
"As someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?
I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all."
It is his site....there is some trash some gold nuggets and iron pyrite and in whatever category the material falls depends on your perspective.
-
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?
One trick pony at work….
Nice, start with a weak insult and let's see where we go from there?
C'mon John, you can do far better that this…..
Of course I can but I have to carefully consider what you can comprehend in any one post.
Btw, who decided that I am a CT?
I don't care what you think you are!
JohnM
-
But you're never going to get angry at a CTer who is doing it, right? (Of course I'm right.)
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.
Oh, you mean the way Pat Speer does on his website (where no one can reply to his criticisms and/or ridicule either)?
And the constant "misrepresentation" whine from CTers is getting tiresome. That's a false accusation, IMO.
But you're never going to get angry at a CTer who is doing it, right? (Of course I'm right.)
Actually, you are completely wrong. I don't care if it is a LN or a CT who is doing that, it's simply wrong.
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.
Nice diversion followed by a lie.... How do I know it was a discussion on this forum? The answer is simple; it's the only forum I am (and ever have been) active on. You will find me on no other forum, but feel free to do a search to prove me wrong! And no, there was no reply from you to my post on this forum. I'ts been a while since it happened and I can't even recall the discussion, but I do remember clearly that you only replied to my comments on your own site. That's what pissed me off...
Oh, you mean the way Pat Speer does on his website (where no one can reply to his criticisms and/or ridicule either)?
The JFK assassination is a subject if interest to me, it's not my life. I have other things to do than deal with this case 24/7. I also like to form my own opinions, so all I have read is the WC report and a massive number of files from the National Archives. I haven't read a single CT or LN book, nor do I have any interests in propaganda sites which promote one opinion or another. I don't think I have even visited Pat Speer's website.
And the constant "misrepresentation" whine from CTers is getting tiresome. That's a false accusation, IMO.
Of course that's a given, but your opinion doesn't make the actual misrepresentation less true. I don't claim to be a CT nor do I wish to be a LN. I just want to form my own opinion about what actually happened on 22/11/63.
Now that your personal attacks on me are going nowhere, care to try again with some honest discussion?
-
Nice, start with a weak insult and let's see where we go from there?
Of course I can but I have to carefully consider what you can comprehend in any one post.
I don't care what you think you are!
JohnM
Nice, start with a weak insult and let's see where we go from there?
Touchy…. it's a normal expression, big deal
Of course I can but I have to carefully consider what you can comprehend in any one post.
What was that again what you said about insults?
I don't care what you think you are!
Nobody asked what you care about...... but it's pretty obvious you have great difficulty answer a simple question honestly.... Thumb1:
-
Martin from my original post in this thread a few days ago......
"As someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?
I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all."
It is his site....there is some trash some gold nuggets and iron pyrite and in whatever category the material falls depends on your perspective.
I share your sentiment, Colin.
Sure, David can do on his site what he wants, but when he does not engage in the actual conversation on this forum and than uses one of my posts to attack and ridicule on his own site, where I have no way to reply, he's pushing it IMO
-
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.)
Refreshing to see some diversity from the LN's at long last......
"you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?"
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg30391.html#msg30391 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg30391.html#msg30391)
Seems JohnM agrees with me that Williams and the others lied. If you like I can get some quotes from other LN's that agree that Jarman and Norman lied too.
-
Now that your personal attacks on me are going nowhere,...
And what "personal attacks" would those be?
...care to try again with some honest discussion?
What would you like to know?
-
And what "personal attacks" would those be?
What would you like to know?
What would you like to know?
Why you did not reply to my post on this forum and engaged in a proper discussion, only to copy my post to your site and "reply" to it there?
-
I share your sentiment, Colin.
Sure, David can do on his site what he wants, but when he does not engage in the actual conversation on this forum and [then] uses one of my posts to attack and ridicule on his own site, where I have no way to reply, he's pushing it IMO
I would like to find out which post Martin is referring to. (I'm genuinely curious.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Martin+Weidmann
Because I sure don't remember posting something to my site only (when I could have ALSO responded at this forum too). That seems unlikely that I would have done that. And I've been a member here since Feb. 2009.*
* But, of course, trying to track down whether I said a particular thing on this forum or not in the past has now become an impossible task because of the January 2018 crash-and-burn. So most of the pre-2018 posts are lost forever, unfortunately (except for a few I've been able to rescue via the Wayback Machine).
-
I would like to find out which post Martin is referring to. (I'm genuinely curious.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Martin+Weidmann
Because I sure don't remember posting something to my site only (when I could have ALSO responded at this forum too). That seems unlikely that I would have done that. And I've been a member here since Feb. 2009.*
* But, of course, trying to track down whether I said a particular thing on this forum or not in the past has now become an impossible task because of the January 2018 crash-and-burn. So all pre-2018 posts are lost forever, unfortunately.
It's easy nevertheless, David. You have full control over your own website and you should be able to find the postings under my name and take it from there.
I have to say that, after all this time, I don't actually recall the post(s) either. I just remember seeing them on your site, but you have a possibility to prove me wrong. If I am wrong, which I don't think I am, I will gladly admit so and apologize. It's in your hands
-
but it's pretty obvious you have great difficulty answer a simple question honestly.... Thumb1:
You asked me a self indulgent question and I gave you an honest reply and let me repeat this because it's so important, "I don't care what you think you are" and I doubt that anybody else does either. What a person argues, who they attack and the accusations that are made, that defines who that person is and there is nothing that I can do to change that reality.
JohnM
-
I don't actually recall the post(s) either.
:D
Classic Weidmann!
JohnM
-
You asked me a self indulgent question and I gave you an honest reply and let me repeat this because it's so important, "I don't care what you think you are" and I doubt that anybody else does either. What a person argues, who they attack and the accusations that are made, that defines who that person is and there is nothing that I can do to change that reality.
JohnM
John,
Please, try to stay out of this conversation. Your opinion means nothing to me.
What a person argues, who they attack and the accusations that are made, that defines who that person is
Exactly, now look in the mirror
-
It's easy nevertheless, David. You have full control over your own website and you should be able to find the postings under my name and take it from there.
I have to say that, after all this time, I don't actually recall the post(s) either. I just remember seeing them on your site, but you have a possibility to prove me wrong. If I am wrong, which I don't think I am, I will gladly admit so and apologize. It's in your hands[.]
Which is why I provided this "Weidmann" search link (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Martin+Weidmann) in my last post. (And you've got to hit "Next Posts" at the bottom of that page to see all of the posts that contain the name "Weidmann". And maybe one or two more "pages" beyond that too.) I thought the post might ring a bell with you if you saw it. It's certainly not going to ring any "bell" with me. And, as I said, there's no longer any possible way to cross-check my site's archives with old posts from this forum, because the pre-2018 threads are now lost forever due to the hacking episode last year.* So it will be impossible for me to "prove you wrong" (although wrong you may very well be in this particular instance).
* Which is one reason why my pre-2018 posts archived at my site are more valuable now, because it's probably the only place on the Web where those discussions (or partial discussions, at least) that started out at this forum can now be found. (No need to thank me for this valuable online forum-archiving service. I've been happy to do it.) :)
-
:D
Classic Weidmann!
JohnM
Hey, unlike you I have a life..... my brain can only remember so much crap at a time
-
my brain can only remember so much crap at a time
Thanks, I also think what you post is crap!
JohnM
-
Thanks, I also think what you post is crap!
JohnM
I was actually refering to the crap you post..... but you knew that, right ;)
-
John,
Please, try to stay out of this conversation.
WOW, How ironic and you don't even realize, that's what this thread is all about, our right for free speech!
JohnM
-
WOW, How ironic and you don't even realize, that's what this thread is all about, our right for free speech!
JohnM
Oh poor Johnny, since when did you become such a time waster?
-
I was actually refering to the crap you post..... but you knew that, right ;)
No, you were referring to your own posts on DVP's site. Btw have a another Brandivino on me!
JohnM
-
Oh poor Johnny, since when did you become such a time waster?
It's my thread and I'll post if I want to, post if I want to, post if I want to, you would post too, if it happened to you!
JohnM
-
You apparently "don't get" my argument about how I think it's not right for the owner of a forum to be able to tell a forum member what they can and cannot say at ANOTHER Internet locality.
You think it's perfectly fair and proper for James R. Gordon to be able to dictate to me what I can say on Facebook (or any other website that is NOT OWNED by Jim Gordon)?
If you answer "Yes" to my last inquiry, maybe you should think about moving to a country where the term "Freedom Of Speech" means nothing at all.
Is that your argument "Gordon doesn't own the site" so than to you "it's not fair"? And on facebook too??? Are you serious? You sound like a 5th-grade girl. Internet Locality??? Sounds important
I think your problem has something to do with a lack of attention in your younger years, I am sure you would agree, reluctantly.
-
It's my thread and I'll post if I want to, post if I want to, post if I want to, you would post too, if it happened to you!
JohnM
It doesn't alter the fact that your are wasting everybody's time
-
WOW, How ironic and you don't even realize, that's what this thread is all about, our right for free speech!
JohnM
You should know first hand there are not parameters for your speech or even the silly demonstrations of those ridiculous backyard photos where you attempted to show it was the actual rifle. Then screaming that it was 100% proof because of some stupid GIF you used comparing the size from one picture to the other.
-
No, you were referring to your own posts on DVP's site. Btw have a another Brandivino on me!
JohnM
Since when can you determine what I was referring to?
And, what's a brandivino?
-
Is that your argument "Gordon doesn't own the site" so than to you "it's not fair"? And on facebook too??? Are you serious? You sound like a 5th-grade girl. Internet Locality??? Sounds important. I think your problem has something to do with a lack of attention in your younger years, I am sure you would agree, reluctantly.
Oh good! Another CTer who has decided he's going to play dumb and pretend not to understand what I'm talking about when it comes to James R. Gordon's dictatorial and (very likely) unconstitutional EF forum rule.
Anything else you want to pretend not to "get"?
-
This is the guy who won't tell us who the 'you guys' he is referring to are, in his post charging these said 'you guys' with being lemmings.
You still need reading comprehension lessons. I didn’t charge “you guys” with being lemmings.
But even if I did, it’s nowhere near as bad as “OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es” and “CTard”, so stop your whining.
-
Oh good! Another CTer who has decided he's going to play dumb and pretend not to understand what I'm talking about when it comes to James R. Gordon's dictatorial and (very likely) unconstitutional EF forum rule.
Anything else you want to pretend not to "get"?
"Very likely"? You mean maybe or perhaps unconstitutional? What is the problem Diamond Dave, you are not sure? LNers try to create laws on irrelevant side issues while dismissing laws in the actual JFK assassination.
You are an amazing man one could even say well-read, a publisher, a plagiarist I have heard, a detective, and now a constitutional lawyer. Did I miss anything? Plumber, Aerobic's instructor??
-
"Very likely"? You mean maybe or perhaps unconstitutional? What is the problem Diamond Dave, you are not sure?
Exactly. I'm not sure. Hence the words "very likely" being utilized in my prior post. Anything wrong with that?
You are an amazing man one could even say well-read, a publisher, a plagiarist I have heard, a detective, and now a constitutional lawyer. Did I miss anything? Plumber, Aerobic's instructor??
Yeah, you missed:
Purveyor of actual evidence and common sense relating to the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit.
The "plagiarist" crap is pure nonsense (of course).
-
Exactly. I'm not sure. Hence the words "very likely" being utilized in my prior post. Anything wrong with that?
Yeah, you missed:
Purveyor of common sense and actual evidence regarding the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.
The "plagiarist" crap is pure nonsense (of course). (And there probably should be a forum rule here that would discourage people from tossing around such serious allegations sans a stitch of proof to back them up. Just sayin'.)
Now the constitutional lawyer is on a "common sense"-happy tour Yesterday You said Bankrupt Baden's view was"probably correct" and today you prove more doubt in your ideas by using "very likely", which you say is common sense.
Probably correct=very likely=common sense=The way DVP determines what a fact is. Forgive me Dave, now I understand how you come to be a LNer, you make up your own rules as you go along
Be honest I am, BTW I forgot to add Drama Queen to the list of occupations or characters you knowingly or possibly unknowingly act out in a peculiar effort to distract from the important topic.
Last I heard it was the "JFK Assassination" not the "Poor me Diamond DVP Assassination"
-
Probably correct=very likely=common sense=The way DVP determines what a fact is.
As opposed to the "CTer" way of solving the case, which would include:
Inventing conspiracy scenarios that make no sense (e.g., having FRONTAL gunmen shoot at Kennedy within a "LET'S FRAME ONLY OSWALD" plot)....
Pretending everybody's a liar (or pert-near everybody anyway)....
Pretending that Oswald's actions and movements on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 weren't the slightest bit unusual or out of the ordinary....
Pretending Oswald never told any lies at all to the police....
Pretending that certain events just never happened at all (e.g., the Lunchroom Encounter....and Oswald carrying a large-ish brown package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63)....
Etc. (to CT infinity).
-
As already exemplified in assortment #193, all Nutter-speak, zero evidence.
Good boy! Just pretend that each of the points I presented in my Part 193 (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-193.html) are based on "zero evidence" whatsoever. After all, that's what CTers do best---ignore the actual verified evidence of Oswald's guilt. Why should Otto Beck be any different, right?
Coincidentally (or maybe not) the crushing rebuttal only two days later by Rob Caprio was not included in the installment.
I'll provide the link below to Caprio's "crushing rebuttal" that Otto Beck seems to have a hard-on for. It's actually an embarrassingly flimsy "rebuttal", with Caprio (as usual) merely ignoring the evidence once more. Plus, Caprio even flat-out lies at one point in that "rebuttal" (re: the prints of Oswald that were found on Rifle C2766, with Caprio lying and insisting that no LHO prints were found on the gun at all)....
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RS3gXfPv2GU/XKmIz-2CIeI/AAAAAAABRG8/60SevG4bfnUiq1Y7Gk8ygs8HpoKCFsCoQCLcBGAs/s300/Click-Here-Logo-2.png) (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/yvlXsZovTP0/l_OX_O1HtRgJ)
Feel the Pein?
I'd have to be a member of the Houston Astros or the Chicago Cubs to do that. (See if you can figure that one out.)
-
Refreshing to see some diversity from the LN's at long last......
"you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?"
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg30391.html#msg30391 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg30391.html#msg30391)
Seems JohnM agrees with me that Williams and the others lied. If you like I can get some quotes from other LN's that agree that Jarman and Norman lied too.
David you might like to update your 914 entry for accuracy......
"I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch.
I think Luke Mooney was incorrect about the precise location where the bones were found."
You need to include the numerous officers I have quoted on more than one occasion. Mooney was not the only one to make the claim as your entry implies. In addition a number of LN posters Have previously agreed that, given the circumstances, it was highly likely that Williams lied.
Your simplistic attempt at rebuttal to the suggestion that Williams lied......
"Beautiful. One more "liar" to add to a CTer's list. What a surprise. Everybody's a liar except Lee Harvey."
Is apparently a modified form of your response offered earlier in this thread and could be equally challenged by how many witnesses you believe were "mistaken" or lied without motive to do so. Can we start with those officers quoted who saw Williams lunch in the SN? We could add Arnold Rowland, Buell Frazier, Jack Dougherty, Earlene Roberts, Tom Alyea, Carolyn Arnold, Roger Craig....
-
Is apparently a modified form of your response offered earlier in this thread and could be equally challenged by how many witnesses you believe were "mistaken" or lied without motive to do so. Can we start with those officers quoted who saw Williams lunch in the SN? We could add Arnold Rowland, Buell Frazier, Jack Dougherty, Earlene Roberts, Tom Alyea, Carolyn Arnold, Roger Craig....
The LN list of liars and/or “mistaken” witnesses is way more extensive than that of any CT.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0)
-
This is the guy who had a hissy-fit when he thought he was being called a lemming.
Tell us how simply asking you to explain who 'you guys' are — and why you brought up lemmings in the first place — qualifies as a 'hissy fit'
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn12T2vN/lemmings-rant.png)
Iacoletti, from above graphic*
"Not particularly interesting.You guys rely on faith rather than evidence, march in lock-step, and never deviate from your holy book. Since when is it a virtue to jump off the cliff with the other lemmings?"
-----------------------------------------
*@Lurkers: My bolding, for emphasis
-
I'd have to be a member of the Houston Astros or the Chicago Cubs to do that. (See if you can figure that one out.)
Maple? ;)
-
Tell us how simply asking you to explain who 'you guys' are — and why you brought up lemmings in the first place — qualifies as a 'hissy fit'
Who said it did? This, however, is a hissy fit:
More worthless rhetoric from PaidToTrollHereJohnny, who tells us what witnesses saw or didn't see, LN posters what they meant or didn't mean, and that everyone who disagrees with him is a liar, lemming, and stupid.
From the same giant hypocrite who calls people who disagree with him offensive slurs like “OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es” and “CTard” and then accuses them of saying things that they never said ("sheeple", anyone?).
-
Good boy! Just pretend that each of the points I presented in my Part 193 (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-193.html) are based on "zero evidence" whatsoever. After all, that's what CTers do best---ignore the actual verified evidence of Oswald's guilt. Why should Otto Beck be any different, right?
I'll provide the link below to Caprio's "crushing rebuttal" that Otto Beck seems to have a hard-on for. It's actually an embarrassingly flimsy "rebuttal", with Caprio (as usual) merely ignoring the evidence once more. Plus, Caprio even flat-out lies at one point in that "rebuttal" (re: the prints of Oswald that were found on Rifle C2766, with Caprio lying and insisting that no LHO prints were found on the gun at all)....
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RS3gXfPv2GU/XKmIz-2CIeI/AAAAAAABRG8/60SevG4bfnUiq1Y7Gk8ygs8HpoKCFsCoQCLcBGAs/s300/Click-Here-Logo-2.png) (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/yvlXsZovTP0/l_OX_O1HtRgJ)
I'd have to be a member of the Houston Astros or the Chicago Cubs to do that. (See if you can figure that one out.)
Meltdown Madness !! And it's not even March yet...... you go, Dave ! Stars in your Crown, Henry+
-
The LN list of liars and/or “mistaken” witnesses is way more extensive than that of any CT.
I don't think your claim is correct but pick any narrative and you have a long list of mistaken witnesses. Let's say you posit 3 shots fired. Then the 2 witnesses inside the TSBD who heard no shots are mistaken. As are witnesses who heard 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 shots, They are all mistaken. Suppose you think 4 shots were fired. Same long list of mistaken witnesses.
Choose your narrative John. You will have a long list of mistaken witnesses.
-
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).
So then how did his lunch bag get on top of a box by the "sniper's nest"?
-
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.
Hi David. Can you provide specific examples of websites that contain copies of posts that you have made?
Happens every day. And always will, of course. Such as at CTer Pat Speer's website.
Where?
http://www.patspeer.com/system/app/pages/search?scope=search-site&q=pein (http://www.patspeer.com/system/app/pages/search?scope=search-site&q=pein)
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....
Uh, David.... did you notice this part of sensible Pat Speers' comment?
"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."
-
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?
Yes. That way they can demand that you prove that a conspiracy occurred or their narrative wins by default.
-
I don't think your claim is correct but pick any narrative and you have a long list of mistaken witnesses. Let's say you posit 3 shots fired. Then the 2 witnesses inside the TSBD who heard no shots are mistaken. As are witnesses who heard 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 shots, They are all mistaken. Suppose you think 4 shots were fired. Same long list of mistaken witnesses.
Choose your narrative John. You will have a long list of mistaken witnesses.
Of course your claim is true John but let's put some context to the posting.
One of the two main themes of this thread involves David's use of selected quotes from a variety of sources, including this one, on his website. Essentially to promote the LN cause and also serve as a repository for rebuttal arguments to CT questioning.
I pointed out the use of a quote of mine relating to the chicken lunch originally discovered in the SN by Luke Mooney. His counter argument was to suggest that Mooney was simply mistaken and that Williams testimony was proof of that. I pointed out the numerous officers who supported Mooney's observation prior to the arrival of Fritz. This was obviously not one mistaken officer but now involves all sharing the same mistaken memory. David chose to ignore this fact completely.
I also pointed out that his reliance on Williams WC testimony was on shaky ground as his previous statements were indicative of him being less than truthful about his movements immediately prior to the assassination.
This was the only statement that he responded to. It was a throw away about how CTs require lots of people to lie. Neither observation, the original position of the lunch remnants or the (understandable) reluctance of Williams to admit his presence in the SN just prior to the shots to the WC, both backed up by substantial documented evidence was directly addressed.
Why do the vast majority of LN true believers (excluding JohnM here) have to religiously stick to the unlikely sequence of events trotted out by the WR? A security blanket that is unsupported by the assembled evidence of their own investigative efforts.
-
The LN list of liars and/or “mistaken” witnesses is way more extensive than that of any CT.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0)
No way. Not even close. (As far as the number of "liars" is concerned anyway. I haven't done the math on "mistaken" witnesses.) You must have a strange way of adding.
-
Hi David. Can you provide specific examples of websites that contain copies of posts that you have made?
Pat Speer admitted last week that he has done it "dozens if not hundreds" of times....
"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." -- Patrick J. Speer [Emphasis DVP's]
-
David you might like to update your 914 entry for accuracy......
"I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch.
I think Luke Mooney was incorrect about the precise location where the bones were found."
You need to include the numerous officers I have quoted on more than one occasion. Mooney was not the only one to make the claim as your entry implies.
OK. I took your suggestion and updated that webpage. (Thanks.)
Here's an excerpt from that page (from either 2015 or 2016)....
COLIN CROW SAID:
Either he [Bonnie Ray Williams] lied,
Or
The assassin had a chicken lunch too that he didn't finish.....that disappeared entirely under the noses of numerous police officers (maybe they were hungry),
Or
The assassin grabbed BRW's lunch after he left......then someone moved it back to the two wheeler,
Or
Feel free to [provide] another possibility, David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't think anyone lied. Some people were simply mistaken. Like Edwards and Fischer when they said FIFTH floor in their affidavits when they really meant SIXTH floor.
But the theory I'm hearing in this discussion means you guys need to have Bonnie Ray Williams [BRW] lying his head off, plus various police officers lying, and the Warren Commission too. It's just plain silly (not to mention totally unnecessary on ANYONE'S behalf)....and surely you know it's silly. But you insist on making mountains out of nothingness anyway. It's in a CTer's blood. You can't help it, I guess.
You guys seem to think the ONLY place where BRW could have possibly leaned back on some boxes on the entire sixth floor was INSIDE the Sniper's Nest itself----even though Williams is clear he was NOT that far EAST on the building's sixth floor when he ate his lunch. But you'll ignore the person who is obviously the best witness to say where he ate lunch----Bonnie Ray himself.
Plus, what makes you think Williams couldn't have MOVED the two-wheeler truck just a little bit (one way or the other)? It was a MOVABLE object, you know. Just as a piece of chicken is MOVABLE.
And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it; I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt. Nor will that piece of chicken (or its bones) erase the known incriminating ACTIONS of one Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.
Oswald's guilt in both the Kennedy and Tippit murders is rock-solid and will survive the avalanche of speculative nonsense coming from conspiracy theorists about chicken bones and the unsupportable allegations about Bonnie Ray Williams being a liar, etc.
Nobody in this discussion has done anything that diminishes Lee Oswald's guilty status----even if the chicken bones WERE moved around on the sixth floor by somebody (anybody!) on November 22nd.
-
OK. I took your suggestion and updated that webpage. (Thanks.)
Here's an excerpt from that page (from either 2015 or 2016)....
COLIN CROW SAID:
Either he [Bonnie Ray Williams] lied,
Or
The assassin had a chicken lunch too that he didn't finish.....that disappeared entirely under the noses of numerous police officers (maybe they were hungry),
Or
The assassin grabbed BRW's lunch after he left......then someone moved it back to the two wheeler,
Or
Feel free to [provide] another possibility, David.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't think anyone lied. Some people were simply mistaken. Like Edwards and Fischer when they said FIFTH floor in their affidavits when they really meant SIXTH floor.
But the theory I'm hearing in this discussion means you guys need to have Bonnie Ray Williams [BRW] lying his head off, plus various police officers lying, and the Warren Commission too. It's just plain silly (not to mention totally unnecessary on ANYONE'S behalf)....and surely you know it's silly. But you insist on making mountains out of nothingness anyway. It's in a CTer's blood. You can't help it, I guess.
You guys seem to think the ONLY place where BRW could have possibly leaned back on some boxes on the entire sixth floor was INSIDE the Sniper's Nest itself----even though Williams is clear he was NOT that far EAST on the building's sixth floor when he ate his lunch. But you'll ignore the person who is obviously the best witness to say where he ate lunch----Bonnie Ray himself.
Plus, what makes you think Williams couldn't have MOVED the two-wheeler truck just a little bit (one way or the other)? It was a MOVABLE object, you know. Just as a piece of chicken is MOVABLE.
And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it; I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt. Nor will that piece of chicken (or its bones) erase the known incriminating ACTIONS of one Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.
Oswald's guilt in both the Kennedy and Tippit murders is rock-solid and will survive the avalanche of speculative nonsense coming from conspiracy theorists about chicken bones and the unsupportable allegations about Bonnie Ray Williams being a liar, etc.
Nobody in this discussion has done anything that diminishes Lee Oswald's guilty status----even if the chicken bones WERE moved around on the sixth floor by somebody (anybody!) on November 22nd.
Take a breath David.......
Did I say that any of those officers lied? Of course they didn't. They faithfully reported what they saw. You are aware that the reports for a day or more talked of the assassin lying in wait eating the chicken lunch. Those officers initially saw it in the SN. In their oral histories etc taken many years later many still believed the chicken lunch was Oswald's.
Of course the lunch was moved, at least once, from the position Mooney (and the others) initially reported prior to the arrival of Fritz. I assumed you know who the likely suspect was. If I was wrong here is the clue once more.
Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect. I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield.
That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment, there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
At this point, I asked the deputy sheriff to guard the scene, not to let anybody touch anything, and I went over still further west to another window about the middle of the building on the south side and yelled down to the street for them to send us the crime lab.
(https://i.ibb.co/D4LdNrk/Hill.jpg)
In "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed reporter Jim Ewell related the following account of events and likely provides the missing piece of the puzzle.
"Meanwhile Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald’s little fried chicken lunch. It was in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken was what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff."
There you go. Gerry Hill only moved one window across as evidenced by the picture above. He likely dropped the chicken and bag down before leaving and encountering Fritz. This would now be a group of boxes westward of their original position. To an area guarded by Johnson upon his arrival as evidence by his testimony. At some point after that someone (likely Johnson) put the chicken piece in the bag and set it down near the two wheeler. The consolidated evidence is overwhelming that the original position of the lunch was in the SN area. It was moved, likely on two occasions and the last put the chicken piece inside.
That's my take on all the information I have been able to absorb. Does any of this seem outrageous to you. No officers need to lie, (well little ones about moving stuff a bit but it was chaos up there), and no one was incriminating Oswald.
We can deal with Williams next.
-
Based on the shadow being cast on the bricks, it looks to me like Gerald Hill is holding his own HAT in his right hand in this photo, not a "chicken box" (or bag)....
(https://i.ibb.co/D4LdNrk/Hill.jpg)
Bigger view:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JlXuHKhl9S4/TZPZmjH3RkI/AAAAAAAATso/wjE0gVlyLIc/s3000-h/Gerald%2BHill%2BLeaning%2BOut%2BTSBD%2BWindow.jpg
-
Based on the shadow being cast on the bricks, it looks to me like Gerald Hill is holding his own HAT in his right hand in this photo, not a "chicken box" (or bag)....
(https://i.ibb.co/D4LdNrk/Hill.jpg)
Bigger view:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JlXuHKhl9S4/TZPZmjH3RkI/AAAAAAAATso/wjE0gVlyLIc/s3000-h/Gerald%2BHill%2BLeaning%2BOut%2BTSBD%2BWindow.jpg
So....I never said the photo showed the chicken. Merely that it showed the window he leaned out of. It confirms he was just one window away. It is Jim Ewell who made the claim that at some stage he held the lunch. The photo supports his claim (to an extent). Or another mistake? Perhaps he picked it up after the photo or had set it down just before. I take it you have nothing about the officers who all claimed it was in the SN before the arrival of Fritz.
-
BTW/FYI....
Here's a different photo showing Gerry Hill leaning out the window, and this picture verifies that it is definitely Hill's hat that he is holding....
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184839/m1/1/
-
I take it you have nothing about the officers who all claimed it was in the SN before the arrival of Fritz.
Only the things I said previously in 2015....
"And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it;
I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt. .... Nobody in this discussion has done anything that diminishes Lee Oswald's guilty status----even if the chicken bones WERE moved around on the sixth floor by somebody (anybody!) on November 22nd." -- DVP; Circa 2015—2016
-
From Vince Bugliosi's book (re: the chicken bones)....
---quote on---
"During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964)
Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83)
Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3 H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)
Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president?
I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 23 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
---------------- BONUS! ----------------
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DTVzpohVGjE/Wy2zB1cNF7I/AAAAAAABPNQ/4hWiVdgippoRjsqbdcXvJcCbHEP1UsLDQCLcBGAs/s260/Easter-Egg-Logo.png) (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OcusH-Yl4bM/g_YBywnVIDMJ)
-
Only the things I said previously in 2015....
"And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it;
I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt. .... Nobody in this discussion has done anything that diminishes Lee Oswald's guilty status----even if the chicken bones WERE moved around on the sixth floor by somebody (anybody!) on November 22nd." -- DVP; Circa 2015—2016
In reality there is no conflicting testimony once sorted effectively. So, I take it this a sort of admission that the lunch might have been in the SN after all. But even after what I have presented from the available evidence you still have no idea.
-
From Vince Bugliosi's book (re: the chicken bones)....
---quote on---
"During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964)
Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83)
Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3 H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)
Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president?
I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 23 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
Thanks David, I will tackle VB in due course.
-
Thanks David, I will tackle VB in due course.
I guess 12 years hasn't been long enough, eh? After all, his book's only been out since 2007.
-
BTW/FYI....
Here's a different photo showing Gerry Hill leaning out the window, and this picture verifies that it is definitely Hill's hat that he is holding....
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184839/m1/1/
A comparison for you......transpose the lunch with the rifle and Ewell for Brennan and Hill for Oswald. What would you be saying?
-
I guess 12 years hasn't been long enough, eh? After all, his book's only been out since 2007.
I think I dealt with in my series.....the one that got lost in the forum hack. Let me see if I can find it.
and here it is.....at the end of Part One of Bags, Bones, Bungling and Bonnie Ray. I thought you had it archived except for part 4?
"What really happened.
I suggest the evidence presented above indicates clearly that the unfinished chicken piece and lunch sack were originally positioned on top of a box within 5 feet north of the box that Oswald's right palm print was lifted from. At some time before the arrival of Capt Fritz in the SN the chicken piece and lunch sack was moved westward and placed on top of a box near the second set of windows. Interestingly in the book "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed the reporter Jim Ewell related the following account of events and provides the missing piece of the puzzle.
"Meanwhile Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald’s little fried chicken lunch. It was in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken was what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff."
I propose that Hill was the first officer to move the bag and chicken piece from the SN. He likely dropped it on the box near the second set of windows (note his position in the photo above) after calling out to those below and departed the TSBD after on his way to the Tippit shooting site. He did not tell of his failure to preserve the crime scene.
The chicken piece and lunch sack remained in this position, unnoticed by Day and Studebaker in their few minutes in the SN before the call by Fritz after the discovery of the rifle. The piece and likely other bones noticed by Montgomery and Johnson were eventually collected and placed into the bag by Johnson who placed the bag further westward near the pop bottle and two-wheeler. Although Mooney, Hill, Montgomery and Johnson were aware of preserving the crime scene and "not touching anything", it seems only Mooney was able to resist the temptation to do so. Montgomery discovered the bag somewhere near the SN but it is unlikely it was what we have been lead to believe. The SN was observed by Mooney, Vickery, Webster, McCurley, Craig, Hill, Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Day, Studebaker prior to the discovery of the rifle. Montgomery were guarding the SN for at least half an hour and then Montgomery discovers the bag. Clearly it was not in the southeast corner by the pipes when first found. Both Johnson and Montgomery did not inform Studebaker of the original find and it was "discovered" a second time, now in the south east corner near the pipes and only folded in half. We can add Johnson and Montgomery to the group who "failed to preserve the crime scene".
The notion that the bag was found elsewhere explains why Day and Studebaker did not photograph it when they first arrived, it simply was not there. We also have evidence that the bag was about 2 feet long as stated on numerous occasions by Johnson. Studebaker strangely decided the bag was significant enough to fingerprint but not photograph at all in the SN. When questioned about its length he originally states he did not know how long it was and later claims it was almost 4 feet in length.
Of course a close look at this reality stimulates a variety of questions. The majority of these relate to Bonnie Ray Williams. I suggest it is now clear that Bonnie Ray is the black man who occupied the SN described by Arnold Rowland from about 12.15-12.25pm.
If he was in the SN, why did he drop his unfinished his lunch on the way out? Why did he not say he was there? If it was Oswald who disturbed him, why didn't he say so? Oswald was captured while he was still in the police station making a statement. If the lunch sack was Bonnie Ray's, why did the DPD not confirm his prints were on the bag (and bottle)? If Bonnie Ray was in the SN at 12.15, the man seen by Rowland he would not be seen by the man holding the rifle at the southwest window (and vice versa). Was it this man who disturbed him or did he disturb the rifleman?
We also have a logical explanation regarding the discovery of the long bag in the corner and the lack of photographic evidence when the SN was originally captured on film. Of the 12 known witnesses (13 if you count Tom Alyea) none recall seeing the bag next to the pipes in the SN until Johnson sees Montgomery pick it up, possibly about an hour after the SN was discovered by Mooney. Importantly there is evidence by Johnson that the original bag was approximately 2 feet long. Where have we heard that size before? Why weren't Montgomery and Johnson shown CE142 during their appearance before the commission?
Bugliosi's Analysis (via David von Pein)
I know there will be further questions arising from this work that I have yet to think of. It has taken me best part of 4 days on an off to compile and analyse. As a comparison let's see what WC champion Vincent Bugliosi (and his assistant writers) had to say……I wonder how long it took them.
From Vince Bugliosi's book.....
"During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964)
Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83)
Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3 H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)
Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president?
I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 23 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
You be the judge of reality."
-
Not so fast, Bugs. What happened to the prints lifted off of the bottle by Day?
According to Day they did not match Oswald's so he threw them away some time after. One might question that the evening of the assassination why the bottle and lunch sack were not sent to the FBI via Vince Drain as crime scene evidence. Even if they had excluded Oswald's prints by that time how were they to know he did not have an accomplice who used his rifle or was a spotter for him shooting?
-
I guess 12 years hasn't been long enough, eh? After all, his book's only been out since 2007.
I didn’t buy his book. When I saw the superficial treatment of the evidence available (like the dismissal of Mooney in the quote) I figured I didn’t miss much. Maybe he or his ghostwriters hadn’t bothered to analyse all the available information about the chicken lunch by 2007.
-
According to Day they did not match Oswald's so he threw them away some time after. One might question that the evening of the assassination why the bottle and lunch sack were not sent to the FBI via Vince Drain as crime scene evidence. Even if they had excluded Oswald's prints by that time how were they to know he did not have an accomplice who used his rifle or was a spotter for him shooting?
Hi Colin, there would have been literally dozens of fingerprints on the bottle and sack. The factory workers where the items were made, workers who packed them, delivery drivers taking them to the stores, the storekeeper etc etc. In this instance, the only value prints would have had was if you trying to prove someone, already suspected of being near the crime scene, was actually there ie Oswald. Once his fingerprints were eliminated the items would have been useless. Saying that, I would agree that in such an important investagation all evidence should have been wrapped n saved.
-
Hi Colin, there would have been literally dozens of fingerprints on the bottle and sack. The factory workers where the items were made, workers who packed them, delivery drivers taking them to the stores, the storekeeper etc etc. In this instance, the only value prints would have had was if you trying to prove someone, already suspected of being near the crime scene, was actually there ie Oswald. Once his fingerprints were eliminated the items would have been useless. Saying that, I would agree that in such an important investagation all evidence should have been wrapped n saved.
Denis, I take your point, but suppose Oswald admitted bringing in the rifle but claimed Jack Dougherty bought it from him that morning. Just a hypothetical so bear with me. If the rifle was wiped of prints, don’t you think the bottle and lunch sack should have been given to the FBI that night? They would be useful in placing him in the SN.
-
There is some heavy truth from Bugs here: "I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued."
This chicken story goes on and on as a I recall like the endless compulsion driven prayer man discussion. I give Colin lots of credit for analyzing the evidence (unlike most CTers). But what ultimately is being suggested? That Williams was on the 6th floor and Oswald and/or the fantasy conspirators came along with a gun and shooed him away? Trusting Williams to not raise an alarm before the assassination and forever remain silent afterward? And Williams never mentions this to anyone even after JFK is assassinated. That is ludicrous. The witness testimony is not always precise and often uses language that can be interpreted in many different ways. The floor was full of boxes and windows. I seem to recall some instances in which the witnesses and questioner even appear confused about which bag is being discussed (i.e. lunch or rifle bag). Bottom line: there is perfectly good explanation for the lunch as confirmed by Williams. He has no obvious reason to lie. Nor did he ever indicated that he saw the assassin on that floor.
-
There is some heavy truth from Bugs here: "I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued."
This chicken story goes on and on as a I recall like the endless compulsion driven prayer man discussion. I give Colin lots of credit for analyzing the evidence (unlike most CTers). But what ultimately is being suggested? That Williams was on the 6th floor and Oswald and/or the fantasy conspirators came along with a gun and shooed him away? Trusting Williams to not raise an alarm before the assassination and forever remain silent afterward? And Williams never mentions this to anyone even after JFK is assassinated. That is ludicrous. The witness testimony is not always precise and often uses language that can be interpreted in many different ways. The floor was full of boxes and windows. I seem to recall some instances in which the witnesses and questioner even appear confused about which bag is being discussed (i.e. lunch or rifle bag). Bottom line: there is perfectly good explanation for the lunch as confirmed by Williams. He has no obvious reason to lie. Nor did he ever indicated that he saw the assassin on that floor.
As I have stated previously Williams had every reason to be fearful after the shooting. The authorities and media were reporting the assassin had a chicken lunch while waiting to shoot the President. It was his! His prints would be all over it. Rowland saw him in the SN minutes before the shots. At that time he had no idea there would be a photo that exonerated him. Without that his only alibi would have to be provided by Jarman and Norman.
Put yourself in his shoes.....with what he knew at that point in time.
-
There is some heavy truth from Bugs here: "I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued."
This chicken story goes on and on as a I recall like the endless compulsion driven prayer man discussion. I give Colin lots of credit for analyzing the evidence (unlike most CTers). But what ultimately is being suggested? That Williams was on the 6th floor and Oswald and/or the fantasy conspirators came along with a gun and shooed him away? Trusting Williams to not raise an alarm before the assassination and forever remain silent afterward? And Williams never mentions this to anyone even after JFK is assassinated. That is ludicrous. The witness testimony is not always precise and often uses language that can be interpreted in many different ways. The floor was full of boxes and windows. I seem to recall some instances in which the witnesses and questioner even appear confused about which bag is being discussed (i.e. lunch or rifle bag). Bottom line: there is perfectly good explanation for the lunch as confirmed by Williams. He has no obvious reason to lie. Nor did he ever indicated that he saw the assassin on that floor.
Yes, I agree Richard, kudos to Colin, he raises some interesting points but a great deal of the points (especially pray man) many CT's raise does seem petty and quite irrelevant. As I've said in the past these murders, let's not forget Tippit, have had more investigation than any other murders in history! Many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of both amateur and professionals have picked over the evidence repeatedly, far more thoroughly than the WC could have ever done, for decades and still what evidence there is points directly to Oswald and Oswald alone.
-
There is some heavy truth from Bugs here: "I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued."
This chicken story goes on and on as a I recall like the endless compulsion driven prayer man discussion. I give Colin lots of credit for analyzing the evidence (unlike most CTers). But what ultimately is being suggested? That Williams was on the 6th floor and Oswald and/or the fantasy conspirators came along with a gun and shooed him away? Trusting Williams to not raise an alarm before the assassination and forever remain silent afterward? And Williams never mentions this to anyone even after JFK is assassinated. That is ludicrous. The witness testimony is not always precise and often uses language that can be interpreted in many different ways. The floor was full of boxes and windows. I seem to recall some instances in which the witnesses and questioner even appear confused about which bag is being discussed (i.e. lunch or rifle bag). Bottom line: there is perfectly good explanation for the lunch as confirmed by Williams. He has no obvious reason to lie. Nor did he ever indicated that he saw the assassin on that floor.
Quite simply the complied evidence suggest the sequence of events on the 6th floor as suggested in the WR in the half hour before the shots is simply bogus. What we do know is that there was a man in the SW corner with a rifle at about 12.15.pm. At around that time and for some minutes afterwards BRW was in the SN as evidenced by his lunch remnants being discovered there by Mooney (and others) and the independent observation of him there by Arnold.
He vacated the 6th floor and joined Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor around 12.25pm. All three men at various times after the events, up until their WC testimony, deceived the authorities regarding Williams movements prior to the shots. These facts are indisputable as shown by the numerous official documents I have previously provided.
-
As I have stated previously Williams had every reason to be fearful after the shooting. The authorities and media were reporting the assassin had a chicken lunch while waiting to shoot the President. It was his! His prints would be all over it. Rowland saw him in the SN minutes before the shots. At that time he had no idea there would be a photo that exonerated him. Without that his only alibi would have to be provided by Jarman and Norman.
Put yourself in his shoes.....with what he knew at that point in time.
You can understand how wildly implausible it is to suggest that the assassin/conspirators simply let Williams leave the floor and trusted that he would not raise an alarm beforehand and remain silent forever afterward? Fear of being implicated as the assassin is not persuasive. Williams has an airtight alibi in the presence of two other people. There is a photo that exonerates him. Even if he wasn't aware of the photo at the time, he certainly became aware of it. He has no realistic reason for him to be concerned that he would ever be deemed a suspect. It just doesn't add up as plausible excuse for his silence. Nor would the conspirators have relied on that given the stakes and their obvious willingness to commit murder. A more plausible narrative in that context is that Williams would have been detained on the floor until after the assassination, at which time he would have been killed with Oswald's rifle. The story would be that Williams had lunch on the floor and was killed by Oswald during his escape. A win-win for the fantasy conspirators as it further implicates Oswald and eliminates a witness. The very last thing they would have done is allow a witness to exit the floor and risk exposing or thwarting the plot.
-
You can understand how wildly implausible it is to suggest that the assassin/conspirators simply let Williams leave the floor and trusted that he would not raise an alarm beforehand and remain silent forever afterward? Fear of being implicated as the assassin is not persuasive. Williams has an airtight alibi in the presence of two other people. There is a photo that exonerates him. Even if he wasn't aware of the photo at the time, he certainly became aware of it. He has no realistic reason for him to be concerned that he would ever be deemed a suspect. It just doesn't add up as plausible excuse for his silence. Nor would the conspirators have relied on that given the stakes and their obvious willingness to commit murder. A more plausible narrative in that context is that Williams would have been detained on the floor until after the assassination, at which time he would have been killed with Oswald's rifle. The story would be that Williams had lunch on the floor and was killed by Oswald during his escape. A win-win for the fantasy conspirators as it further implicates Oswald and eliminates a witness. The very last thing they would have done is allow a witness to exit the floor and risk exposing or thwarting the plot.
Which is why I am not suggesting anything like that happened Richard. In fact I would agree with you that what you suggest did not happen. You know that Frazier claims that Fritz was pushing him to confess that night. I am sure Frazier had an alibi too. The reality is that for some time after the assassination Williams was reluctant to tell of his 6th floor lunch trip. His alibi pals lied on a number of occasions and told authorities he went up with them on the lift to the 5th floor. Surely you have to ask yourself, in a case of this importance, would you lie about someone who had been at the crime scene just before the shooting? Big risk if you are caught.
-
Pat Speer admitted last week that he has done it "dozens if not hundreds" of times....
He said "references to online discussions", not copying entire posts to his own website. I searched for your name on patspeer.com and found a single reference to your name but not so much as a quote of anything you had written.
-
But the theory I'm hearing in this discussion means you guys need to have Bonnie Ray Williams [BRW] lying his head off, plus various police officers lying, and the Warren Commission too. It's just plain silly (not to mention totally unnecessary on ANYONE'S behalf)....and surely you know it's silly. But you insist on making mountains out of nothingness anyway. It's in a CTer's blood. You can't help it, I guess.
I can see why you're such a fan of Bugliosi. Instead of making an evidence-based argument you try to ridicule the opposition instead. just like he does.
The entirety of the evidence suggests that the lunch bag was not at the two-wheeler when the SN was first discovered, but that it was moved there afterwards and that BRW just ran with the story. Why would a black man in 1963 Dallas (or even today) want to admit being next to the window the cops said that shots were fired from? Not only do you have to deny the word of several witnesses to the lunch bag and the bones, but you have to deny Arnold Rowland's observation of a negro in the SE window at the same time BRW was on the 6th floor, all so you can cherry-pick one account over that of several others.
And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it; I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt.
What physical evidence of Oswald's guilt?
Nor will that piece of chicken (or its bones) erase the known incriminating ACTIONS of one Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.
Anything he would have done would be considered "incriminating" by you in true Monday morning quarterback fashion.
-
Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83)
Talk about trying to make the evidence fit the suspect...
-
I didn’t buy his book. When I saw the superficial treatment of the evidence available (like the dismissal of Mooney in the quote) I figured I didn’t miss much. Maybe he or his ghostwriters hadn’t bothered to analyse all the available information about the chicken lunch by 2007.
Bugliosi is just Posner with a whole lot of repetition, lawyer rhetoric, and appeals to ridicule heaped on top of it. Bugliosi was in desperate need of an editor.
-
Nor would the conspirators have relied on that given the stakes and their obvious willingness to commit murder.
What conspirators? Did Colin say anything about conspirators?
A more plausible narrative in that context is that Williams would have been detained on the floor until after the assassination, at which time he would have been killed with Oswald's rifle.
With what? The assassin only brought 3 or 4 bullets, right? He's going to waste one on BRW? And miss his chance to shoot at the motorcade when people hear the gunshot?
The story would be that Williams had lunch on the floor and was killed by Oswald during his escape. A win-win for the fantasy conspirators as it further implicates Oswald and eliminates a witness. The very last thing they would have done is allow a witness to exit the floor and risk exposing or thwarting the plot.
Yawn. Yet another "I don't believe the conspirators I just made up would do X, therefore Oswald killed JFK" argument.
-
Which is why I am not suggesting anything like that happened Richard. In fact I would agree with you that what you suggest did not happen. You know that Frazier claims that Fritz was pushing him to confess that night. I am sure Frazier had an alibi too. The reality is that for some time after the assassination Williams was reluctant to tell of his 6th floor lunch trip. His alibi pals lied on a number of occasions and told authorities he went up with them on the lift to the 5th floor. Surely you have to ask yourself, in a case of this importance, would you lie about someone who had been at the crime scene just before the shooting? Big risk if you are caught.
My understanding is that you suggested Williams had his lunch in the SN and hastily left. Presumably in response to a demand from the someone involved in the assassination (Oswald or whomever since that would be on the only person on the floor at the relevant time). I doubt he would have done that unless he was fearful for some reason. In which case he would have encountered the shooter just a few minutes before the assassination. Presumably under circumstances that would have made him suspicious if he abandons his lunch (as opposed to just not completely finishing it). His silence is then explained as a product of his being a potential suspect although he is never treated as such by anyone. Why would he believe he was a suspect when he was on another floor and had an iron clad alibi? Even if he unreasonably came to this conclusion for some reason, surely he would have known at some point that he was not under suspicion. It is hard to reconcile his leaving the 6th floor hastily, perhaps encountering someone on that floor who was the assassin, but then never saying a word. And recollections about the location of his lunch on a floor full of boxes and windows doesn't rebut his own words on the matter. On a practical note, I don't see anyone squeezing between the SN boxes to have lunch in that secluded spot. Particularly if he expected others to join him on that floor. More likely that his own description is accurate.
-
I can see why you're such a fan of Bugliosi. Instead of making an evidence-based argument you try to ridicule the opposition instead. just like he does.
The entirety of the evidence suggests that the lunch bag was not at the two-wheeler when the SN was first discovered, but that it was moved there afterwards and that BRW just ran with the story. Why would a black man in 1963 Dallas (or even today) want to admit being next to the window the cops said that shots were fired from? Not only do you have to deny the word of several witnesses to the lunch bag and the bones, but you have to deny Arnold Rowland's observation of a negro in the SE window at the same time BRW was on the 6th floor, all so you can cherry-pick one account over that of several others.
What physical evidence of Oswald's guilt?
Anything he would have done would be considered "incriminating" by you in true Monday morning quarterback fashion.
The entirety of the evidence...
The entirety of the evidence is from the Dallas Police, how can you tell when the Dallas Police were telling the truth and when were they lying?
but you have to deny Arnold Rowland's observation....
I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service [sic] men. This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arowland.htm
JohnM
-
Why do the vast majority of LN true believers (excluding JohnM here) have to religiously stick to the unlikely sequence of events trotted out by the WR?
Hi Colin, re Williams the WC's narrative was based on what Williams said in his testimony but personally I don't think that it makes sense for Williams not to go to the sniper's nest window to look for his friends because he managed to find his other friends at the corresponding windows on the floor below.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg)
Also I reckon the WC had the same suspicions because at this point in the questioning, Ford "subtly" interjects and asks Williams about being in trouble with the law.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. 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.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have never been inside of a courthouse before.
JohnM
-
John, I had a huge laugh over the change in the thread title. Thanks. For posterity, the title of this thread, right now, is ... “The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!”
-
As opposed to the "CTer" way of solving the case, which would include:
Inventing conspiracy scenarios that make no sense (e.g., having FRONTAL gunmen shoot at Kennedy within a "LET'S FRAME ONLY OSWALD" plot)....
Pretending everybody's a liar (or pert-near everybody anyway)....
Pretending that Oswald's actions and movements on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 weren't the slightest bit unusual or out of the ordinary....
Pretending Oswald never told any lies at all to the police....
Pretending that certain events just never happened at all (e.g., the Lunchroom Encounter....and Oswald carrying a large-ish brown package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63)....
Etc. (to CT infinity).
You should not stereotype, everyone has a theory, you just have a lazy one. At some point in time, you gave up, you changed your mind like a woman. Remember you are the one supporting the WC claim, an open-ended claim. The thing is you don't even believe it and that is the funny part. I'm sure you have heard many times the silly theory about Grear the limo driver taking a shot, right? I'm sure you would agree that the Grear idea is absurd but one thing I can tell you, it is no more absurd than the bs you're peddling.
-
John, I had a huge laugh over the change in the thread title. Thanks. For posterity, the title of this thread, right now, is ... “The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!”
JohnM Thumb1:
-
I'm sure you would agree that the Grear [sic] idea is absurd[,] but one thing I can tell you, it is no more absurd than the bs you're peddling.
So, therefore, what you're really saying is that if a person (like, say, me) decides to base his conclusion on where all the evidence leads (i.e., straight into the lap of Lee H. Oswald), that conclusion is JUST as crazy as the Greer-did-it BS, right?
Ooooookay.
::)
-
What the Warren Report claimed......
Though the fingerprints other than Oswald's on the boxes thus provide no indication of the presence of an accomplice at the window, two Depository employees are known to have been present briefly on the sixth floor during the period between 11:45 a.m., when the floor-laying crew stopped for lunch, and the moment of the assassination. One of these was Charles Givens, a member of the floor-laying crew, who went down on the elevator with the others and then, returned to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes.49 He saw Oswald walking away from the southeast corner, but saw no one else on the sixth floor at that time. He then took one of the elevators back to the first floor at approximately 11:55 a.m.50
CC. The author of the Report forgot to mention Jack Dougherty who mentioned going back to work via the west elevator shortly before the shots, going to the 6th floor before getting out at the 5th. The dubious testimony of Givens is taken as gospel although mention of his significant sighting of Oswald during his cigarette trip occurs for the first time while testifying six months after the assassination, in Dallas and in the presence of David Belin only. His treatment is in stark contrast to that of Arnold Rowland, who claimed sighting an African-American in the SN prior to the shots.
“Rowland's failure to report his story despite several interviews until his appearance before the Commission, the lack of probative corroboration, and the serious doubts about his credibility, have led the Commission to reject the testimony that Rowland saw an elderly balding Negro man in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of the Depository Building several minutes before the assassination.”
CC. Strangely the Commission only investigated the whereabouts of two “elderly” African-American TSBD employees just before the shooting, Eddie Piper and Troy West, to rebut Rowland’s claim. Apparently ignoring their own depiction of Rowland as an exaggerator they chose to ignore the younger Bonnie Ray Williams as a likely candidate even though they knew he was on the 6th floor around that time.
Bonnie Ray Williams, who was also working with the floor-laying crew, returned to the sixth floor at about noon to eat his lunch and watch the motorcade.51 He looked out on Elm Street from a position in the area of the third or fourth set of windows from the east wall.52 At this point he was approximately 20-30 feet away from the southeast corner window. He remained for about "5, 10, maybe 12 minutes" eating his lunch which consisted of chicken and a bottle of soda pop.53 Williams saw no one on the sixth floor during this period, although the stacks of books prevented his seeing the east side of the building.54 After finishing his lunch Williams took the elevator down because no one had joined him on the sixth floor to watch the motorcade.55 He stopped at the fifth floor where he joined Harold Norman and James Jarman, Jr., who watched the motorcade with him from a position on the fifth floor directly below the point from which the shots were fired. Williams left the remains of his lunch, including chicken bones and a bottle of soda, near the window where he was eating.56
CC. I have no doubt that the first and last sentences of this paragraph are true. Williams returned to the 6th floor to eat his lunch sometime after noon and left the remains of his lunch near the window where he was eating. Why the report claims confusion about the position (the third or fourth set of windows) is unclear as Studebaker clearly stated the third set of windows in his statement. We know that at least half a dozen officers who saw the SN initially, prior to the arrival of Capt. Fritz, all confirmed the lunch remnants were in the SN. Conveniently the Report suggest that Williams left the 6th floor prior to 12.15pm, the time when Rowland saw a man holding a rifle behind the SW window.
Logically for this to be true, Williams departure from the 6th floor can only be after the arrival of Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor in a position immediately below the SN. Careful analysis of their statements and testimonies reveals that they did not depart their position near the steps of the TSBD until about 12.20pm. Clearly Williams was on the 6th floor at the same time as the man with the rifle. This was completely consistent with the timeline suggested by Rowland. This was obvious to Belin and Ball, who likely came to the same conclusion during their various re-enactments in Dallas in late March 1964. The report essentially rejects their efforts completely and simply relies on the various estimates provided before appearing before the WC on March 24th 1964. They suggest he was not necessarily there at the same time as the assassin and if he was the arrangement of books prevented him seeing the east side of the building ignoring the fact that Rowland saw a man holding a rifle on the west side.
-
The EdForum is having a total meltdown (and chicken for lunch)
-
So, therefore, what you're really saying is that if a person (like, say, me) decides to base his conclusion on where all the evidence leads (i.e., straight into the lap of Lee H. Oswald), that conclusion is JUST as crazy as the Greer-did-it BS, right?
Ooooookay.
::)
See, we are getting along already!
You just said "ok" or "OooooKay" hmmm!
I put 5 o's, I think you put 1 Cap O + 5 o's= 6 o's.
Now David, should I worry about 5 or 6 o's, I mean, who's really counting anyway?
Grant me a pass with the "JFK common sense rule"?
You know that rule where reasonable doubt can be dismissed by something like this
-
Could it possibly be that Arnold Rowland was mistaken and it was the 5th floor that he saw the 'balding negro'? I mean, there's one right there:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg)
(Just throwing my 2p in there amongst the chicken bones and EF meltdown).
-
Could it possibly be that Arnold Rowland was mistaken and it was the 5th floor that he saw the 'balding negro'? I mean, there's one right there:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg)
(Just throwing my 2p in there amongst the chicken bones and EF meltdown).
Matthew, Jarman and Norman did not get to the fifth floor at the time Rowland claimed to see him.
-
Thanks Colin - that chalks that one off. (Just like to make sure I cover the obvious ones first). Thanks again.
-
So, therefore, what you're really saying is that if a person (like, say, me) decides to base his conclusion on where all the evidence leads (i.e., straight into the lap of Lee H. Oswald), that conclusion is JUST as crazy as the Greer-did-it BS, right?
Ooooookay.
::)
Well Greer was driving the getaway car, Dave. And he left the scene after the last shots.
Oswald left the scene shortly afterwards too (when it was chaos and nobody knew what the hell happened); but he wanted to see a movie. Yes, he wasn't interested in what happened; he had to go see that darned movie.
If I my sarcasm was any heavier this post would have fallen through the floor to the center of the Earth.
-
The entirety of the evidence is from the Dallas Police,
That’s not true. A lot of the conflicting evidence comes from the Dallas County Sheriff deputies (of Mauser fame) who I believe were told to stand down in the investigation.
how can you tell when the Dallas Police were telling the truth and when were they lying?
How can you tell when anyone is telling the truth or lying? The preponderance of the testimony evidence is that a bag and bones were on a box next to the SN.
I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic] powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it. He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service [sic] men. This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.
Not that observation. This one:
Mr. SPECTER - All right.
You have described seeing someone in another window hanging out. Would you draw a circle and put an "A" beside the window where you say you saw someone hanging out. That is on Exhibit No. 356.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
-
Who tried to silence him? He silenced himself. You can have it both ways and he did. The whole idea was to get attention so why are you complaining? You're just fueling the nonsense. Freedom of speech is what he got but you can't accept that his attempts to hide behind it wore off. If he wanted to play games why is he in retreat? Answer: Because freedom of speech doesn't apply where you are employed but he got his attention and you fell for the excuse of police brutality when it really was attention he wanted for himself. If he believed what he suckered you into believing, then why didn't the fraud do it when he was in the Super bowl instead of when he was playing his own fantasy football? He is a dysfunctional headcase. And don't be screaming racism just because you have nothing intelligent to say. Plus you may well be projecting. On the other hand, I am German and I hate everyone equally, therefore, I do not discriminate
It's obviously clear that you are not knowledgeable regarding the circumstances of this incident because there are several athletes who were partaking in peaceful protests expressing their freedom on speech that were intimidated and denied by a racist who had no business making false statements about. Go back and research this and understand the events before we can have a discussion about it.
-
That’s not true. A lot of the conflicting evidence comes from the Dallas County Sheriff deputies (of Mauser fame) who I believe were told to stand down in the investigation.
How can you tell when anyone is telling the truth or lying? The preponderance of the testimony evidence is that a bag and bones were on a box next to the SN.
That’s not true.
Yes you're right, I realized later on and was going to change my post to something like Dallas Lawmakers but now it doesn't matter.
A lot of the conflicting evidence comes from the Dallas County Sheriff deputies (of Mauser fame) who I believe were told to stand down in the investigation.
If they were told to stand down based on their competency like their totally inept rifle identification guess then that's probably a good thing.
How can you tell when anyone is telling the truth or lying?
Exactly, but some people like to pick and choose who they believe.
The preponderance of the testimony evidence is that a bag and bones were on a box next to the SN.
Sure, and the preponderance of the testimony evidence in addition to the physical evidence is that Oswald killed Tippit.
Btw I think that Williams stood near the seated Oswald in the Sniper's nest and that's why the scraps were on top of boxes, then after some time Williams was either spooked or more likely because Oswald was a boring miserable git, Williams made an excuse and left.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce513.jpg)
JohnM
-
If they were told to stand down based on their competency like their totally inept rifle identification guess then that's probably a good thing.
Or their identification was right on, but inconvenient for the narrative.
Exactly, but some people like to pick and choose who they believe.
Like you don’t? Please.
Sure, and the preponderance of the testimony evidence in addition to the physical evidence is that Oswald killed Tippit.
LOL
There’s no physical evidence that Oswald killed Tippit.
Btw I think that Williams stood near the seated Oswald in the Sniper's nest and that's why the scraps were on top of boxes, then after some time Williams was either spooked or more likely because Oswald was a boring miserable git, Williams made an excuse and left.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/240/apple/198/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
-
Or their identification was right on, but inconvenient for the narrative.
Like you don’t? Please.
LOL
There’s no physical evidence that Oswald killed Tippit.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/240/apple/198/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
Or their identification was right on, but inconvenient for the narrative.
The testimony of Boone and Weitzman is part of the narrative and both said they made an assumption and under the circumstances I reckon Fritz wouldn't have allowed everybody there to make a detailed inspection of the rifle.
The rifle found and filmed and photographed leaving the depository and on display @ DPHQ was an Italian Carcano.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_clip.gif)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8527/8635069627_159feb6219_b.jpg)
Like you don’t? Please.
Ok that may be true but the preponderance of the evidence from go to whoa is central to Oswald and this evidence can be equated to a thick rope made up of hundreds of strands of individual pieces evidence and in 55 years the integrity of the rope is still strong enough to hang Oswald.
There’s no physical evidence that Oswald killed Tippit.
Eyewitnesses saw Oswald empty his revolver and leave shells at the scene, these shells were an exclusive match to the revolver that Oswald was arrested with, which was the same revolver sent to Oswald's address. Nicol provided photographic proof that a bullet from Tippit was a perfect match for Oswald's revolver and so far I haven't seen any refutation of his evidence.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/240/apple/198/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
I know people were angry, bewildered, astonished to see the assassination but to me Williams in this photo looks like he's just plain worried, just what did he see on the 6th floor?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg)
JohnM
-
The testimony is part of the narrative and Boone and Weitzman both said they made an assumption
Craig didn’t. And why did the word “Carcano” not cross anyone’s lips publicly until after the alleged Klein’s order was found?
and under the circumstances I reckon Fritz wouldn't have allowed everybody there to make a detailed inspection of the rifle.
Boone and Weitzman sure described a lot of details in their Saturday affidavits.
The rifle found and filmed and photographed leaving the depository and on display @ DPHQ was an Italian Carcano.
As usual, all you’re doing is posting a photo and saying “see, I’m right”.
Ok that may be true but the preponderance of the evidence from go to whoa is central to Oswald and this evidence can be equated to a thick rope made up of hundreds of strands of individual pieces evidence and still in 55 years the integrity of the rope is still strong enough to hang Oswald.
Your “rope” is more like a thread pretending to be a rope.
Eyewitnesses saw Oswald empty his revolver and leave shells at the scene,
Correction: they saw somebody and picked Oswald in unfair and biased lineups.
Also only one witness who came forward that day claimed to see anybody shoot anybody.
these shells were an exclusive match to the revolver that Oswald was arrested with,
Correction: shells claimed to have been found at the scene and handed to police by civilians (two with missing initials) were matched to a gun with no documented chain of custody that Gerald Hill whipped out of his pocket two hours later.
which was the same revolver sent to Oswald's address.
There’s no evidence of any such gun being sent to anyone’s address. Nor is there any evidence of a gun being picked up at the Railroad Express office by Oswald or anybody else. Nor is there any financial trail for the COD payment.
Nicol provided photographic proof that a bullet from Tippit was a perfect match for Oswald's revolver
This is just plain false. Nicol didn’t say anything about anything being a “perfect match”. All Nicol did is compare one bullet given to him by the FBI with another bullet given to him by the FBI. And Cunningham said that it was impossible to make such a determination anyway.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type of determination?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
and so far I haven't seen any refutation of his evidence.
Yes you have — you just ignore it.
-
Also, why is it when the evidence for the Kennedy assassination gets discussed, the subject always gets changed to Tippit?
Bait and switch!
-
[W]hy did the word “Carcano” not cross anyone’s lips publicly until after the alleged Klein’s order was found?
Iacoletti,
How many other kinds of rifles had configurations AND clips like that?
-- MWT ;)
-
How many other kinds of rifles had clips like that?
Clips like what?
-
Clips like what?
LOL
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
-
Also, why is it when the evidence for the Kennedy assassination gets discussed, the subject always gets changed to Tippit?
Bait and switch!
Poor dumb cop
-
Craig didn’t. And why did the word “Carcano” not cross anyone’s lips publicly until after the alleged Klein’s order was found?
That's a broad unprovable generalization, but I really don't care who said what and when, the Carcano was on WFAA TV that afternoon.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpnNPNy3/alyea-footage-rifle-found.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkCpC15H/rifle-carried-out-wfaa.jpg)
JohnM
-
Could it possibly be that Arnold Rowland was mistaken and it was the 5th floor that he saw the 'balding negro'? I mean, there's one right there:
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg)
(Just throwing my 2p in there amongst the chicken bones and EF meltdown).
I'm still waiting for someone to say Oswald was hiding in one of the boxes
-
That's a broad unprovable generalization, but I really don't care who said what and when, the Carcano was on WFAA TV that afternoon.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpnNPNy3/alyea-footage-rifle-found.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkCpC15H/rifle-carried-out-wfaa.jpg)
JohnM
Back to showing pictures/film that does not support your spoonfed ideas. Try and think for yourself and not the WC. But then again, it's normal for you to make excuses for all the inconsistencies or the hilarious chain of custody. You should definitely be given a pass on jury duty and they should throw out any case you may have been involved in as a juror in the past
-
Back to showing pictures/film that does not support your spoonfed ideas. Try and think for yourself and not the WC. But then again, it's normal for you to make excuses for all the inconsistencies or the hilarious chain of custody. You should definitely be given a pass on jury duty and they should throw out any case you may have been involved in as a juror in the past
What's with the perpetual "attitude," Kleinschmidt?
-- MWT ;)
-
What's with the perpetual "attitude," Kleinschmidt?
-- MWT ;)
I have a Russian girlfriend. It isn't easy being me
-
I have a Russian girlfriend. It isn't easy being me
Dual citizenship for you and you?
-
Dual citizenship for you and you?
Barry was a citizen of Indonesia, so even if he did lie about his birth certificate it would have made him a dual citizen which is another law Obama was given a pass on
-
LOL
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
McAdams. LOL.
But to answer your question, I don’t know how many other kinds of rifles had clips like the rifle that Day was carrying outside the building did. What’s your point?
-
That's a broad unprovable generalization, but I really don't care who said what and when, the Carcano was on WFAA TV that afternoon.
Post a photo and then claim that it shows you are correct.
-
What's with the perpetual "attitude," Kleinschmidt?
That’s hilarious coming from the guy with the perpetual attitude.
-
Disagreeing with your made up nonsense isn’t lying.
What "made up nonsense," Iacoletti?
That the three people on the Pergola Patio in the Towner film are women?
Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
-- MWT ;)
-
Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
Yawn. Where have we seen that before?
Anybody who can’t see gunmen in the pergola windows is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
Anybody who can’t see George Bush on the Depository steps is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
Anybody who can’t see a gunman on the Daltex fire escape in Altgens is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
Etc, ad nauseum
Your made up nonsense is thinking that your assumptions prove anything. You’re not just assuming they’re women — you claim you know the precise identities of your Towner blobs.
And you’re puking your pet obsession on every single forum thread. Let it go, Tommy.
-
Anybody who can’t see gunmen in the pergola windows is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
Anybody who can’t see George Bush on the Depository steps is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
Anybody who can’t see a gunman on the Daltex fire escape in Altgens is either lying, or is in serious need of (stronger?) corrective lenses.
Etc, ad nauseum
Your made up nonsense is thinking that your assumptions prove anything. You’re not just assuming they’re women — you claim you know the precise identities of your Towner blobs.
Iacoletti,
I haven't said anything about the Pergola windows, George Bush, or the Dal Tex fire escape.
Why did you insinuate that I had? Are you intellectually dishonest?
Regarding the three people on the Pergola Patio in the Towner film, why won't you even admit that they're women?
Because you're afraid it would inexorably lead to your having to admit that they're the same three women who were standing by the Stemmons sign in Zapruder -- "Uhh ...probably Carol Reed, definitely Gloria Calvert (sic), and me, Karen Westbrook!" ?
Why would that be such a traumatic thing for you to have to do?
-- MWT ;)
-
Barry was a citizen of Indonesia, so even if he did lie about his birth certificate it would have made him a dual citizen which is another law Obama was given a pass on
Same old debunked right wing conspiracy b.s.
Donald Trump receives a free pass on all his crimes. Now he's stealing money from the military to pay for his bogus wall when he said thousands of times that "Mexico would pay for it". He also got caught running a scam where he made he Air Force stay at his hotels and use fuel so he can line his pockets with money. Also has foreign officials and the GOP party pump money into his failing properties by staying there. Wanted to meet with the Taliban at Camp David and fired "milk mustache" Bolton for objecting. Total fraud and moron.
-
What makes you think its 3 and that it matters? How about if you are able to see Oswald in a window, inside a box in a window, in the front entrance, or anywhere. The 3 broads are meaningless
Kleinschmidt,
It matters because it is three, and it's the same three that were standing next to the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film, precluding any of them from being Gloria Calvery for the simple reason that none of them (Jacob, Holt and Simmons) look anything like her in the two short clips that James Darnell took of them as they were stepping down from the Pergola Patio and then walking across the grassy slope towards the TSBD.
As to why Gloria Calvery is important, if it's possible to find her in in the Zapruder film and then be so fortunate, based on her physique and the clothes she was wearing and the people she was with, to spot her in Couch-Darnell about 25 seconds after the assassination (both of which things Sandy Larsen and I did a couple of years ago at the EF), it might help to determine where Lovelady and Shelley were at the time, and in which of their statements and testimonies, if any, they were truthful regarding what they did after the assassination.
This, in turn, would help us to determine whether or not Vicki Adams' testimony was altered by the authorities (as she claimed), and if so, how the heck it could possibly be that she didn't see or hear Oswald as he was coming down the wooden stairs from the sixth floor to the second floor, as the official narrative has him doing about a minute after the assassination.
Etc, etc.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacolletti,
Isn't "blurry photo taken at a distance" redundant?
Do you require redundancy to make your case?
Regardless, can't you see that those three "blobs" in the Towner film are human beings, that the lower legs of those human beings are bare, that one of the human beings is wearing a blue headscarf, and that the other two human beings have a lot of hair on their head, more than any two pre-Beatles era men did in conservative Dallas, Texas?
Do you think those three human beings (not "blobs") on the Pergola Patio in the Towner film were men wearing Bermuda shorts?
-- MWT ;)
Let it go, Captain Obsession.
-
As to why Gloria Calvery is important, if it's possible to find her in in the Zapruder film and then be so fortunate, based on her physique and the clothes she was wearing and the people she was with, to spot her in Couch-Darnell about 25 seconds after the assassination (both of which things Sandy Larsen and I did a couple of years ago at the EF),
BS:
-
Good grief. This is turning into another prayer man thread ???
-
No there isn’t. There’s a photo of Mrs Reid and a photo of somebody who is not Mrs Reid.
Iacoletti,
Which photo is of Mrs. Reid?
Could you please post it here for us?
Thanks!
-- MWT ;)
PS Is the woman whose face is partially obscurred in Wiegman Mrs. Reid?
Is the woman standing by the corner of the building after the assassination Mrs. Reid?
Is the woman sitting with Jim Leavelle Mrs. Reid?
Your help would be greatly appreciated!
PPS Are you sure those people aren't men, instead?
-
Kleinschmidt,
It matters because it is three, and it's the same three that were standing next to the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film, precluding any of them from being Gloria Calvery for the simple reason that none of them (Jacob, Holt and Simmons) look anything like her in the two short clips that James Darnell took of them as they were stepping down from the Pergola Patio and then walking across the grassy slope towards the TSBD.
As to why Gloria Calvery is important, if it's possible to find her in in the Zapruder film and then be so fortunate, based on her physique and the clothes she was wearing and the people she was with, to spot her in Couch-Darnell about 25 seconds after the assassination (both of which things Sandy Larsen and I did a couple of years ago at the EF), it might help to determine where Lovelady and Shelley were at the time, and in which of their statements and testimonies, if any, they were truthful regarding what they did after the assassination.
This, in turn, would help us to determine whether or not Vicki Adams' testimony was altered by the authorities (as she claimed), and if so, how the heck it could possibly be that she didn't see or hear Oswald as he was coming down the wooden stairs from the sixth floor to the second floor, as the official narrative has him doing about a minute after the assassination.
Etc, etc.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
Maybe someone changed their clothes, you can't trust anyone that includes photos, film, every photographer was in on it, none are credible and the same goes for their work. I might change my mind Vicki Adams is the only one that's honest her testimony was altered, that is true
-
Hello everyone
-
Hello everyone
Hello, Scotty........ got yer' barf bag on yet? I use a bedpan myself, but that's just me, see. Enjoy !!!
-
Hello Scotty
Fred
-
Maybe the three women were there, you know the ones you talk about?
Peter,
Three of your female relatives?
-- MWT ;)
-
Here we go again with the endless play by play of what’s being discussed on other sites.
-
Your point about Postal is a fabrication, like everything else you post.
-
you're like a bad penny that keeps showing up. you got nothing........ NOTHING !!! Stop calling people names or get lost !!