08-02-2012, 06:24 PM
Greg Burnham Wrote:A signature of those who would serve no other purpose than to derail what we do here resides in the certainty with which they make new claims; or old claims that are firmly based on new "yet to be tested" theories. Rarely do the disingenuous present their case from a non-absolutist position. It is signature because it is predictably a part of human nature that veteran researchers will take exception to such a presentation if for no other reason than the offensiveness of that initial introduction.
While it is true that "offensiveness" has no bearing on truth, still, if the purpose of making a presentation at all includes persuading others of that truth, then it would seem reasonable that the presenter would allow for human attributes that are clearly to be expected. When one does not make such allowances they are either hopelessly socially impaired or their intent is not to share their findings in discovery of the truth, but rather their intent is something else entirely.
What would that intent be? It is evident in the fruits of their labor.
Precisely, Greg.
When I created a thread to discuss what I knew would be my highly controversial thoughts about the so-called Chicago assassination scenario, I titled it, "The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis."
That's "Hypothesis."
My introductory post:
RESOLVED: The alleged Chicago plot to assassinate JFK never was meant to result in an actual attack.
Rather, it was a fictive construct designed as the Dallas conspiracy's doppelganger.
The objectives of its planners -- the highest level Facilitators of the Dallas plot -- were to:
A. Explain the anticipated pre-assassination leaks of Dallas plot info as cases of mistaken identify;
B. Foil the Chicago "plot" at the last minute -- close to the timed Dallas attack -- and thus provide a plausible excuse for planned enhanced Dallas security to be relaxed;*
C. Support the Dallas cover-up by misdirecting honest investigations of the real assassination through the imposition of the confusion, complexity, and cognitive dissonance associated with the classic doppelganger gambit.
____________________________
Jim Di Eugenio strongly disagreed with me, and we went 'round and 'round. In a good way.
Albert Doyle strongly disagreed with me, and we went 'round and 'round. And at times, I lost my cool.
FWIW, I've used the "hypothesis" construction for the creation of more than one thread.
Neither "Cinque" nor Fetzer displayed the intellectual courage to define their work as anything other than the presentation of established fact.
I might add that I have been and remain a committed proponent of separating the factual from the hypothetical in this case. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is fact.
LHO as Doorway Man is hypothesis.
As is -- for now -- my Chicago scenario.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene