JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on April 24, 2025, 05:25:29 PM
-
I understand the HOW of the Conspiracy Game. This was the point of my magnum opus at the Ed Forum, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game.” It has vanished from the Ed Forum just in the past few weeks – odd, no? – but is preserved right here:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4152.msg159373.html#msg159373.
What I truly don’t understand is the WHY of the Conspiracy Game. Explain it to me if you can.
As a civil lawyer for either the plaintiff or the defendant, and in my few cases as a criminal prosecutor, I needed to start with a “theory of the case" and work from there. This theory of the case is what I was trying to sell to the judge or jury.
Only a criminal defense lawyer doesn’t need a theory of the case, merely to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. But even here, the prosecution may point out that what the defense is arguing simply does not hold together logically or make any real-world sense.
Even among CTers who actually do have an overall theory – e.g., the Mafia did it – the Conspiracy Game is played at the level described in my “Beginner’s Guide.” It’s almost entirely about poking holes in the LN narrative, not about advancing the Mafia narrative or even explaining how the holes you've poked fit into the Mafia narrative.
There is a very obvious avoidance of what should be the threshold "theory of the case" issues: (1) what sense would this have made and (2) how would it actually have worked? In my considerable experience, asking such questions gets the same sort of response as displaying a crucifix gets from a vampire.
You at least need some broad but coherent hypothesis – don’t you? You can't just say "the Mafia did it" in the same way you might have said "the dog ate my homework" - can you?
Within the Conspiracy Game, where we deal over and over and over, ad nauseam, with specific items of evidence (the curtain rods! the money order! the shirt!), these same questions can be asked: OK, we'll stipulate someone other than Oswald ordered the rifle in March. Explain, please, (1) what sense this would have made and (2) how it actually would have worked, both specifically in regard to the rifle and more broadly in the context of your Mafia-did-it hypothesis.
Again, crickets. Every time, crickets. When I don’t get crickets, I get some snarly response (“useless garbage” just this morning!) suggesting I’m somehow being impolite by even asking such questions. I have violated the rules of the Conspiracy Game. I’m not playing fair.
The reality is that logic, critical thinking and coherency are anathema to Conspiracy Game participants. It’s all just ad hoc “What about this … and this over here … and that over there?” … and this too ... what about all that - huh, huh?"
I learned this early in my foray into JFKA research, when I established that the Klein’s postal money order is stamped with a file locator number proving it was processed through the Federal Reserve banking system and deposited at the federal records center in Alexandria, VA. The locator number was stamped at the records center so the money order could be easily located if a need for it should arise (as it did on the day of the JFKA). Silly me, I assumed this would end the “fake postal money order” nonsense.
Did it? Hell, no. The “fake” crowd just shifted the goal posts. The file locator number itself was fake! Instead of ending the nonsense, the “fake” locator number and the “supposed discovery” of the money order at the records center just showed how clever the conspirators were (except that they omitted the “necessary” [imaginary] bank stamps, showing how stupid they were whenever the theory required them to be stupid rather than clever.)
Ask what sense this would have made and how it actually would have worked and you get … nothing. Ask how it fits into the Mafia-did-it hypothesis or even Harvey & Lee and you get … nothing.
All of which drives me to the conclusion that the WHY of the Conspiracy Game is really just - that's right - mental masturbation.
At least when I waste three hours on a jigsaw puzzle, I do get the satisfaction of seeing it completed. Hey, there's a quaint Scottish village! But the Conspiracy Game just seems to me to have no point, like wasting 7,000 hours on a jigsaw puzzle that you know in advance will just be a big Rorschach blob when you're finished. Why is this fun, why is it deemed a worthwhile endeavor to the tune of 5,000 or more posts?
Am I wrong? Is there a WHY? Explain it, please – and why you so studiously avoid addressing “What sense would that have made?” and “How would that actually have worked?”
-
I understand the HOW of the Conspiracy Game. This was the point of my magnum opus at the Ed Forum, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game.” It has vanished from the Ed Forum just in the past few weeks – odd, no? – but is preserved right here:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4152.msg159373.html#msg159373.
What I truly don’t understand is the WHY of the Conspiracy Game. Explain it to me if you can.
As a civil lawyer for either the plaintiff or the defendant, and in my few cases as a criminal prosecutor, I needed to start with a “theory of the case" and work from there. This theory of the case is what I was trying to sell to the judge or jury.
Only a criminal defense lawyer doesn’t need a theory of the case, merely to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. But even here, the prosecution may point out that what the defense is arguing simply does not hold together logically or make any real-world sense.
Even among CTers who actually do have an overall theory – e.g., the Mafia did it – the Conspiracy Game is played at the level described in my “Beginner’s Guide.” It’s almost entirely about poking holes in the LN narrative, not about advancing the Mafia narrative or even explaining how the holes you've poked fit into the Mafia narrative.
There is a very obvious avoidance of what should be the threshold "theory of the case" issues: (1) what sense would this have made and (2) how would it actually have worked? In my considerable experience, asking such questions gets the same sort of response as displaying a crucifix gets from a vampire.
You at least need some broad but coherent hypothesis – don’t you? You can't just say "the Mafia did it" in the same way you might have said "the dog ate my homework" - can you?
Within the Conspiracy Game, where we deal over and over and over, ad nauseam, with specific items of evidence (the curtain rods! the money order! the shirt!), these same questions can be asked: OK, we'll stipulate someone other than Oswald ordered the rifle in March. Explain, please, (1) what sense this would have made and (2) how it actually would have worked, both specifically in regard to the rifle and more broadly in the context of your Mafia-did-it hypothesis.
Again, crickets. Every time, crickets. When I don’t get crickets, I get some snarly response (“useless garbage” just this morning!) suggesting I’m somehow being impolite by even asking such questions. I have violated the rules of the Conspiracy Game. I’m not playing fair.
The reality is that logic, critical thinking and coherency are anathema to Conspiracy Game participants. It’s all just ad hoc “What about this … and this over here … and that over there?” … and this too ... what about all that - huh, huh?"
I learned this early in my foray into JFKA research, when I established that the Klein’s postal money order is stamped with a file locator number proving it was processed through the Federal Reserve banking system and deposited at the federal records center in Alexandria, VA. The locator number was stamped at the records center so the money order could be easily located if a need for it should arise (as it did on the day of the JFKA). Silly me, I assumed this would end the “fake postal money order” nonsense.
Did it? Hell, no. The “fake” crowd just shifted the goal posts. The file locator number itself was fake! Instead of ending the nonsense, the “fake” locator number and the “supposed discovery” of the money order at the records center just showed how clever the conspirators were (except that they omitted the “necessary” [imaginary] bank stamps, showing how stupid they were whenever the theory required them to be stupid rather than clever.)
Ask what sense this would have made and how it actually would have worked and you get … nothing. Ask how it fits into the Mafia-did-it hypothesis or even Harvey & Lee and you get … nothing.
All of which drives me to the conclusion that the WHY of the Conspiracy Game is really just - that's right - mental masturbation.
At least when I waste three hours on a jigsaw puzzle, I do get the satisfaction of seeing it completed. Hey, there's a quaint Scottish village! But the Conspiracy Game just seems to me to have no point, like wasting 7,000 hours on a jigsaw puzzle that you know in advance will just be a big Rorschach blob when you're finished. Why is this fun, why is it deemed a worthwhile endeavor to the tune of 5,000 or more posts?
Am I wrong? Is there a WHY? Explain it, please – and why you so studiously avoid addressing “What sense would that have made?” and “How would that actually have worked?”
You at least need some broad but coherent hypothesis – don’t you?
Sadly, it appears to me that the answer is no for many folks. (If sixty one plus years of the same old sh*t is any indication.) People are typically distrustful of the authorities; that’s the game changer. Apparently, it matters not to many folks whether they make any sense whatsoever. They will continue to believe whatever they want to believe (and that typically excludes anything the authorities say, no matter what).
I think that if and when they truly want some answers (instead of just more and more questions) they will start listening to reason. But not until they truly decide to put aside their prejudices and approach the case with an open mind.
-
Carlos Marcello ordered the hit on JFK. RFK was waging all-out war against organized crime (Who felt betrayed) and also had Marcello deported. Oswald's uncle in New Orleans had ties to Marcello, and Oswald lived in New Orleans. Oswald was a shooter that day and Jack Ruby who had plenty of mafia ties was chosen to silence him. My theory is they killed JFK to eliminate RFK's war on organized crime. Santo Trafficanti reportedly said on his deathbed, "Carlos [Marcello] screwed up. We shouldn't have killed John. We should've killed Bobby,"
-
At least when I waste three hours on a jigsaw puzzle, I do get the satisfaction of seeing it completed. Hey, there's a quaint Scottish village! But the Conspiracy Game just seems to me to have no point, like wasting 7,000 hours on a jigsaw puzzle that you know in advance will just be a big Rorschach blob when you're finished. Why is this fun, why is it deemed a worthwhile endeavor to the tune of 5,000 or more posts?
Don't overthink it. Mysteries fascinate some people. People debate endlessly online and offline about unresolved historical events or plot-twists in their favorite TV shows.
If you're bored with debating and discussing the JFK assassination, why are you here?
-
Carlos Marcello ordered the hit on JFK. RFK was waging all-out war against organized crime (Who felt betrayed) and also had Marcello deported. Oswald's uncle in New Orleans had ties to Marcello, and Oswald lived in New Orleans. Oswald was a shooter that day and Jack Ruby who had plenty of mafia ties was chosen to silence him. My theory is they killed JFK to eliminate RFK's war on organized crime. Santo Trafficanti reportedly said on his deathbed, "Carlos [Marcello] screwed up. We shouldn't have killed John. We should've killed Bobby,"
Yes, I can articulate a fairly coherent Mafia theory. Not only do we have the obvious wish to de-fang RFK, but pinning the JFKA on a Castro supporter had the potential to restore the Mafia's incredibly lucrative Cuban casino/resort empire. HATE + MONEY makes for a compelling motive. The stumbling blocks (for me) are that Oswald's uncle's ties to the Mafia are tenuous at best, Ruby's ties to the Mafia (if any) are equally tenuous, and I have difficulty picturing the Mafia making use of characters like Ruby and Oswald in a Presidential assassination plot. Plus, I have difficulty picturing a Mafia hit looking like Dealey Plaza. If the Mafia were setting up Oswald as a pro-Castro patsy, he would've been one of the shooters and there would have no mess - he would never have left the sixth floor.
I guess my problem is, I have too much respect for the Mafia's professionalism to think this was the best they could do! I grew up in Tucson, which was then "owned" by Joe Bonanno (Joe Bananas). Every now and then, an Italian restaurant or some Cadillac would blow up. Everyone - police, journalists, everyone - knew it was Joe, but there was never a clue, never anything that really led to him.
I know the Marcello and Trafficante stories, but Marcello or Trafficante saying anything incriminating to anyone, ever, about a Presidential assassination would be distinctly un-Mafia like.
But your perspective is not one that I flat-out reject, and at least you have a "theory of the case" to work with.
-
If you're bored with debating and discussing the JFK assassination, why are you here?
A fair question. In certain subject matter areas - Christian theology, the UFO phenomenon, psychical research, golf, and (to a lesser extent) the JFKA - I have accumulated such a large body of knowledge that I almost feel a responsibility to do something with it. With regard to the JFKA (as well as theology and the UFO phenomenon), I'm always under the illusion that I can help people focus their thinking and understand where they may have gone awry; it's futile, indeed an illusion, but I persist. Moreover, all my life I have written humor, and the JFKA is an almost irresistible outlet for silliness; since I am my own best audience, I enjoy exercising my propensity for silliness even if no one else does! :D Lastly, exploring and exploding the occasional factoid is very similar to what I did in my legal career and just kind of fun even if I actually care nothing about the factoid. But then I'll get bored and realize it all goes nowhere, and eventually I'll move on. I did pull the plug at the Ed Forum (no regrets) and once here (as Martin keeps reminding me), but then I'll get stuck in the house by the weather and return to something like this forum as an outlet for my pedantry and silliness. Someday, probably soon, everyone will realize (perhaps to their relief!) that they haven't see Lance in months.
-
A fair question. In certain subject matter areas - Christian theology, the UFO phenomenon, psychical research, golf, and (to a lesser extent) the JFKA - I have accumulated such a large body of knowledge that I almost feel a responsibility to do something with it. With regard to the JFKA (as well as theology and the UFO phenomenon), I'm always under the illusion that I can help people focus their thinking and understand where they may have gone awry; it's futile, indeed an illusion, but I persist. Moreover, all my life I have written humor, and the JFKA is an almost irresistible outlet for silliness; since I am my own best audience, I enjoy exercising my propensity for silliness even if no one else does! :D Lastly, exploring and exploding the occasional factoid is very similar to what I did in my legal career and just kind of fun even if I actually care nothing about the factoid. But then I'll get bored and realize it all goes nowhere, and eventually I'll move on. I did pull the plug at the Ed Forum (no regrets) and once here (as Martin keeps reminding me), but then I'll get stuck in the house by the weather and return to something like this forum as an outlet for my pedantry and silliness. Someday, probably soon, everyone will realize (perhaps to their relief!) that they haven't see Lance in months.
That's a fair response. My only objection is that you seem to think there's something wrong with people speculating about unexplained phenomenons or unresolved history.
Speculating about UFOs or the JFK assassination harms no one. Millions of rational and intelligent people aren't convinced by the LN narrative and that's not likely to ever change given all the weird stuff in the JFK assassination and the investigations. So it is futile to keep trying to change people's minds.
As for myself, despite being a millennial, I personally have always been fascinated with the history and pop culture of the 1960s. The assassinations of political leaders in the 60s, the Vietnam war, the Manson murders, and the music of the 60s are often on my list of topics to research.
-
That's a fair response. My only objection is that you seem to think there's something wrong with people speculating about unexplained phenomenons or unresolved history.
No, not at all. Theology, by necessity, is entirely speculative. The UFO phenomenon (which I have experienced) is a genuine phenomenon, but what it is remains entirely speculative. Virtually all the phenomena with which psychical research deals (a number of which I have experienced) are well-established, but what they are and what they mean remains entirely speculative. Ditto with the Shroud of Turin and the NDE phenomenon, another two of my pet interests but also largely speculative. I speculate, speculate, speculate along with everyone else. But there is rational, logical speculation and Gee Whiz, True Believer speculation that is driven more by cognitive bias and wishful thinking than evidence and rational analysis. Since I share some of the conspiracy-prone mindset myself, I (thanks largely to my legal training) make an effort to stay in the ballpark of evidence and rational analysis. All areas of Weirdness, including the JFKA (in spades), are rife with folks who simply aren't thinking clearly.
Speculating about UFOs or the JFK assassination harms no one. Millions of rational and intelligent people aren't convinced by the LN narrative and that's not likely to ever change given all the weird stuff in the JFK assassination and the investigations. So it is futile to keep trying to change people's minds.
Mostly it's harmless, but certainly many psychologists and sociologists think it isn't necessarily harmless. One could make an argument that irresponsible JFKA conspiracy theorizing has had some very harmful ripple effects.
As for myself, despite being a millennial, I personally have always been fascinated with the history and pop culture of the 1960s. The assassinations of political leaders in the 60s, the Vietnam war, the Manson murders, and the music of the 60s are often on my list of topics to research.
Well, hey, I lived through the 50's and 60's and once had a collection of thousands of 45s that were catalogued and cross-referenced in absurd detail. I was a legend. I once had a woman I'd never even met walk up to me at a party in the 80s and ask, as a test, "Who sang Red Rubber Ball." I replied, "The Cyrkle - C-Y-R-K-L-E," and started reciting the lyrics. She walked away shaking her head and saying, "It's true, it's true." So start some inappropriate threads on THAT subject, which will be way more interesting than the JFKA!
-
No, not at all. Theology, by necessity, is entirely speculative. The UFO phenomenon (which I have experienced) is a genuine phenomenon, but what it is remains entirely speculative. Virtually all the phenomena with which psychical research deals (a number of which I have experienced) are well-established, but what they are and what they mean remains entirely speculative. Ditto with the Shroud of Turin and the NDE phenomenon, another two of my pet interests but also largely speculative. I speculate, speculate, speculate along with everyone else. But there is rational, logical speculation and Gee Whiz, True Believer speculation that is driven more by cognitive bias and wishful thinking than evidence and rational analysis. Since I share some of the conspiracy-prone mindset myself, I (thanks largely to my legal training) make an effort to stay in the ballpark of evidence and rational analysis. All areas of Weirdness, including the JFKA (in spades), are rife with folks who simply aren't thinking clearly.
Mostly it's harmless, but certainly many psychologists and sociologists think it isn't necessarily harmless. One could make an argument that irresponsible JFKA conspiracy theorizing has had some very harmful ripple effects.
But do you at least acknowledge that not all JFKA speculation is the same?
There are some people like Josiah Thompson for example, who don't propose theories about "who really killed JFK". They just identify the holes in the LN narrative.
Another group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but stay in the realm of plausible alternative theories (ie the mob, the CIA, the Cubans, the KGB, etc). I consider myself part of this group.
The final group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but go into the realm of implausible theories about who killed JFK and play fast and loose with the facts of the case.
Should all three groups of people be viewed the same? I don't think so. Nor do I view all conspiracy theories in general as the same.
Speculating about a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination isn't as ridiculous as speculating that 'the Moon landing was faked', or that '9/11 was an inside job', or the 'Q-Anon' and 'Pizzagate' theories.
-
But do you at least acknowledge that not all JFKA speculation is the same?
There are some people like Josiah Thompason for example, who don't propose theories about "who really killed JFK". They just identify the holes in the LN narrative.
Another group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but stay in the realm of plausible alternative theories (ie the mob, the CIA, the Cubans, the KGB, etc). I consider myself part of this group.
The final group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but go into the realm of implausible theories about who killed JFK and play fast and loose with the facts of the case.
Should all three groups of people be viewed the same? I don't think so. Nor do I view all conspiracy theories in general as the same.
Speculating about a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination isn't as ridiculous as speculating that 'the Moon landing was faked', or that '9/11 was an inside job', or the 'Q-Anon' and 'Pizzagate' theories.
Sure, not all JFKA theorizing is fungible. There are LNers for whom the LN narrative - or worse yet, the Warren Report - is a fundamentalist religion, and their motivations and thought processes are equally puzzling to me. As I said to Jim Hawthorn recently, the fact that the WC may have had an agenda to portray Oswald as a Lone Nut does not inevitably mean that he was not, in fact, a Lone Nut.
Interestingly, or maybe not, I had extensive theological dealings with a really bright 61-year-old guy who seemed to be on the same wavelength as I. Then he steered me to his own site - and it was all Fake Moon Landing and Flat Earth - and he definitely wasn't kidding. At the Ed Forum, the current lead moderator is a "Harvard trained psychologist" (as he will remind you again and again) who is also a foaming-at-the-mouth 9/11 Truther who thinks all LNers are trolls and cognitive infiltrators. ::)
And on it goes. One of my little axioms is, "Just because someone seems reasonable, intelligent, educated, high-functioning and successful in all other areas of his life, do not assume that there is not some corner of his mind where he is pretty much completely insane." Until I realized this and pasted it inside my hat, I got burnt several times in circumstances a lot more serious than a JFKA forum.
-
You at least need some broad but coherent hypothesis – don’t you? You can't just say "the Mafia did it" in the same way you might have said "the dog ate my homework" - can you?
Clearly you are special-pleading here, because you can't just say "Oswald did it" in the same way you might have said "the dog ate my homework" either.
Sometimes the most honest answer is "we don't know who did it", and the people who like to concoct prosecution "theories" just have to live with that.
-
I was a legend.
::)
I once had a woman I'd never even met walk up to me at a party in the 80s and ask, as a test, "Who sang Red Rubber Ball." I replied, "The Cyrkle - C-Y-R-K-L-E," and started reciting the lyrics.
Paul Simon
-
Sometimes the most honest answer is "we don't know who did it", and the people who like to concoct prosecution "theories" just have to live with that.
Iacoletti,
If Oswald didn't do it, then who went to the trouble of making it look as though he'd purchased the Carcano, who fired CE-399 and the large fragments found inside the limo through it, who put his palm print and fingerprint on it, who "altered" the backyard photos of him holding it, who "planted" it on the sixth floor, who stacked the box with his fingerprints on it at the Sniper's Nest window, and who put his fingerprints on the paper bag?
How many evil people do you figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
What are your three favorite JFKA conspiracy theories?
-
Graves, give it a damn rest.
This forum used to have a way to mute certain users so that their vapid, repetitive trolling remarks were not displayed. I miss that feature.
-
Graves, give it a damn rest.
This forum used to have a way to mute certain users so that their vapid, repetitive trolling remarks were not displayed. I miss that feature.
Iacoletti,
In other words, you're stumped.
I totally understand, but why can't you be honest for a change and admit it?
Btw, do you STILL entertain your wild theory that the three people walking across the pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes?
-
(https://i.vgy.me/RkicBb.gif)
-
::)
Paul Simon
Paul Simon co-wrote it but did not record it. What you didn't know, because you did not have an exhaustive collection of thousands of 45s, is that Simon and Garfunkel originally recorded "Hey, Schoolgirl" as Tom and Jerry, of which I had three copies. It had a pink label.
Nice try but, as usual, you're out of your depth. I don't know if you're a sock puppet, but you'd make a good one.
-
Paul Simon co-wrote it but did not record it. What you didn't know, because you did not have an exhaustive collection of thousands of 45s, is that Simon and Garfunkel originally recorded "Hey, Schoolgirl" as Tom and Jerry, of which I had three copies. It had a pink label.
Nice try but, as usual, you're out of your depth. I don't know if you're a sock puppet, but you'd make a good one.
Simon and Garfunkel originally recorded "Hey, Schoolgirl" as Tom and Jerry
As if there is something special about knowing that....
If you want to impress, you need to do a whole lot better.
-
Paul Simon co-wrote it but did not record it. What you didn't know, because you did not have an exhaustive collection of thousands of 45s, is that Simon and Garfunkel originally recorded "Hey, Schoolgirl" as Tom and Jerry, of which I had three copies. It had a pink label.
Wrong again. I know "Hey Schoolgirl" and Tom and Jerry very well.
And a Simon and Garfunkel live recording of Red Rubber Ball appears on the "Old Friends" box set.
The problem with being so arrogant is that you look extra foolish when you are wrong.
-
Wrong again. I know "Hey Schoolgirl" and Tom and Jerry very well.
And a Simon and Garfunkel live recording of Red Rubber Ball appears on the "Old Friends" box set.
The problem with being so arrogant is that you look extra foolish when you are wrong.
You cannot imagine the mirth I derive from observing the extent to which I get under your skin. It is the proverbial hoot. Enquiring minds are beginning to wonder if perhaps there is something, well, wrong with you (to put it as gently as possible)?
I related a silly little incident where a woman had asked me at a party who sang "Red Rubber Ball" and I had replied The Cyrkle, who in fact had a major hit with it in 1966.
You replied "Paul Simon" for no apparent reason.
I observed that Paul Simon co-wrote it but did not sing it.
You now observe that it appears on Simon & Garfunkel's 1997 boxed set "Old Friends." It was recorded by them - not Paul Simon - live in 1967, well after The Cyrkle's hit.
This somehow makes me "wrong" and looking "extra foolish." How it makes me wrong and looking extra foolish, I have no idea and suspect you don't either.
If you actually were as clever as you appear to think you are, you would simply ignore me rather than giving me the amusement you do by making so obvious how much I irritate you (which is, of course, one of my objectives).
I've been participating on internet forums of all varieties since 1996. I realized perhaps ten years ago that the psychology and dynamics of internet forums were actually more interesting to me than the subject matter - be it golf, motorcycles, religion, UFOs, the JFKA or anything else. I study them and occasionally write about them. This one is as close to visiting a mental institution as any I've visited over the past 29 years - and I thought I had visited some doozies. Your contributions to this observation are significant and hereby gratefully acknowledged.
-
You cannot imagine the mirth I derive from observing the extent to which I get under your skin. It is the proverbial hoot. Enquiring minds are beginning to wonder if perhaps there is something, well, wrong with you (to put it as gently as possible)?
I related a silly little incident where a woman had asked me at a party who sang "Red Rubber Ball" and I had replied The Cyrkle, who in fact had a major hit with it in 1966.
You replied "Paul Simon" for no apparent reason.
I observed that Paul Simon co-wrote it but did not sing it.
You now observe that it appears on Simon & Garfunkel's 1997 boxed set "Old Friends." It was recorded by them - not Paul Simon - live in 1967, well after The Cyrkle's hit.
This somehow makes me "wrong" and looking "extra foolish." How it makes me wrong and looking extra foolish, I have no idea and suspect you don't either.
If you actually were as clever as you appear to think you are, you would simply ignore me rather than giving me the amusement you do by making so obvious how much I irritate you (which is, of course, one of my objectives).
I've been participating on internet forums of all varieties since 1996. I realized perhaps ten years ago that the psychology and dynamics of internet forums were actually more interesting to me than the subject matter - be it golf, motorcycles, religion, UFOs, the JFKA or anything else. I study them and occasionally write about them. This one is as close to visiting a mental institution as any I've visited over the past 29 years - and I thought I had visited some doozies. Your contributions to this observation are significant and hereby gratefully acknowledged.
Bla bla bla.... Shall I give your regards to Carlos Dominquez which, as an owner of a "exhaustive collection of thousands of 45s" you know, right?
What a pathetic loser you really are!
I've been participating on internet forums of all varieties since 1996..
Why not simply try to have a life? Might work wonders for you!
-
The swami will confess he has no idea who Carlos Dominquez is or was. Is he a sock puppet of Mick Jones or Nick Cave, perhaps?
The swami observes that a fake persona with nearly 8000 posts and God knows how many sock puppets is telling the swami he needs to get a life. The swami finds this ironic and droll.
The swami observes that the "Weidmann" persona and the "Iacoletti" persona almost appear to be tag-teaming him. He makes no accusations, he merely observes.
-
The swami will confess he has no idea who Carlos Dominquez is or was. Is he a sock puppet of Mick Jones or Nick Cave, perhaps?
The swami observes that a fake persona with nearly 8000 posts and God knows how many sock puppets is telling the swami he needs to get a life. The swami finds this ironic and droll.
The swami observes that the "Weidmann" persona and the "Iacoletti" persona almost appear to be tag-teaming him. He makes no accusations, he merely observes.
If you need medication, just ask for it.
As far as Carlos Dominguez goes it was a single release by Paul Simon as Jerry Landis in 1964
Landis was the last name of Simon when they changed the credits for "Hey Schoolgirl". So much for your knowledge as the owner of "an exhaustive collection of thousands of 45s"
You're way our of your depth, as per usual!
-
If you need medication, just ask for it.
As far as Carlos Dominguez goes it was a single release by Paul Simon as Jerry Landis in 1964
Landis was the last name of Simon when they changed the credits for "Hey Schoolgirl". So much for your knowledge as the owner of "an exhaustive collection of thousands of 45s"
You're way our of your depth, as per usual!
Perhaps you got spittle in your screen, but the post to which I responded said "Carlos Dominquez" - "quez."
The swami will confess he has never heard of "Carlos Dominguez" either. The swami realized in perhaps 1968 that Simon & Garfunkel made him puke. The swami's musical tastes are eclectic, but he does have his limits. Insofar as Paul Simon and his various permutations are concerned, the swami does not pretend to omniscience.
In your final sentence, "our" appears to be a Freudian slip; I believe you meant "out." If you wear a leftover COVID mask, you won't get spittle on your screen.
-
Perhaps you got spittle in your screen, but the post to which I responded said "Carlos Dominquez" - "quez."
The swami will confess he has never heard of "Carlos Dominguez" either. The swami realized in perhaps 1968 that Simon & Garfunkel made him puke. The swami's musical tastes are eclectic, but he does have his limits. Insofar as Paul Simon and his various permutations are concerned, the swami does not pretend to omniscience.
In your final sentence, "our" appears to be a Freudian slip; I believe you meant "out." If you wear a leftover COVID mask, you won't get spittle on your screen.
You didn't have a clue.
And no, it wasn't a freudian slip. It was a typo. Only a loser would make a big deal out of that.
-
You didn't have a clue.
And no, it wasn't a freudian slip. It was a typo. Only a loser would make a big deal out of that.
It's 2:13 AM there in GMT +1, "Martin." Take a break or you'll blow your cover.
-
It's 2:13 AM there in GMT +1, "Martin." Take a break or you'll blow your cover.
Why? I'm a night person. Always have been. But you are right, it's about my regular bed time.
Is this one of those times where you determine what is normal and everybody who doesn't comply with that "norm" is suspicious?
is this the paranoid way you want to live your life?
Btw, your obsession with me is duly noted!
-
Btw, your obsession with me is duly noted!
Yawn.
You keep saying that members are obsessed with you, but this a public debating Forum and the definition of a debate is a discussion between two or more people, if you don't want people to respond to your posts, then why are you here?
And especially when you post almost eight thousand posts you are literally inviting a plethora of posts in agreeance or in opposition.
If you want, you can debate by yourself, but then that would be a Mass Debate!
JohnM
-
Yawn.
You keep saying that members are obsessed with you, but this a public debating Forum and the definition of a debate is a discussion between two or more people, if you don't want people to respond to your posts, then why are you here?
And especially when you post almost eight thousand posts you are literally inviting a plethora of posts in agreeance or in opposition.
If you want, you can debate by yourself, but then that would be a Mass Debate!
JohnM
Said the other guy in whose head I'm living rent free. :D
-
Said the other guy in whose head I'm living rent free. :D
Hilarious, you said you were going to bed 7 hours ago and as soon as you wake up you log back in?
Who's living in whose head? Hahahahahahahahahaha!
This article on conspiracy theorists from the "American Psychological Association" fits you to a "T". LOL!
Antagonistic
Paranoid
Insecure
Egocentric
And you have the biggest unwarranted EGO I have ever seen.
The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories
JohnM
-
Hilarious, you said you were going to bed 7 hours ago and as soon as you wake up you log back in?
Who's living in whose head? Hahahahahahahahahaha!
This article on conspiracy theorists from the "American Psychological Association" fits you to a "T". LOL!
Antagonistic
Paranoid
Insecure
Egocentric
And you have the biggest unwarranted EGO I have ever seen.
The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories
JohnM
And yet another post from "Mytton" in which discusses anything expect the JFK case.
Now the fool is trying to psychoanalyse. You've got to admire how hard he is trying!
Btw I am normally logged in all the time, so you'll never know when I am really there or not. Analyse that, fruitcake!
-
Btw I am normally logged in all the time, so you'll never know when I am really there or not. Analyse that, fruitcake!
What are you talking about, I know the times you post? Doh!
You went to bed and then your next post was less than 7 hours later, in fact the exact time between posts is 6 hours 52 minutes 12 seconds, the Forum keeps accurate times but for someone who doesn't understand the metric system this type of ignorance is expected.
1) Before.
Why? I'm a night person. Always have been. But you are right, it's about my regular bed time.
2) 6 hours 52 minutes 12 seconds later!
Said the other guy in whose head I'm living rent free. :D
No offence but you really are as thick as a brick!
JohnM
-
What are you talking about, I know the times you post? Doh!
You went to bed and then your next post was less than 7 hours later, in fact the exact time between posts is 6 hours 52 minutes 12 seconds, the Forum keeps accurate times but for someone who doesn't understand the metric system this type of ignorance is expected.
1) Before.
2) 6 hours 52 minutes 12 seconds later!
No offence but you really are as thick as a brick!
JohnM
What are you talking about, I know the times you post? Doh!
Only a completely obsessed stalker would even be interested in something as immature as this.
But this, like most things, will probably go way over your head.
Ranting on and on about how many times people post, what time they post, fake names etc etc etc.... and you think you are normal! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
What are you talking about, I know the times you post? Doh!
Only a completely obsessed fool would even be interested in something as childish as this.
But this, like most things, will probably go way over your head.
Ranting on and on about how many times people post, what time they post etc etc etc.... and you think you are normal! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(https://s3.envato.com/files/278594146/emoticon%20pointing%20down%20preview.jpg)
Don't worry about it. I once found that "John Mytton" was posting at 5 AM in Australia. When asked he claimed he stayed up all night to watch some sort of game in the US.
(https://media.tenor.com/91xjtSzXm6YAAAAM/crowd-laughing.gif)
'
JohnM
-
The only reasonable hypotheses, the swami observes, are:
1. The "Martin" persona never sleeps; or
2. The "Martin" persona is not a single individual.
Or perhaps both.
For the record, the swami has arisen at 4:30 AM MST for decades. He goes beddy-bye by 7 PM. If you catch him posting outside those hours, he is either sleep-posting or being impersonated by "Tom Sorensen" or one of the other 11 Administrators/Members at JFKBoards.net.
-
Don't worry about it. I once found that "John Mytton" was posting at 5 AM in Australia. When asked he claimed he stayed up all night to watch some sort of game in the US.
JohnM
Yeah, I remember that. It happened at a time when you were desperate to prove that you lived in Australia and failed.
But thanks for reminding me, as I had completely overlooked that you save every post I write on this forum and keep it for years.
A sane person wouldn't do that, saving posts written by a complete stranger on a minor obscure forum, but it fits the bill for a stalker.
-
Yeah, I remember that. It happened at a time when you were desperate to prove that you lived in Australia and failed.
But thanks for reminding me, as I had completely overlooked that you save every post I write on this forum and keep it for years.
A sane person wouldn't do that, saving posts written by a complete stranger on a minor obscure forum, but it fits the bill for a stalker.
LOL, this is why you fail at solving anything.
After I initially said I lived in Sydney, you wouldn't let up, instead of debating this case which BTW you were always losing every argument, you deflected by attacking me about my Australian connection which was unrelenting, therefore it's YOU who is the very definition of an insane stalker.
And naturally being a proud Aussie, I vehemently defended myself, so it's the classic case of "cause and effect" and as you yourself say I was "desperate to prove that you(I) lived in Australia" which only leads to the conclusion that you were the Bully and I was just a mere innocent pawn in your vengeful harassment.
So again as usual, your words incriminate yourself.
I rest my case.
Case Closed!
----------------------------------------------
BTW every image since day 1 that I find and post is stored in my "downloads" folder, which I regularly syphon off to an external hard drive. This Hard drive is filled with gigabytes of images, interesting posts, videos, PDFs and ETC. So all I have to do is search the Hard Drive for say "Weidmann" and your horrid past comes to life, so if I was you I would straighten up and fly right before I unleash wave after wave of embarrassment on you.
Bye.
JohnM
-
LOL, this is why you fail at solving anything.
After I initially said I lived in Sydney, you wouldn't let up, instead of debating this case which BTW you were always losing every argument, you deflected by attacking me about my Australian connection which was unrelenting, therefore it's YOU who is the very definition of an insane stalker.
And naturally being a proud Aussie, I vehemently defended myself, so it's the classic case of "cause and effect" and as you yourself say I was "desperate to prove that you(I) lived in Australia" which only leads to the conclusion that you were the Bully and I was just a mere innocent pawn in your vengeful harassment.
So again as usual, your words incriminate yourself.
I rest my case.
Case Closed!
----------------------------------------------
BTW every image since day 1 that I find and post is stored in my "downloads" folder, which I regularly syphon off to an external hard drive. This Hard drive is filled with gigabytes of images, interesting posts, videos, PDFs and ETC. So all I have to do is search the Hard Drive for say "Weidmann" and your horrid past comes to life, so if I was you I would straighten up and fly right before I unleash wave after wave of embarrassment on you.
Bye.
JohnM
So all I have to do is search the Hard Drive for say "Weidmann" and your horrid past comes to life, so if I was you I would straighten up and fly right before I unleash wave after wave of embarrassment on you.
And this is what a mere innocent pawn stalker looks like. Playing the victim while making threats exposes you for who you really are.
-
So all I have to do is search the Hard Drive for say "Weidmann" and your horrid past comes to life, so if I was you I would straighten up and fly right before I unleash wave after wave of embarrassment on you.
And this is what a mere innocent pawn stalker looks like. Playing the victim while making threats exposes you for who you really are.
This is becoming like a Zen koan. Is it possible to "stalk" an internet forum participant who is using a fake name? What is the sound of one sock puppet clapping?
-
This is becoming like a Zen koan. Is it possible to "stalk" an internet forum participant who is using a fake name? What is the sound of one sock puppet clapping?
"John Mytton" is indeed using a fake name, so, yes, it's possible.
Remarkable that you decided to come to his aid, or maybe not since you two have so much in common. :D
Now all we have to do is wait for Vincent Baxter and the party is complete.
-
"John Mytton" is indeed using a fake name, so, yes, it's possible.
Remarkable that you decided to come to his aid, or maybe not since you two have so much in common. :D
Now all we have to do is wait for Vincent Baxter and the party is complete.
You are far from enlightenment, Grasshopper. When presented with a koan, the student does not attempt to convince the swami that, yes, one can stalk a fictitious persona. An answer like that would get you whacked upside the head by a less-benevolent swami. A more suitable answer would be something along the lines of "The fig tree in the garden bears no fruit" or perhaps "A koala just ate my granola bar, mate." Return to the zendo, Grasshopper, and meditate further on the koans with which the swami has presented you. Have a couple of pints of Weidmann if it will help free your mind.
-
You are far from enlightenment, Grasshopper. When presented with a koan, the student does not attempt to convince the swami that, yes, one can stalk a fictitious persona. An answer like that would get you whacked upside the head by a less-benevolent swami. A more suitable answer would be something along the lines of "The fig tree in the garden bears no fruit" or perhaps "A koala just ate my granola bar, mate." Return to the zendo, Grasshopper, and meditate further on the koans with which the swami has presented you. Have a couple of pints of Weidmann if it will help free your mind.
You are far from enlightenment, Grasshopper.
Would it please you "master", if I let you believe that you are the superior one. Would that satisfy your ego?
-
You cannot imagine the mirth I derive from observing the extent to which I get under your skin.
That would be wishful thinking on your part. You amuse me with your arrogance and your know-it-all-isms.
I related a silly little incident where a woman had asked me at a party who sang "Red Rubber Ball" and I had replied The Cyrkle, who in fact had a major hit with it in 1966.
You replied "Paul Simon" for no apparent reason.
I observed that Paul Simon co-wrote it but did not sing it.
But he did sing it. And he did record it. So you were just wrong. Unless you want to claim that Paul Simon was not part of Simon and Garfunkel in 1967, then Paul Simon did record the song.
It's ok to admit that you were wrong. Even when you are an arrogant know-it-all lawyer.
-
The swami will confess he has never heard of "Carlos Dominguez" either. The swami realized in perhaps 1968 that Simon & Garfunkel made him puke. The swami's musical tastes are eclectic, but he does have his limits. Insofar as Paul Simon and his various permutations are concerned, the swami does not pretend to omniscience.
No, but it's not clear who the "swami" thought he was impressing by bragging to a forum full of JFK assassination aficionados that he has a collection of thousands of 45s.
-
I think the self-appointed "swami" needs to familiarize himself with the Dunning-Kruger effect and embrace his new role of grasshopper.
-
I think the self-appointed "swami" needs to familiarize himself with the Dunning-Kruger effect and embrace his new role of grasshopper.
Thumb1:
I just had to take the risk, by posting this reply, that some delusional clown starts to believe that you are me, and I am God only knows who... :D
-
Thumb1:
I just had to take the risk, by posting this reply, that some delusional clown starts to believe that you are me, and I am God only knows who... :D
"Martin," Iaconetti, give it up. Just give it up.
At the risk of being accused of strutting my stuff, I have a measured IQ in the 99th percentile, I scored in the 99.7th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, and I graduated from law school magna cum laude, law review, Order of the Coif, blah blah blah. Ditto for college - magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi, blah blah blah. Insofar as my law school credentials go, they are a matter of public record. I have no false humility about my analytical abilities.
"Dunning-Kruger effect," indeed.
Am I supremely knowledgeable about the JFKA? Hell, no. Do I know how to fix the transmission in my car? Hell, no. But I do know how to think clearly and rationally and am able to recognize those who don't. My posts here are worth whatever others think they are worth, nothing more and nothing less.
I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated "Martin." Sorry, but you are unquestionably more than one person and thus dishonest in my book. If this were my forum, people like you would be gone. But it's not my forum. Perhaps have someone you respect review your posts here and see if they don't agree that you're starting to sound a bit unhinged.
I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated Iaconetti as well. In my book, he's just another twit of a type I've encountered numerous times before. I find his posts worthless and am mystified as to why anyone would persist with the game he plays. But perhaps others enjoy his posts and find them wittier and more valuable than mine.
But just give up trying to make me appear "dumb" or suffering from the Kruger-Dunning effect (!!!). I don't know if I'm arrogant - I don't think I am - but I am supremely confident in my abilities for good reason and I don't suffer fools gladly. Stop saying stupid things and you won't keep getting them jammed back up your ass. Stay in your lane. If you know vastly more about the JFKA than I do (which is entirely possible), or you can point out flaws in my thinking (which is entirely possible), strut your stuff with some substantive posts.
-
"Martin," Iaconetti, give it up. Just give it up.
At the risk of being accused of strutting my stuff, I have a measured IQ in the 99th percentile, I scored in the 99.7th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, and I graduated from law school magna cum laude, law review, Order of the Coif, blah blah blah. Ditto for college - magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi, blah blah blah. Insofar as my law school credentials go, they are a matter of public record. I have no false humility about my analytical abilities.
"Dunning-Kruger effect," indeed.
Am I supremely knowledgeable about the JFKA? Hell, no. Do I know how to fix the transmission in my car? Hell, no. But I do know how to think clearly and rationally and am able to recognize those who don't. My posts here are worth whatever others think they are worth, nothing more and nothing less.
I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated "Martin." Sorry, but you are unquestionably more than one person and thus dishonest in my book. If this were my forum, people like you would be gone. But it's not my forum. Perhaps have someone you respect review your posts here and see if they don't agree that you're starting to sound a bit unhinged.
I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated Iaconetti as well. In my book, he's just another twit of a type I've encountered numerous times before. I find his posts worthless and am mystified as to why anyone would persist with the game he plays. But perhaps others enjoy his posts and find them wittier and more valuable than mine.
But just give up trying to make me appear "dumb" or suffering from the Kruger-Dunning effect (!!!). I don't know if I'm arrogant - I don't think I am - but I am supremely confident in my abilities for good reason and I don't suffer fools gladly. Stop saying stupid things and you won't keep getting them jammed back up your ass. Stay in your lane. If you know vastly more about the JFKA than I do (which is entirely possible), or you can point out flaws in my thinking (which is entirely possible), strut your stuff with some substantive posts.
"Martin," Iaconetti, give it up. Just give it up.
Here we go. The clown took the bait. That was easier than expected.
At the risk of being accused of strutting my stuff, I have a measured IQ in the 99th percentile, I scored in the 99.7th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, and I graduated from law school magna cum laude, law review, Order of the Coif, blah blah blah. Ditto for college - magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi, blah blah blah. Insofar as my law school credentials go, they are a matter of public record. I have no false humility about my analytical abilities.
Wow. he's really on the defensive. A sure sign of weakness. Just for what it's worth; intelligence isn't something you learn in school. You have it or you don't. What you learn in school gives you the basic information, that's all. Experience shows that people who beat their own drum are most likely not what they want you to believe they are!
There are law school professors who, outside their field, are just plain stupid and naive. There are judges who, in real life, are dumber than a horse's arse and I have seen lawyers, solicitors, letrados or whatever they call themselves, being decimated by stupidity and using their own arrogance against them. You're "magna cum laude" claims simply don't impress.
On the other hand the most wise and intelligent person I have ever met was also the most modest!
"Dunning-Kruger effect," indeed.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
Exactly the reply one would expect from somebody affected by the effect!
I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated "Martin." Sorry, but you are unquestionably more than one person and thus dishonest in my book. If this were my forum, people like you would be gone. But it's not my forum. Perhaps have someone you respect review your posts here and see if they don't agree that you're starting to sound a bit unhinged.
I can't be more than one person! It's physically impossible. Get a grip on your paranoia!
I have clearly embarrassed and massively irritated Iaconetti as well. In my book, he's just another twit of a type I've encountered numerous times before. I find his posts worthless and am mystified as to why anyone would persist with the game he plays. But perhaps others enjoy his posts and find them wittier and more valuable than mine.
And there is the pathetic "I am superior" thing again, from a guy who can't even get John's name right. The next we know he is going to beat his head against the wall, repeating "I'm superior", "I'm superior" etc etc
But just give up trying to make me appear "dumb" or suffering from the Kruger-Dunning effect (!!!)
Why? Just because we know who you really are? Take a good honest look in the mirror, be the person you are claiming to be (but are not) and find out what some people on this forum already know.
. I don't know if I'm arrogant - I don't think I am - but I am supremely confident in my abilities for good reason and I don't suffer fools gladly.
Hilarious, your reasoning is the same as that of any run of the mill LN; pathetic, shallow, superficial and based on assumptions rather than facts. Of course you don't think you are arrogant. I've never ever met an arrogant person who admits to being arrogant!
Stay in your lane.
Said the arrogant fool...
If you know vastly more about the JFKA than I do (which is entirely possible), or you can point out flaws in my thinking (which is entirely possible), strut your stuff with some substantive posts.
That would require a type of conversation which - as you have shown so far - you are not willing or able to have.
Boy, I must have pushed some buttons here..... :D
an exhaustive collection of thousands of 45s
Yeah, right :D
-
"...I scored in the 99.7th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, and I graduated from law school magna cum laude, law review, Order of the Coif, blah blah blah. Ditto for college - magna cum laude, Phi Kappa Phi, blah blah blah. Insofar as my law school credentials go, they are a matter of public record. I have no false humility about my analytical abilities.
:D Yet, you only have to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy.
-
At the risk of being accused of strutting my stuff
And then he proceeds to do exactly that. :D
Am I supremely knowledgeable about the JFKA? Hell, no.
Thanks for the admission. So you're just here to troll the forum with your ridiculous and tedious "please explain why" challenges.
Do I know how to fix the transmission in my car? Hell, no. But I do know how to think clearly and rationally and am able to recognize those who don't. My posts here are worth whatever others think they are worth, nothing more and nothing less.
Which isn't much. Do you also go on auto mechanic forums and brag out your IQ there?
If this were my forum, people like you would be gone.
Sure, because that's a lot easier than bothering to learn anything or to respond to anything with facts and evidence.