+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? (/thread-11269.html)
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Peter Lemkin - 04-09-2013
Steve Minnerly Wrote:The truth is that you really could say i have no conceptualization of the assassination. I ve always been a fan of that Shakespeare quote where he said that he realized he really didnt know very much.
I believe the assassination could have been small or it could have been much much larger than even you believe. I simply dont know. All i was trying to do was open up a area of debate as to the cost of it. I dont think ive ever seen that point discussed.
I also believe its possible that you come very close to the truth in your estimation of the cost. The only thing i really believe about the assassination is that tge lone nut theory is wrong but im willing to admit i could be incorrect about that too.
If you have 'no conceptualization of the assassination', I don't believe this is a forum for you to be posting questions - maybe [just maybe] reading and catching up!]. I'm sorry now I invested my time answering your question[s]. Who the fuck cares what it cost!? It cost us our Country, Our President, Our Polity, Our Democracy, Our Constitution....and more...if you don't get that...kindly post no more until you do! If this constructed to look like a 'naive' Sunsteinian query [I don't claim to know the answer], then it never deserved a nanosecond of my time. Read the book I suggested - then post any questions you may have. However, you 'naive' statement, IMO is l as likely as not a false flag.
To all: the deluge of new members has been problematic. One of the best new members quit [for all the wrong reasons] and some of the least valuable - and/or Sunsteinian agents remain here. This is not like other forum on JFK, IMO, it is an ongoing ADVANCED discussion forum that puts the JFK assassination, as important as it was, in context with other events and history - past and present.
The confluence of the end of the EF and the approach of the 50th is proving problematic. I feel slightly used with Steve's replies above.
Steve, were you from the EF, or what?! If you don't tell, I'll find out by my own means. This is not a game, here. Get real and get informed...or get going...is my suggestion. Those permanent denizens here are not long fooled as they are on other Forums on JFK or Deep Politics. You have met the pros, IMO. Tread carefully or disappear. If just naive and uninformed, no problem - if anything else, expect a ride rougher than those who sent you here expect.
I'm upset now I even touched this thread. I need to take a shower in special soap. Steve, I'd like/expect a FULL answer/explanation within 24 hours - or I'll have much more to say....
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - R.K. Locke - 04-09-2013
I have been reading the forum and learning about this case for roughly two and a half years, and only now do I feel confident enough in my knowledge to dip my toes in the water. I believe it is very much worthwhile taking some time to read through the earlier threads (many of which are filled with valuable insights) and attempting to independently verify the information therein before entering the proverbial fray.
My advice to the newcomer would be:
Learn as quickly as possible how to distinguish disinformation from useful data (i.e. turn your bullshit detector up to 10.)
Apply simple logic to all claims. (This will take you a long way; though perhaps not all the way.)
Make use of the Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic model.
Choose your words carefully.
Read and cross-reference.
Absorb the hard-earned wisdom and insights of those that have come before us.
Never stop learning.
Just some simple advice from a fellow newcomer* to this field.
* Relatively speaking.
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Keith Millea - 04-09-2013
R.K. Locke Wrote:I have been reading the forum and learning about this case for roughly two and a half years, and only now do I feel confident enough in my knowledge to dip my toes in the water. I believe it is very much worthwhile taking some time to read through the earlier threads (many of which are filled with valuable insights) and attempting to independently verify the information therein before entering the proverbial fray.
My advice to the newcomer would be:
Learn as quickly as possible how to distinguish disinformation from useful data (i.e. turn your bullshit detector up to 10.)
Apply simple logic to all claims. (This will take you a long way; though perhaps not all the way.)
Make use of the Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic model.
Choose your words carefully.
Read and cross-reference.
Absorb the hard-earned wisdom and insights of those that have come before us.
Never stop learning.
Just some simple advice from a fellow newcomer* to this field.
* Relatively speaking.
Good post!
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Tracy Riddle - 04-09-2013
C'mon, let's not drive people who are new to the subject into the lone-nutter camp. I remember the first year or so I studied the assassination I was on the fence, always asking myself what could I be really sure of, since it's very confusing and overwhelming in the beginning. There are so many conflicting claims made. I was ready to accept some piece of overwhelming evidence that the WC was right, but I never found that evidence. Let's not jump all over people who are still learning.
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Steve Minnerly - 04-09-2013
So you guys think im here to sow doubt and disrupt the forum ?
Thats interesting cause i was over at Salon ranting against Sunstein and his beliefs.
Youre overeacting. I didnt say anything terrible here.
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Jan Klimkowski - 04-09-2013
Keith Millea Wrote:R.K. Locke Wrote:I have been reading the forum and learning about this case for roughly two and a half years, and only now do I feel confident enough in my knowledge to dip my toes in the water. I believe it is very much worthwhile taking some time to read through the earlier threads (many of which are filled with valuable insights) and attempting to independently verify the information therein before entering the proverbial fray.
My advice to the newcomer would be:
Learn as quickly as possible how to distinguish disinformation from useful data (i.e. turn your bullshit detector up to 10.)
Apply simple logic to all claims. (This will take you a long way; though perhaps not all the way.)
Make use of the Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic model.
Choose your words carefully.
Read and cross-reference.
Absorb the hard-earned wisdom and insights of those that have come before us.
Never stop learning.
Just some simple advice from a fellow newcomer* to this field.
* Relatively speaking.
Good post!
Seconded.
Steve - in my judgement, the reason why other members have been a bit ratty is because the elements that Peter Lemkin articulated, combined with a genuine understanding of the import of the Mechanic - Facilitator - Sponsor model are the sine qua non for old hands at DPF.
They are first base.
The starting point.
So, for instance, once a person understands why the Mob could only ever have been Mechanics, and a Mob boss a very low level Facilitator, you understand why there is huge frustration and anger at the level of discourse about the JFK assassination in MSM and the mainstream publishing industry.
Indeed, the Mob murdered Kennedy is simply a variant of the LN theory.
Similarly Suite 8F are at best a partial Facilitator, and perhaps a False Sponsor.
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Jan Klimkowski - 04-09-2013
Steve Minnerly Wrote:So you guys think im here to sow doubt and disrupt the forum ?
Thats interesting cause i was over at Salon ranting against Sunstein and his beliefs.
Youre overeacting. I didnt say anything terrible here.
Steve - I don't believe you're here to sow doubt and disrupt the forum. But please consider my post above, which was posted respectfully.
Please also note there is extreme distrust and antipathy towards the Education Forum amongst the Founders and many senior members here at DPF.
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Steve Minnerly - 04-09-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:C'mon, let's not drive people who are new to the subject into the lone-nutter camp. I remember the first year or so I studied the assassination I was on the fence, always asking myself what could I be really sure of, since it's very confusing and overwhelming in the beginning. There are so many conflicting claims made. I was ready to accept some piece of overwhelming evidence that the WC was right, but I never found that evidence. Let's not jump all over people who are still learning.
I really dont think i could ever be a part on the lone nutter camp. I simply was expressing a belief that i have never been 100% sure of anything in my life and i got an overeaction.
I woukdnt be surprised if i get banned. And ive been a disbeliever in the official story since Nov. 24 1963 when i was 10 years old. This has been an enlightening experience. I can really see how fragile the research community is and thats a shame.
We should be more unified.
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Tracy Riddle - 04-09-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Indeed, the Mob murdered Kennedy is simply a variant of the LN theory.
As I used to argue with Bob Harris, what is the "Mob" anyway? It isn't just Italians in sharp suits like in the Godfather films. Anyone who has studied organized crime knows that it is completely intertwined with big business, the intelligence community, the military, government at all levels, Wall St, organized religion, money laundering, you name it. I guess you could say "they're all in it together." Which is why it's really pointless to fight with each other about these artificial distinctions.
Any merit to Simkins "suite 8F" theory ? - Tracy Riddle - 04-09-2013
Steve Minnerly Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:C'mon, let's not drive people who are new to the subject into the lone-nutter camp. I remember the first year or so I studied the assassination I was on the fence, always asking myself what could I be really sure of, since it's very confusing and overwhelming in the beginning. There are so many conflicting claims made. I was ready to accept some piece of overwhelming evidence that the WC was right, but I never found that evidence. Let's not jump all over people who are still learning.
I really dont think i could ever be a part on the lone nutter camp. I simply was expressing a belief that i have never been 100% sure of anything in my life and i got an overeaction.
I woukdnt be surprised if i get banned. And ive been a disbeliever in the official story since Nov. 24 1963 when i was 10 years old. This has been an enlightening experience. I can really see how fragile the research community is and thats a shame.
We should be more unified.
Yes, there are a lot of people who need to tolerate disagreement a little more. This is not a church.