Reasonable doubts about Lee Harvey Oswald

[David Josephs]

I am not trying to force guilt before innocence, actually I am attempting the opposite. I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of. I understand some here may disagree with my ideas or presented evidence, yet that does not invalidate it, opinions and unverified evidence is just speculation. I appreciate the support and constructive criticism, I respect everyone's right to conduct research and use what they consider reasonable standards, but they must offer proof from both sides if they hope to use legal standards. I have also used a majority of official evidence to prove Oswald's likely innocence, evidence which critics cannot refute with facts because its the very documents they use to craft their unreasoned arguments. If one of my sources is incorrect or my claims can be invalidated with evidence I invite its presentation, otherwise its just speculation.

In regard to the Movie theater, I agree, it makes no sense for him to remain in Dallas at all after JFK's or Tippit's murder. He had plenty of opportunities to flee and should have done so. A meeting seems the likely reason to remain.

One of my favorite facts that critics cannot refute is the Warren Commission had no authority or jurisdiction, it was forced via Executive order, local authorities or the State Congress should have rightfully investigated the matter, so why did the Commission?

"Legally, the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent murder of Lee Harvey Oswald were within the jurisdiction of Texas State Authorities" - Senate Select "Church" Committee on Intelligence Activities Report, Book 5, Part IV, Intelligence Agencies, Summary and Findings, p.45

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church..._0026a.htm

That little FACT you speak of constitutes the wholesale theft of the body from the hands of the TX authorities by one SAIC ROY KELLERMAN - the same man who leaves Greer at the wheel of the ambulance at 7pm as he runs thru the hospital to the morgue... the same man who helps Greer/Sibert/O'Neil carry in an empty casket at 7:17... and ALSO is aware of the third casket entry WITH JFK... the best he can do is suggest a "FLURRY" of shots, for a total of 3, even though the first and third shots appear to be single shots... counting for 2 of the 3... WHEN does the FLURRY arrive and how does that not raise the bullet count beyond 3?

Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.


now, based on this FBI scale model of what occurred... what occurred - as it appears (based on the calculations offered in CD298 and the "X" we see drwon on the street for z313)
it APPEARS as if there is another shot AFTER z313, in fact it can be placed with some confidence at Z375 since we can see the base of the light pole in line with the rear of the limo...

Given that the LIMO is speeding away at this point, yet has only travelled 45 feet from z313-zZ375 (62 frames / 18.3 = 3.4 seconds = 13.24 feet per second = 9mph)

Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Congressman, I have driven that car many times, and I never cease to be amazed even to this day with the weight of the automobile plus the power that is under the hood; we just literally jumped out of the God-damn road.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5303[/ATTACH]



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5304[/ATTACH]

Mr. KEL[B]LERMAN. [/B]This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he (Dr.ROSE) said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it."

With that Dr. Burkley walked in, and I said "Doctor, this man is from some health unit in town. He tells me we can't remove this body." The Doctor became a little enraged; he said, "We are removing it." He said, "This is the President of the United States and there should be some consideration in an event like this." And I told this gentleman, I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed."
So, he frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home.

Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?"
And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir."

But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance.

I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen.

[C. Savastano]

(to P. Dragoo)

Your unfortunately broad painting of our philosophical opponents does not help your case. Also listing evidence and using reason to persuade will always ultimately be more successful long term, strong arm hypothesis and insults are the weapons of the uninformed critic. If some will not listen to evidence it is their choice, however this does not render them complicit it means they have not done the work or are do not care as much as we do, not everyone who disagrees is involved, attacks will not inspire them to see the truth, reasonable unbiased facts and discussion might.


Thanks David, your maps and info are welcome additions.

[David Josephs]

(to P. Dragoo)

Your unfortunately broad painting of our philosophical opponents does not help your case. Also listing evidence and using reason to persuade will always ultimately be more successful long term, strong arm hypothesis and insults are the weapons of the uninformed critic. If some will not listen to evidence it is their choice, however this does not render them complicit it means they have not done the work or are do not care as much as we do, not everyone who disagrees is involved, attacks will not inspire them to see the truth, reasonable unbiased facts and discussion might.


Thanks David, your maps and info are welcome additions.

Always my pleasure to help illuminate... yet I think you've missed our point....

The EVIDENCE OFFERED proves conspiracy. Nothing DVP can offer changes this.
The "rebuttals" to each of his 8 comments - you offer - have been part of our understanding of the case for YEARS... and while we can appreciate your posting them, they simply tell US that you still consider there being a NEED to address the DVP's of the world....

The REAL QUESTION that was not stated is, "Why do the DVPs of the world persist, given the obviousness of the EVIDENCE and its meaning?"

"agreeing to disagree" no longer works in the context of our discussions... CS
that you would give DVP the time of day and what looks like hours of time producing a well thought out rebuttal is THE ISSUE.

Until repeated verified evidence from both the official record and independent sources confirm that Oswald did not have anything to do with the plot it seem premature to rule him out utterly in my opinion. I would be willing to review whatever evidence you have, being new I have not seen everything here. I think he is a patsy as you do, however a patsy is part of a plot.

and

I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of

I addressed your request that Oswald prove himself innocent... and so did Phil... we don't do that in the courts of law here... the Prosecutors need to prove GUILT.

Which "reasonable doubt" are you using here CS?? And how do you prove Oswald "likely" did not commit the crime when there is no proof he did as you pointed out in 8 areas of contention.

Despite all Van Pein's claims, Brennan did not identify Lee Harvey Oswald. His further conspiracy statements without verification should further discredit Brennan's testimony. Brennan's words seem included almost to fill space given their actual use in supporting the guilt of Oswald. Brennan's testimony proves nothing beyond his inability to identify anyone positively.

Now, CS, this is where I finally learned the difference between rebutting nonsense and finding nuggets of truth of Oswald's innocence...

Read Mr. Brennan's testimony again please yet this time let's look for evidence of innocence rather than reasonable doubt about his guilt.


Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as the parade came by, I watched it from a distance of Elm and Main Street, as it came on to Houston and turned the corner at Houston and Elm, going down the incline towards the railroad underpass. And after the President had passed my position, I really couldn't say how many feet or how far, a short distance I would say, I heard this crack that I positively thought was a backfire.
Mr. BELIN. You thought it was backfire?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of a motorcycle.

CS... WHERE are motorcycles sounds? STREET LEVEL or 70 FEET IN THE AIR?
So the first shot - which MOST IF NOT ALL DESCIBED AS A BACKFIRE - is a sound heard at street level and not too long after the limo turns onto ELM...
The first shot available to the 6th floor SE corner is not until Z210 -

He then changes his statement:

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store.

Convenient right? the street level backfire makes him look up to someone throwing firecrackers... no one takes this man seriously other than the DVPs of the world...
---------------

Mr. B states he was looking at the man in the window as he aimed for his third(last) shot...

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.
Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir

So the man SEES the person aiming, he is looking right at him yet only HEARS the last "report".... B
BRENNAN either LOOKS AWAY or
BRENNAN HEARS A SHOT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Mr. BELIN. I am talking in the window itself.
Mr. BRENNAN. No, no. That is--I don't remember a box in the window, these boxes I remember are stacked up behind the window, and they were zigzagged, kind of step down, and there was a space it looked like back of here.

So a quick recap CS... BRENNAN HIMSELF tells us in 1964 that the rifle he saw did NOT have a SCOPE
The WINDOW he was looking in did NOT HAVE BOXES IN THEM
and he HEARS THE LAST SHOT while having seen this person AIM... yet does not see this same person shoot the rifle.

This is the quality of witness that convicted Oswald and gives DVP his ammunition for endless argument.

When you can find out HOW and WHY Mr. B here tells the DPD about a 5'10" 150-160 slender male around 30 years old... from what he saw... you'll be entering the DEEP part of this forum...
until then... discussing why the DVPs of the world are wrong is really a waste of time...

Cheers
DJ

[C. Savastano]

Thanks for the explanation. I have found refuting the DVP's of the world brings attention to the evidence. I understand many consider this a waste, but I feel someone should clean up the loose disinformation littering the Web by confronting them (I posted my article in a forum that DVP was a member of, and in the end he had no facts and allowed others to lose his fight for him) I respect your views, my methods I suppose may not similar to those here, but I using my standards of reasonable doubt with official a trove of official documents to prove it was not just Oswald, but the entire case and legal mechanism used was illegal and therefore should be set aside and investigated again. While some here operate at a deeper level on the intricacies of the case, many guests I would imagine are not as involved, simple legal precedents I find speak to them without years of prior study.

[David Josephs]

Thanks for the explanation. I have found refuting the DVP's of the world brings attention to the evidence. I understand many consider this a waste, but I feel someone should clean up the loose disinformation littering the Web by confronting them (I posted my article in a forum that DVP was a member of, and in the end he had no facts and allowed others to lose his fight for him) I respect your views, my methods I suppose may not similar to those here, but I using my standards of reasonable doubt with official a trove of official documents to prove it was not just Oswald, but the entire case and legal mechanism used was illegal and therefore should be set aside and investigated again. While some here operate at a deeper level on the intricacies of the case, many guests I would imagine are not as involved, simple legal precedents I find speak to them without years of prior study.

Mr. S.... I genuinely appreciate the effort and time as one who has spent many years with that mission.... even after I read the following
which I am posting under the assumption some, as you've said, have not:

"I'm afraid we were misled," (Vincent) Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."


Investigating the minutia leads us to understand the evidence itself holds the all the clues to the conspiracy we really need...

While the evidence of the actual crime lays within this screaming proof of conspiracy... which as we've agreed is woefully fraudulent.... we can still find the truth...


Consider this Mr. S,
Who has the power to get the Surgeon General of the Navy, and two Rear Admirals, one in charge of Bethesda Naval Hospital, the other the Presidents physician... to be party to the alteration/documentation of the wounds and not only never say a word but lie about it while ordering everyone else who was there, under court martial, never to say a word? Who?


What a Mr. Brennan has to say is minutia compared to the people who orchestrated that...
the difference between how the conspiracy worked and how the world works....

DJ

[C. Savastano]

I can appreciate your view, however I require evidence that be demonstrably presented to the public. Something which is supported by the facts and by official documents, because this is the "real world" definition of the truth. Some minutiae that many focus on in my opinion is a waste of time. Yes powerful forces in the American government were behind some of the most nefarious activities in our history. However to constantly repeat abstract evidence that is subject to easy misinterpretation is not the standard of conspiracy research in my opinion. Research does not merely rely on the micro view but also the macro view, it requires that connections be proven with primary sources, not just theoretical interpretation. On either side of the debate much has been made of vast conspiracies that seem to rely more on the conversion of others to one's thinking instead of defense of one's views with evidence. We all have our path to walk in our seeking greater understanding, I shall walk my path and offer others the respect to walk thiers.

[David Josephs]

Something which is supported by the facts and by official documents,

A whopper of an oxymoron there CS...

No one here is trying to convince anyone of anything... the evidence does that all by itself.

You seem to still be asking for proof of Oswald's innocence -or am I reading you wrong?

However to constantly repeat abstract evidence that is subject to easy misinterpretation is not the standard of conspiracy research in my opinion

"Abstract Evidence" ?? Sorry CS I have no idea what you mean here. I offered the considered conclusions of the FBI... nothing to "misinterpret"
please go read CD298 and reconcile what the FBI did here, to the final report, the "facts and official documents" you refer to....

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...ocId=10699


You opened this thread with a rebuttal DVP's 8 axioms of the case... while appreciated, the choir already knew that tune.

We then go on to explain how the DVPs of the world keep firing their shots across the bow to illicit a response, the give HIS argument validity. His 8th statement is indicative of the techniques offered in the paper linked to below...
I can't suggest strongly enough to read this paper and get a feel for what the DVPs of the world are doing and why they are not tolerated here.


At the core I believe WE AGREE CS... I am not at odds with you, your POV or your desires... Together, the members here can converse on any subject MACRO or MICRO to your hearts content.

What I have not seen from you is the evidence and sources that back your opinions.. you ASK for them repeatedly - and as we've all said, they are all right there in the WCR and related documents..

So if you can ID which ABSTRACT EVIDENCE you feel has been misinterpreted - we have a place to start....
DJ


http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirectionand control of a internet forum
2.Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3.Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. Howto Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5.Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

[Chris Davidson]

I am not trying to force guilt before innocence, actually I am attempting the opposite. I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of. I understand some here may disagree with my ideas or presented evidence, yet that does not invalidate it, opinions and unverified evidence is just speculation. I appreciate the support and constructive criticism, I respect everyone's right to conduct research and use what they consider reasonable standards, but they must offer proof from both sides if they hope to use legal standards. I have also used a majority of official evidence to prove Oswald's likely innocence, evidence which critics cannot refute with facts because its the very documents they use to craft their unreasoned arguments. If one of my sources is incorrect or my claims can be invalidated with evidence I invite its presentation, otherwise its just speculation.

In regard to the Movie theater, I agree, it makes no sense for him to remain in Dallas at all after JFK's or Tippit's murder. He had plenty of opportunities to flee and should have done so. A meeting seems the likely reason to remain.

One of my favorite facts that critics cannot refute is the Warren Commission had no authority or jurisdiction, it was forced via Executive order, local authorities or the State Congress should have rightfully investigated the matter, so why did the Commission?

"Legally, the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent murder of Lee Harvey Oswald were within the jurisdiction of Texas State Authorities" - Senate Select "Church" Committee on Intelligence Activities Report, Book 5, Part IV, Intelligence Agencies, Summary and Findings, p.45

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church..._0026a.htm

That little FACT you speak of constitutes the wholesale theft of the body from the hands of the TX authorities by one SAIC ROY KELLERMAN - the same man who leaves Greer at the wheel of the ambulance at 7pm as he runs thru the hospital to the morgue... the same man who helps Greer/Sibert/O'Neil carry in an empty casket at 7:17... and ALSO is aware of the third casket entry WITH JFK... the best he can do is suggest a "FLURRY" of shots, for a total of 3, even though the first and third shots appear to be single shots... counting for 2 of the 3... WHEN does the FLURRY arrive and how does that not raise the bullet count beyond 3?

Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.


now, based on this FBI scale model of what occurred... what occurred - as it appears (based on the calculations offered in CD298 and the "X" we see drwon on the street for z313)
it APPEARS as if there is another shot AFTER z313, in fact it can be placed with some confidence at Z375 since we can see the base of the light pole in line with the rear of the limo...

Given that the LIMO is speeding away at this point, yet has only travelled 45 feet from z313-zZ375 (62 frames / 18.3 = 3.4 seconds = 13.24 feet per second = 9mph)

Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Congressman, I have driven that car many times, and I never cease to be amazed even to this day with the weight of the automobile plus the power that is under the hood; we just literally jumped out of the God-damn road.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5303[/ATTACH]



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5304[/ATTACH]

Mr. KEL[B]LERMAN. [/B]This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he (Dr.ROSE) said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it."

With that Dr. Burkley walked in, and I said "Doctor, this man is from some health unit in town. He tells me we can't remove this body." The Doctor became a little enraged; he said, "We are removing it." He said, "This is the President of the United States and there should be some consideration in an event like this." And I told this gentleman, I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed."
So, he frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home.

Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?"
And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir."

But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance.

I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen.

Hi David,

http://www.mejuba.com/albums/jfkass/1129...w/original

313-391 78 frames @ 84.7 ft approx.

13.5mph

chris

[Phil Dragoo]

David

I think you have succinctly put the core concept:

Our president was the obvious target of a conspiracy, the continuing cover-up of which entails endless microsplitting of hairs

altogether with an imploring to (as Cole Porter wrote in parody) Not Be Beastly to the Germans

C Stavasano

It is insulting that the media and academia still do the heavy lifting for the assassination sponsors and their continuing business plan

Chris Davidson

Your link presents as a blank page but I gather your calculations show a 13-plus mile-per-hour limousine speed at one section in the Zapruder film

The overarching theme of this thread is a concept of reasonable doubt, a legal term which in our system also includes presumption of innocence

I would herein restate my assertion that the David von Peins of the world are the True Believers of Eric Hoffer (1951)

We may add the New Soviet Man and the Inner Party Member of Eric Blair (George Orwell)

For those not closed to the truth, fifty years of evidence are enough

For those closed, no amount will suffice

We might consider whether the continuing assertion that Benghazi wasn't about arms-running is akin to the Warrenati obsession with Lee Oswald

Or, consider whether we would in another day, have to convince Joseph Goebbels or another NSDAP official that the fire in the Reichstag was not a Communist plot

We do not require proofs ad infinitum that the world is not flat, that the sun does not move around this flat earth, and that bleeding even more would have brought George Washington back to health

I do enjoy the ever greater clarity of such meticulous data as David provided above:

We may again consider how closely spaced were the shots of this mythic gunman in Walhalla

and how no animation (see Pat Speer, Animania: Searching for Truth in Dale Myers' House of Mirrors) can bring any such projectile

around one hundred eighty degrees to enter the president's throat

or his right temple

Allen Dulles down through the ages presents the rebuttal of the inconvenient proofs of a David S. Lifton (Best Evidence):

http://spikethenews.blogspot.com/2012/10...dence.html

From the very illustrative page above (well worth enjoying in its entirety) we have:

Dulles got very angry. "You have nothing! Absolutely nothing! The head could be going around in circles for all I can see. You can't see a thing here! I have examined the film in the Archives many times. This proves nothing"

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5316[/ATTACH]
You have nothing!

[C. Savastano]

I agree that a thorough understanding of the subject is important. I do not seek to defend the other side, but to point out that reasonable doubt as a legal standards carry more weight than endless points about the minutiae of the case. I understand that some know more than I or anyone commenting, however the average person does not. The average person can easily get lost in the many presented intricacies that will be easily understood here. Honestly I'm wondering, what is the gist of you criticism? I know that the DVP's of the world may be lost to reason and evidence, but not all critics are so far gone. Many are simply misinformed, and some can be swayed, I speak from personal experience. This does not mean all, or a majority will be, but some shall if we approach them reasonably, without some self assured bias. Your view of the psychology of the critic is based on your personal experience as is mine. As I said before its sounds more like your trying to convince me of your feelings than facts. Your free to believe whatever you wish, however so am I, and I find evidence not bias to be more enduring. Critics are not always our enemies, sometimes they can be reasoned with and see the truth. I would assume many of our understandings and view have changed over time with new information, all people are capable of such actions, not just the ones we agree with.