Assassination Porn is defined as "excessive, heated discussions between CTs and LNers." Titallating, but with no redeeming social value.
I confess to have produced more than my share of AP in my day...but now that I'm over here those days are over!:iluvu:
Hi Cliff,
I'm glad you're here. Long ago, you and I thought of ourselves as allies at EF.
That being noted, a caveat seems in order: Accessories after the fact (in my Constitutionally protected, deeply informed opinion) to regicide the likes of Von Pein and Lamson are not welcome here. Nor are one-sided debates with them.
Charles,
Allies we were and allies we I feel we shall continue to be.
Debates with LNers constitute Assassination Porn. I appreciate the opportunity to come over here and work in an Assassination Porn-free environment. Conspiracy is not a question to argue over but a fact to be observed.
I'm am your latest refugee from the EF. If Lamson and Von Pein were allowed here I wouldn't be here.
Quote:In other words, please vent your spleen elsewhere.
Consider my spleen pre-vented.
Quote:All they're looking for is engagement -- and with it, the continuation of a cover-up designed not to win an argument, but rather to prolong it.
No one at DPF will be permitted to aid and abet the bastards.
As for your quarrel with Jim DiEugenio: You are attempting to transplant it from the EF to DPF, and we will have none of it here.
Repeat: None of it.
If you wish to challenge Jim on any salient points, then by all means do so.
Yes, his characterization of the case as "super-humanly complex" becomes problematic when making the case for conspiracy.
As I noted above, my stand is that conspiracy is not a question to argue but a fact to observe. Going into the 50th I think its important for those who seek to be the "faces" of critical research not argue the case for conspiracy on technical grounds, which is exactly what Jim does.
Quote:Jim, I encourage you to engage Cliff in a similar fashion.
And before anyone points out that, given past public indiscretions on my part, I am now playing the role of The Pot to others' portrayals of The Kettle ... Well, no one knows sin as intimately as a sinner knows it.
I'm making my best effort to restore intellectual discipline and perhaps even a touch of class to my contributions here. I shall expect nothing less from DPF correspondents.
Thanks.
You won't have any trouble from me, Charles. I think I've made my point that I'm not to be trifled with.
I'm only interested in pursuing my hobby in good spirit... and paying homage to Phil Dragoo...eyes precise as the end of Burrough's newspaper spoon...
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:And we are supposed to believe that his work over there ended at the precise moment that I mentioned here his name on a thread that had devolved into something it was never supposed to be?
My last post at the EF was the morning of the 9th. My first post here was two days later.
Hardly "the precise moment," surely.
Quote:And then he jumps over here to contest me on grounds I did not mention or mean?
I came over here to comment on something Charles wrote about conspiracy being a proven fact and I noticed that you brought our little feud over here.
So I addressed the salient points of our dispute. Hey, to quote Golden State Warriors coach Mark Jackson:
"I'm old school. If you don't get it that's on you."
"Members, please honour our forum rules of decorum and enjoy discussions on the merits of the argument and not the people making the argument." (From the Moderators)
I translate this as - in heated debate remain civil and attack the data (or position), not the person.
I too slip and call Pose-ner and Mack sh*ts for past actions taken against truth, I cannot cast the first stone and I know it. The enemy deserves such treatment, but that doesn't make it proper to engage in that junk.:fullofit:
The divide and ruin tactic is familiar to all. Attacking each other personally promotes that division when we NEED UNITY to fight the BS attending the Media Circus of the 50th Anniversary. IMO.
The opposing view will try to shape public "discussion" to Another Damn Round of Conspiracy Debate.
There is no longer any debate of Conspiracy as fact in doubt, not after the postmortem X-Rays have been proven to be FAKES, not after all the factual information developed over the last half century.
I don't want to watch another psyops deception for this coming anniversary. We ALL have had enough of that junk.
FWIW
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
12-02-2013, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013, 02:22 PM by Charles Drago.)
Kudos to Cliff and to Jim Hackett II for their affirmative responses.
And likewise, in advance, to Jim DiEugenio for what I'm anticipating will be his agreement in principle.
For what it's worth, I don't expect Messrs. Varnell and DiEugenio to establish a mutual admiration society. Have at each other -- in a way that distinguishes our community as one in which honest, robustly proffered differences of opinion are valued and, more often than not, lead to major insights and discoveries.
On a personal note, I am deeply gratified by the recently observable spread of the "JFK conspiracy as FACT" stance through our community. Vincent Salandria stands out among the few so-called First Generation of JFK assassination scholars who understood and taught the critical distinction between debate and presentation of fact and its importance to our shared cause.
Among the group I term Second Generation researchers, self-described "radical historian" George Michael Evica championed this approach most influentially.
Their examples inspired my own humble efforts, over the past 20 years, to drive home the strategic, tactical, and even moral implications of the following message:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Now, as the 50th anniversary of the assassination looms, I must modify the statement thusly:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators -- including, at the highest level of Facilitators in the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model, civilian and military components of the international security state -- is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
By definition, if we debate the conspiracy/LN "controversy," we lose.
I had to read back over this thread. I hope I didn't create the impression I don't agree with anyone or want to debate anyone.
I endorse the civil exchange of information even in heated discussions.
I have and had no intention to disagree with anyone. I am not armed to debate Mr. Jim DiEugenio, his "internal database" of data is far larger than mine.
I encourage the moderated discussion of DB2 Ed for my own benefit and others, to LEARN from Jim's effort, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON, except to spread the word of that updated book. No debate to me. Maybe a question or two, but no "debate" per se. Information seeking and clarifying queries only is my intent in this discussion if it ever goes down.
If there is anything between us, I don't know of it, Jim DiEugenio. 'Cuse if I made that impression.
It is hard to absorb knowledge when concerned with saving face or scoring debating points.
Why bother if not to LEARN from each other and establish the unity thing.
So we can stop the Conspiracy "debate" cold. No room for it as long as one is informed of the truth circa 2013. We can play a role in that.
Charles,
first thanks for your kind statements, second, I must point out how strong Mr. G. M. Evica's "A Certain Arrogance" is.
The point Mr. Evica makes is telling. In the context of subversion and deception - but the parallels exist in the history of DP research. Even Ms. Meagher and all the rest from the beginning have seen the discord and contention get in the way of the efforts of good folks. As have we all in one way or another.
I wish a genuine coalition across the community were possible, but the enemy cannot risk that development. They have a vested interest in keeping the anger and ego and angst at a higher level to prevent UNITY of Efforts.
FWIW
Jim
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
Jim Hackett II Wrote:I had to read back over this thread. I hope I didn't create the impression I don't agree with anyone or want to debate anyone.
I endorse the civil exchange of information even in heated discussions.
I have and had no intention to disagree with anyone. I am not armed to debate Mr. Jim DiEugenio, his "internal database" of data is far larger than mine.
I encourage the moderated discussion of DB2 Ed for my own benefit and others, to LEARN from Jim's effort, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON, except to spread the word of that updated book. No debate to me. Maybe a question or two, but no "debate" per se. Information seeking and clarifying queries only is my intent in this discussion if it ever goes down.
If there is anything between us, I don't know of it, Jim DiEugenio. 'Cuse if I made that impression.
It is hard to absorb knowledge when concerned with saving face or scoring debating points.
Why bother if not to LEARN from each other and establish the unity thing.
So we can stop the Conspiracy "debate" cold. No room for it as long as one is informed of the truth circa 2013. We can play a role in that.
Charles,
first thanks for your kind statements, second, I must point out how strong Mr. G. M. Evica's "A Certain Arrogance" is.
The point Mr. Evica makes is telling. In the context of subversion and deception - but the parallels exist in the history of DP research. Even Ms. Meagher and all the rest from the beginning have seen the discord and contention get in the way of the efforts of good folks. As have we all in one way or another.
I wish a genuine coalition across the community were possible, but the enemy cannot risk that development. They have a vested interest in keeping the anger and ego and angst at a higher level to prevent UNITY of Efforts.
FWIW
Jim
My apologies, Jim. I meant to write "Messrs. Varnell and DiEugenio." I've corrected my original post.
Charles Drago Wrote:By definition, if we debate the conspiracy/LN "controversy," we lose.
The zealotry of the recently converted courses through my veins, Charles.
Here's how I formulate the issue:
Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a question to be debated; it's a fact to be observed, to wit: the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.
There is NO fact-based challenge to this formulation -- only Assassination Pron.
Charles Drago Wrote:By definition, if we debate the conspiracy/LN "controversy," we lose.
The zealotry of the recently converted courses through my veins, Charles.
Here's how I formulate the issue:
Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a question to be debated; it's a fact to be observed, to wit: the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.
There is NO fact-based challenge to this formulation -- only Assassination Pron.
Without commenting on the validity of the proof for which you powerfully argue, I feel that it would be a monumental error for us to place all of our eggs in any single proof-of-conspiracy basket.
While putting all eggs into one proverbial basket may be considered an "error"... Too many baskets with too many eggs will simply confuse the issue... IMO
The SBT remains one of the axiomatic conclusions of the case while being at the very core of the a priori knowledge of conspiracy...
It is and remains physcially impossible for a bullet to travel UP when in a 17 degree downward path unless bone is hit...
and no bones were claimed hit...
This, along with the unambiguous physical evidence from Hoover declaring a conspiracy in action (or the CIA creating one to be "discovered")
the following morning to LBJ and I believe we have two very large "eggs" that remain unassailable.
I'd suggest that anything presented (read" agreed upon as our position") be as unassailable and as easy to communicate.
On Jan 27, 1963 Rankin and WC members discuss an autopsy "explanation" that does not appear in the existing autopsy... or is referred to by any notes, testimonies or physcial evidence
Mr. Rankin: Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and --
Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a finger's length.
Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said....
2nd Watergate law: Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied
JFK autopsy report in existence
"[size=12]The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body."[/SIZE]
Commander HUMES - Well, the defect in the fascia was quite similar, which is the
first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall
through any definite path at this point.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, Doctor Humes, at one point in your examination of the
President, did you make an effort to probe the point of entry with your
finger?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - And at or about
that time when you were trying to ascertain, as you previously testified,
whether there was any missile in the body of the President, did someone from the
Secret Service call your attention to the fact that a bullet had been found on a
stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; they did.
Mr.
SPECTER - And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the
presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative
explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have
described as entering at Point "C" on Exhibit 385? Commander HUMES -
Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain wi th absolute certainty that the bullet had
passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we
mentioned
FBI Report:
This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the
finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile
entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a
short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the
finger.
David Josephs Wrote:While putting all eggs into one proverbial basket may be considered an "error"... Too many baskets with too many eggs will simply confuse the issue... IMO
You're preaching to the choir.
But I STRONGLY disagree that the quote from JEH you suggest -- or indeed, ANY Hoover quote -- belongs among our best proofs. Among other problems with such a decision: It would leave us open to the charge of cherry-picking endorsements from a man who more than likely was an accessory to the murder of JFK.
I could not endorse any presentation of "best evidence" for conspiracy that included Hoover statements or, for that matter, citation of holes in JFK's clothing as prima facie evidence of conspiracy.
Even though the latter may very well be prima facie evidence of conspiracy.
There are many considerations to take into account when selecting the best of the best evidence.
