04-12-2013, 10:40 PM
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Dear Albert
If you care to examine the intelligent back and forth between Hay and Josephs. Then note the lack of frustration both have in telling the other something without repeating themselves. Then one can see why interactions with you are fraught with problems.
You're all wet Seamus. If you read David's posts more closely he concluded that the chances of Pitzer committing suicide were about as likely as Oswald being a shooter in the 6th floor window. I think both you and Martin are selectively ignoring that and focusing on superficial style. You couldn't possibly make an emptier response that only illustrates the point I was making. I think, like deniers, what you are saying is you must allow my uncredible arguments.
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Jimi Hendrix may or may not have been murdered. Jim Di has offered no clear opinions. However, in that piece he was portrayed as being a Hendrix conspiracy zealot. After I explain this problem you launch into a tirade about Hendrix. ::headbang:: I actually have to agree with Charles and Greg about you. I am not going to go as overboard as they did. However, I shall be kindly blocking you. I encourage others to do so as well.::
Best of luck.
A woefully deficient response. Jimi Hendrix was 100%, with absolute certainty, no doubt about it, murdered. The forensics prove it beyond a doubt at a courtroom level. Also, the tell-tale signs of covert involvement that DiEugenio correctly discussed in the video I linked also affirm it. If you watch the video you can see there is nothing DiEugenio said that made him look like a "conspiracy zealot". I think you are just saying that because you are trying to belittle me. This is backed by the fact that you speak as if your pronouncements were the final word yet are unable to discuss that you are clearly wrong in your interpretations. I didn't offer any "tirade", I showed that DiEugenio's statement about Hendrix was perfectly reasonable and fit the facts and that you mischaracterized it for rather obvious reasons. Face it Seamus, you tried to get away with using Hendrix as an example of my dubiousness but you took on the wrong person because I'm expert at Hendrix and it blew up on you. Who do you think you're fooling? There comes a point where being the bar room thug for Jim meets its limit and you just reached it. However, if we respect cooler heads this is a good example of the CTKA flaw I was pointing out. Blocking people for saying it speaks more than anything doesn't it?
It's funny that you pretend to represent a CTKA level of analysis but then offer that embarrassing entry above in response to sophisticated matters deserving more intelligent response. I think what is most obvious is you can't back up your accusations of "kooky extreme stuff", nor can you honestly back up your claims towards me in the Hendrix matter. It's pretty clear your bluff that Jim's casual thoughts about the Hendrix case were enough to discredit me was something you also couldn't back up when it came to walking the walk of the CTKA standard you pretend to represent. Pretty pathetic really.
The problem here is some people have excellent research and reference talent like CTKA. Others have talent in the detection and interpretation areas. I think Janney is the latter and is a little weak in certain areas, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about Mary Meyer. And that's the problem I have with the CTKA approach. It risks discrediting somebody by means of source and information challenging rather than allowing the bigger picture. In other words if you can get someone down on mistakes you can defeat their work. But it doesn't always work that way and a person who is good at sensing very subtle evidence that deserves merit is brought down by the very clunky device of Seamus Coogan swinging in like a monkey from a tree and bludgeoning him with the HAY "proof" cudgel. If you look very closely at Lisa's criticism of Janney she avoids some pretty condemning circumstantial evidence. It makes me think she is trying to bring Janney down by his mistakes instead of giving credit to the good evidence.
I think you've shown a good example of the serious problem with CTKA's stand on Pitzer. Seems like you can dish it out but you can't take it. Sorry Seamus, it's a very precarious tightrope and you just fell off it.