Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Pentagon video
Seamus Coogan Wrote:
Gary Severson Wrote:Magda, you say cool it and then take Charles' side by pouring more fuel on the fire by suggesting I don't know what there is to be pissed off about. And I was asking what the govt. did to Charles personally not about the things you list that effect everyone.

Hey Gary, I think CD was a little quick with the lash myself concerning your comments vis a vis the Pentagon (I relate to that I am much the same animal lol) but I do see his James and Magdas point on this issue. Theres a ton to get angry about as Magda says and look she's an Aussie and I'm a Kiwi. Political assassinations and dodgy intelligence antics have massive repercussions the world over.

Trust me I've been on the recieving end of CD's wrath and some of the time I've deserved it lol (CD will say 'all' but hey this is his show and I won't push the envelope). There's actually a lot of humour in CD's comments and he loves picking a scrap. If you confront CD in a mood like this with good humour and an admission you respect his opinion, he'll respect yours. In fact he respects mine so much he totally ignores most of my posts and barely replies to my emails ROFL. In fact to get attention from him I may do something naughty like pick a fight with Dawn again............
I've been having a quiet chuckle since you posted this Seamus :pointlaugh:
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.

Here is the essence of my disagreement with you Charles. I'm sure you have an elegant rebuttal for this.

Past Imperfect:

The Assassination as a Historical Question

Ulric Shannon EDITORS NOTE: This is a paper presented at the First Research Conference of the Fourth Decade, Fredonia, New York, July 19-21, 1996. Shannon's assessment of some issues may have changed since he wrote this paper, but his assessment of the problems of the "research community" has not. Posted with the permission of Ulric Shannon.
Does a perverse law operate whereby those events that are most important are hardest to understand because they attract the greatest attention from mythmakers and charlatans?
----Holger Herwig, Patriotic Self-Censorship
in Germany After the Great War, 1987.
A noteworthy development has taken place the last few years in scholarly literature devoted to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This is the increasing frequency of journal articles and panel discussions questioning the purpose, methods and ultimate aims of what is loosely referred-to as the research community, as we enter the fourth decade of an enquiry with no end in sight.
This is a relatively new phenomenon in our field of interest, one likely occasioned by a new-found image consciousness brought about by the Oliver Stone film and regular flurries of media attention at "anniversary time." A more important contributing factor, however, may be the increasing realization that the research community is in need of a major reappraisal of itself; this sentiment is manifest in the growing exasperation of many of my colleagues who feel that the research community's agenda is being set by its least knowledgeable and least objective members.
The purpose of my presentation is to critically evaluate the aims of the research community, as well as its methods; but before I do, two caveats need to be emphasized. First, I should point out that my criticism is meant to be constructive, and that I don't exempt myself from any of it; I've had the painful experience of re-reading Third Decade articles I wrote three or four years ago, and literally cringing. Did I really say that? What was I thinking?
Second, it should be noted that my criticism of the research community's methods is nothing new; Dennis Ford, James Folliard, Tom Filsinger and others have written very cogent essays describing various pathologies in the work of the community: poor reasoning, narrow-mindedness, biases and the like.(1) Since Shannon wrote this essay, the "Zapruder film alteration" theory has prospered among conspiracists, in spite of the wacky nature of the "logic" that supports the claim. Clint Bradford has an excellent web page outlining the evidence on this issue.
By far the most insidious fixation on the possibility of a cover-up is the one being engaged in these days by some members of the research community who believe that the entire body of evidence is suspect. I refer specifically to those who are endeavouring, with very little success, to prove the Zapruder film was altered.(17) It seems clear to me that these people are making these arguments for no other reason than that the film conflicts with their own pet theories about the location of the wounds or the number of shots. I had planned to say much more about this, but since Daryll Weatherly has a presention on this topic planned for Sunday, I'll let him address this issue.
But the dim view some researchers take of the evidence in this case has been extended, in recent years, to all of the basic tools of the historian. Jim Marrs states that more than five witnesses "have stated that their testimony as presented by the Commission [in its transcripts] did not accurately reflect what they said."(18) For this reason, he advises his readers not to trust the basic evidence and testimony. For his part, Charles Drago told participants at the Third Decade conference in Providence, three summers ago, that the research community shouldn't waste its time poring over the newly-released files in Washington. Why? Well, if we don't find a smoking gun but reiterate our belief in conspiracy anyway, he writes, "this will allow them once again to paint a group portrait of us as impossible-to satisfy conspiracy 'buffs' out on the lunatic fringe."(19)
Now think about for a second. For decades, we beat the drum about full disclosure: the files won't be released until 2039! What in God's name has happened to democracy!
And when the government finally relents--under pressure from a movie,of all things--we immediately denounce the newly released files as an even more insidious coverup than earlier non-disclosure. A neutral observer might say that we've loaded the dice: we treat evidence of conspiracy as such; we treat the absence of evidence of conspiracy as proof of a cover-up;and then we infer a conspiracy from this coverup. This is psychotic. If the body of evidence has systematically been altered, why does it seem to point so consistently in the direction of conspiracy, to the point where true believers in Oswald's sole guilt are treated like disciples of the flat-earth society? For example, why would the Warren Commission alter Jean Hill's testimony (as she claims it did) but leave in her description of four to six shots, some from the knoll? And why does her "altered" testimony match point for point her description of the assassination to radio reporters some twenty minutes after the shooting? (Well, maybe that tape has been doctored, too.)(20)
This tendency to view more and more of the available evidence as suspect has devastating implications for us. If none of the evidence is reliable, then the truth is no longer knowable; it becomes something you attain through intuition alone. Dennis Ford has addressed this problem much more eloquently than I can, and I'll quote from him:
I know of no other field in which opinion leaders happily argue their cause out of existence. It's as if some of the[m forget] that no theories are possible without an evidentiary base. There's no way to create a theory without such a base....the only evidence left for consideration is eyewitness testimony and that has been shown in decades of experimental study to be an exceedingly shaky base on which to build cathedrals of speculation. Turning from empirical researchers into metaphysicians, whose theories need no support and can't have support, these assassinologists have unwittingly closed their version of the case.(21)
VERY interesting, Gary.

Did you just today find that article, or did you have it in your quiver ready to be shot?

If then-young Ulrich thought then-young Charles to be "psychotic," so be it. I'm certain that both of them have matured as thinkers and as warriors -- for the truth and for justice -- over the intervening years.

Ulrich wrote, "This tendency to view more and more of the available evidence as suspect has devastating implications for us." I would respond that his failure to understand "evidence" in all its manifestations in deep political analyses -- or at least his failure to indicate that he understands how evidence is misunderstood, distorted and/or manufactured in our world -- renders his judgment fatally flawed.

You cannot escape the fact that you presented a deep political analysis of the Pentagon story that is so uninformed, immature, and simple-minded that it begged for the sternest rebuttal.


Arguments from authority don't cut it.

Back to your hasty posting -- for which I sincerely thank you -- of the Ulrich article. Was it the result of a hasty GOOGLE search? Have you been my secret fan all these years and so collected all references to me?

Or is there -- cue the spooky lights and music -- an alternate explanation?
No Charles I am not a disinfo. asset. I grew up with those types in my Grand Forks, N.Dak. neighborhood which had a nuke base and a university. I was privy to their deep political activity. At various times my next door neighbors were CIA assets or agents and sometimes IBM launch officers & B-52 pilots who would discuss their bomb runs to Vietnam. I had professors that were offered intell. positions, some bought others didn't. I googled you today because I wasn't aware of you although I had probably seen your name in relation to GME before I saw the new edition of GME's book.

Again your dismissal of JJ & T. Carter's experience sure looks like the phenomena mentioned in Ulrich's "young" art.
Gary Severson Wrote:Again your dismissal of JJ & T. Carter's experience sure looks like the phenomena mentioned in Ulrich's "young" art.

And your embrace of it sure looks like naive, ego-driven nonsense -- if not enemy action.

You offer no defense of said embrace other than reiteration and ad hominems. I shall leave it to my trusted comrades to judge the Judge story and your impassioned advocacy for it for themselves.

And now I wash my hands of you as I remind you that ego is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
Yes again, more disrespect, your most effective weapon.
That which is invited shows up at the door.
This seems like deep politics to me.

October 23, 2002
John Judge publishes Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon, which warned that
"There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings."
Gary Severson Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:FWIW I think JJ used to spend a lot of time there over the years since his mum worked there and may be known to people there by sight. Doubt if she was still working then though.

I would surmise they got access because as an AA employee T. Carter was there to help serve rescue workers that AA felt they wanted to do whatever they could for. Even though Judge had previous access to the Pentagon because his mother worked as an admin. asst. for the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that alone you wouldn't think would have created access IF she was retired by 01.

That's incorrect, Gary.

JJ's mom, Marjorie Alice Coolidge Judge, worked at the Pentagon from 1943 to 1973. She retired a GS-13 as one of the highest paid females in the Pentagon. She worked for the Deputy Chief of Staff for PERSONNEL as a man-power analyst. Her job was to predict 5 years into the future and to calculate man power numbers in order to meet the needs of various call ups for the draft, determine expected attrition numbers, etc.


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
My respect for Charles work and thinking is growing daily. Although we hit heads hard at first, I see now that we are very similar in many ways. All are suspect until none are left to suspect. That's the nature of this endeavor and, unpleasant as it is, we can either accept it or bury our collective mind in the quick sand of "safer" (more comforting) delusions.

If the rules of logic and critical thinking are dismissed by one who is otherwise intelligent enough to appreciate their value, that person's motive comes into question quite properly as it should. Such inquiry is not ad hominem as it is based upon repeated indiscretions so that a pattern of "dis or mis" information tactics emerge as thinly disguised agendas. Where there appears to be no alternate explanation for the behavior, one is proper to ask "Why?" in order to seek resolution. It is not possible to reach the truth while disregarding the tools that assist us in getting to it. Logic and critical thinking are those tools. When one denies committing a fallacy after it has been brought to their attention--even when the evidence is overwhelming that such a fallacy was committed--and then they proceed to offer compound fallacies to explain away the initial perfidy...something is wrong. Very wrong. In EVERY case. PERIOD. It is inescapable.

Charles' logic has been impeccable in this thread. Gary, you have invited rebuke so many times on so many counts that it has become entertaining to watch you paint the bull's eye on yourself!

PS: What a nice compliment Gary gave to DPF by comparing it to JFKresearch Forum! I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, but then again, I'm biased.


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon: The Final Story About the Attack on the Pentagon Lauren Johnson 1 676 04-10-2020, 03:58 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Making things appear [that are not there] and disappear [that are] on video in real-time! Peter Lemkin 1 3,575 28-02-2018, 08:40 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  previously Unseen Photo's of the Pentagon 9/11 David Guyatt 10 16,430 02-04-2017, 09:26 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  9/11 - The Toronto Hearings (Laurie Manwell) (video: 1:02:58) Ed Jewett 6 4,327 23-09-2011, 04:33 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  FBI Pentagon 9/11 Attack Investigation Photos Ed Jewett 1 2,420 20-09-2011, 08:41 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Paul Craig Roberts on the 9/11 10th Anniversary - Video Peter Lemkin 0 5,551 07-09-2011, 09:43 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Fireman's video Bernice Moore 0 1,782 03-09-2011, 03:52 AM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  The 9/11 TV News Archive: 3,000 Hours of Video News Coverage of 2001 Attacks Peter Lemkin 0 4,840 25-08-2011, 06:25 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  In depth interview with Craig Ranke regarding Pentagon Carsten Wiethoff 0 2,282 04-06-2010, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Carsten Wiethoff
  Good 12 Part Video Lecture On 911 Nanothermite! Peter Lemkin 4 2,718 20-08-2009, 05:49 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)