Sincere apologies to Allan Eaglesham

[Myra Bronstein]

Most "attacks" are really some form of "counter attack".

Most counter attacks are counter productive in the long run.

When provocateurs ply their trade, their lies cannot be allowed to stand,
lest silence may be interpreted as compliance.

If you want to post a nasty counter attack, count slowly to ten,
then issue a POLITE counter attack. Sometimes it is difficult to
be civil to the uncivilized.

Jack

Jack,

Can we please clarify?

When you speak of provocateurs are you referring to anyone specific?

Thanks,

Myra

PROVOCATEURS are present on forums only to PROVOKE...not discuss
ideas or information.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Jack

That's not really an answer Jack.
You chose this thread for a post about provocateurs.
Who were you referring to?

Myra

[James H. Fetzer]

Myra,

If I understand your attitude, you prefer a position (like Eaglesham's on the Dealey Plaza man) because he states it politely (even though it has been refuted by the evidence) over a position (like mine on the Dealey Plaza man) because it is stated forcefully (even though it is supported by the evidence)!

I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning and did not expect to encounter juvenile attitudes such as you are expressing here. We are not playing parlor games and I cannot abide those who obfuscate the evidence about the death of our 35th president. Such an attitude is absurd.

Jim

[Magda Hassan]

It doesn't have to be an either or situation Jim. It can be logic and manners. Please deal the issues/evidence and not the person.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

If I understand your attitude, you prefer a position (like Eaglesham's on the Dealey Plaza man) because he states it politely (even though it has been refuted by the evidence) over a position (like mine on the Dealey Plaza man) because it is stated forcefully (even though it is supported by the evidence)!

I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning and did not expect to encounter juvenile attitudes such as you are expressing here. We are not playing parlor games and I cannot abide those who obfuscate the evidence about the death of our 35th president. Such an attitude is absurd.

Jim

Jim,

I'll clarify DPF policy for you.

We do not tolerating name-calling and bullying regardless of whether or not the members views coincide with ours. Anyone who is an expert in logic and critical thinking should be able to debate evidence without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Regards,

Myra

[James H. Fetzer]

I was very patient with Eaglesham when this exchange began. I rebutted his every move. Yet he disregarded response after response. He has ignored the evidence from scratch. You may regard this a commendable, but I do not. I cannot imagine why you would not take to task--ever so politely, as you may--someone who is obfuscating and obscuring obvious evidence. My regard for JFK is such that I simply cannot abide those who continue to betray the search for truth. You apparently have a more tolerant attitude toward those who promote false beliefs about the assassination than do I. Why did you not observe that he was wrong? I was very patient in the beginning. Then it became obvious that he wasn't going to budge. That is inexcusable and I am not going to view it kindly. This is a moral issue, not a question of logic. Anyone can assess the weight of the evidence. Not anyone is going to continue to promote rubbish to deceive the public about such things.

[Magda Hassan]

I was very patient with Eaglesham when this exchange began. I rebutted his every move. Yet he disregarded response after response. He has ignored the evidence from scratch. You may regard this a commendable, but I do not. I cannot imagine why you would not take to task--ever so politely, as you may--someone who is obfuscating and obscuring obvious evidence. My regard for JFK is such that I simply cannot abide those who continue to betray the search for truth. You apparently have a more tolerant attitude toward those who promote false beliefs about the assassination than do I. Why did you not observe that he was wrong? I was very patient in the beginning. Then it became obvious that he wasn't going to budge. That is inexcusable and I am not going to view it kindly. This is a moral issue, not a question of logic. Anyone can assess the weight of the evidence. Not anyone is going to continue to promote rubbish to deceive the public about such things.

Well, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Speaking for myself, I don't feel that I am always in a position to know or make judgments on others and if they are or not ignoring or obfuscating the evidence. People certainly can have their blind spots. I don't particularly have a high regard for JFK as a man. He was unfaithful in his marriage, responsible for the deaths of many through his policies and had other serious short comings as a man and politician but I recognise he was almost a saint compared to some others around him and I also think he developed and grew as a person over his time in office. We never got to see what he could have done. Certainly, no human ever deserves to be murdered. It is not so much my regard for JFK but my regard for justice and the democratic choice of the US people (and all people everywhere) that I am involved here. You will certainly find many perhaps most all here who hold JFK in the same high esteem as yourself and we all seek the truth. But with JFK and many other political assassinations we already know the truth. The fact that one researcher sees a resemblance in one photo while another does not or sees another, ultimately, we may as well be debating how many angels can fit on the top of a pin. One photo in all the overwhelming other body of evidence is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. That is a matter of logic. To accuse another researcher and member of 'promoting false beliefs' or to be one of 'those who continue to betray the search for truth' is not helpful in any way in reaching that truth. So, there is no agreement on this photo. In every other way you are as one. You divide your side. Make enemies of friends. There are certainly enemies but not here. I know it can be very frustrating to try and convince some of something that seems or is bleeding obvious to yourself and yet they remain blind to it. Attacking the man will not make him 'see' or even want to see your point. I am no photo expert and am in no position to pass judgment on this photo one way or the other. The only thing I commend is Allen's restraint under provocation and his generosity in sharing his work in the first place. Your passion for the truth is, well, passionate. Please don't let that passion blind you to other moral issues involved here. That Allan does not agree with you on this one photo does not make him an enemy. Nor yourself. Deal with the evidence. Put your case. As forcefully as you wish. We're up for robust debate of the evidence. But this can all be done with out resorting to ad homs. It is not a matter of promoting rubbish. We are trying to create a place all these things can be discussed in an environment which is free from the LNer idiocy. Put your best evidence forward. If others don't do the same deal with their evidence not them. We don't favor researchers only the evidence.

[David Guyatt]

Besides which, it is a key and fundamental rule of this forum to ensure members behave in a civilized manner, expressly to avoid flame wars that have brought other forums to their knees. This rule is always enforced for obvious reasons -- although we are content to make the case for it gently at the outset - also for obvious reasons.

In the final analysis, if an argument cannot be made without the (admittedly satisfying) need to resort to name calling etc., then the strength of the argument has already been diminished. Having said that, some people never listen to facts no matter how powerful they are, whereas others care not to listen to them because it is the cut and thrust of the ensuing fisticuffs they cherish.

Logic and critical thinking certainly has its place but psychology and human nature are an old married couple who've seen it all.

[David Guyatt]

Having been absent for a while, my curiosity was piqued by Myra's post and I ended up reading the entire "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" thread. Time well spent as it turns out too. I am very impressed.

Have to say that, as a relative JFK Assassination layman and dealing strictly with what I have come to regard as necessary 'protocols' (for want of a better word) of civilised productive debate, Alan has a point. The tone of some of Jim Fetzer's posts were verging on the gratuitously nasty.

Having said that, I have also had a major chunter around JF's blog and am double impressed. His interview with Rory Ridley-Duff is a must-read for anyone seeking to dig deep into the London Bombings for example and, on the strength of it - together with his 911 position naturally - it's yet another addition to my RSS feed reader.

I'm just frustrated how often these sorts of ill-natured spats seem to occur between people who, so far as I can judge, are genuine in their pursuit of the realities behind the perpetually shifting facades of power. And yes, I think I'm as attuned as the next guy to the possibilities of trojans, false-trail layers, gatekeepers and the rest.

From where I stand it seems to me that everyone - bar none - has their blind spots (for want of a better word again) - I know I have. To the point I often have to scrap everything I've written by way of a reply to this or that because, deep down I know it will be counter-productive to my only real goal - which is to UNDERSTAND what happened rather than to defend this or that position I have tentatively (or not so tentatively) arrived at. Or, as an Old Royal Navy poem has it "They prosper who burn in the morning the letters thay wrote overnight"

The two recently past Paul Rigby spats spring to mind here.

I've also had a chunter around Alan's site and similarly, he clearly knows a thing or two about his subject.

IOW - Alan Eaglesham and Jim Fetzer are BOTH potential major assets to this site and I sincerely hope they BOTH continue to provide us with their insights.

Hi Peter. I've also been absent since before the good cheer and much beer festivities began. It's good to see you back.

David

[Peter Presland]

Hi Peter. I've also been absent since before the good cheer and much beer festivities began. It's good to see you back.
David

Thanks David. Good to see you back too.

[James H. Fetzer]

Thanks to Peter, Magda, Myra (and no doubt others unnamed): I will try my best to do better in my tone and style. Thanks for being patient with me. Jim