Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
23-10-2012, 07:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-10-2012, 08:10 PM by Albert Doyle.)
David Josephs Wrote:Quote:You know, there's no documentation for what was written in The Unspeakable and Douglass got it all wrong.
'Nuf said Albert.... if you're in a position to claim Unspeakable is wrong... you simply don't GET it and my time is being wated in discussion with you.
"You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know....."
Thank you for your posts... they make very clear where you stand and what you feel is adequate as supporting documentation for a conclusion...
Finally, LEARN how to use the forum... really not that hard... if you can't take the time to investigate how to work this simple tool
what does that say about how far you WONT GO in investigating your posted conclusions - which is a bit more complicated than changing font color.
Don't be offended if I ignore this thread and your posts on this subject.... posting with you and Mark is like discussing Oswald's innocence with Bugliosi and Posner...
Bad assumptions leading to worse conclusions.... and that doe-eyed stare of, "huh?, what do you mean my evidence is pathetically lacking? it's obvious that Oswald did it alone...."
yes Albert... you are painfully obvious.
A fool who is so bent on deception that he fails to understand sarcasm or the context in which it is written.
In case you need it explained to you, what I was saying is YOUR arguments are in extreme contrast and contradiction to what Douglass was showing in his landmark book The Unspeakable. The fact you don't understand that says a lot about your input here.
Again, if you need this spelled-out you are offering arguments that casually ignore how Kennedy's restriction on Israeli nuclear weapon development was right in line with everything Douglass showed him to be doing in The Unspeakable.
David, you're not fooling anyone with this stuff and your aggressive attempt to seize authority here is not concealing the fact you are flagrantly ignoring the main points and also dishonestly failing to admit when you are wrong.
This debate is just David's attempt to reduce this to the pissing contest material he tries to shift the issues to. In the end he hasn't honestly answered the operative points like the bricking-over of the elevator at Dimona.
In light of this your patronizing "teaching" above is laughable considering how badly you are losing this debate and how foolish a gaffe your accusing me of claiming Unspeakable was wrong is. Like Mark said, you are looking more and more ridiculous.
To the contrary, what I am clearly saying above is that Unspeakable is profoundly right. And because it is therefore your casual denial of Kennedy's restriction of Israeli nuclear weapons is in unjustifiable contrast to it. Indeed The Unspeakable backs what Piper is saying. Your material runs counter to it. So, really, the person who is saying Douglass is wrong is YOU!
Ask David to honestly answer, if Kennedy was seeking a nuclear ban treaty with the Soviets at American University, does he think it would make it more likely or less likely that he would extend that to include the Israelis?
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Albert Doyle Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Quote:You know, there's no documentation for what was written in The Unspeakable and Douglass got it all wrong.
'Nuf said Albert.... if you're in a position to claim Unspeakable is wrong... you simply don't GET it and my time is being wated in discussion with you.
"You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know....."
Thank you for your posts... they make very clear where you stand and what you feel is adequate as supporting documentation for a conclusion...
Finally, LEARN how to use the forum... really not that hard... if you can't take the time to investigate how to work this simple tool
what does that say about how far you WONT GO in investigating your posted conclusions - which is a bit more complicated than changing font color.
Don't be offended if I ignore this thread and your posts on this subject.... posting with you and Mark is like discussing Oswald's innocence with Bugliosi and Posner...
Bad assumptions leading to worse conclusions.... and that doe-eyed stare of, "huh?, what do you mean my evidence is pathetically lacking? it's obvious that Oswald did it alone...."
yes Albert... you are painfully obvious.
A fool who is so bent on deception that he fails to understand sarcasm or the context in which it is written.
In case you need it explained to you, what I was saying is YOUR arguments are in extreme contrast and contradiction to what Douglass was showing in his landmark book The Unspeakable. The fact you don't understand that says a lot about your input here.
Again, if you need this spelled-out you are offering arguments that casually ignore how Kennedy's restriction on Israeli nuclear weapon development was right in line with everything Douglass showed him to be doing in The Unspeakable.
David, you're not fooling anyone with this stuff and your aggressive attempt to seize authority here is not concealing the fact you are flagrantly ignoring the main points and also dishonestly failing to admit when you are wrong.
This debate is just David's attempt to reduce this to the pissing contest material he tries to shift the issues to. In the end he hasn't honestly answered the operative points like the bricking-over of the elevator at Dimona.
In light of this your patronizing "teaching" above is laughable considering how badly you are losing this debate and how foolish a gaffe your accusing me of claiming Unspeakable was wrong is. Like Mark said, you are looking more and more ridiculous.
To the contrary, what I am clearly saying above is that Unspeakable is profoundly right. And because it is therefore your casual denial of Kennedy's restriction of Israeli nuclear weapons is in unjustifiable contrast to it. Indeed The Unspeakable backs what Piper is saying. Your material runs counter to it. So, really, the person who is saying Douglass is wrong is YOU!
:lol:
Thanks Albert... the years at the DVP/McAdams' school of ad hominem have not been wasted on you...
I've lost and you've won. Cause of course THAT'S what we're all all here trying to do here... WIN...
And now you're claiming that Unspeakable BACKS Piper...
Here are two reviews - please copy and paste ANY REVIEW FROM ANYONE who can point to Unspeakable and this "BACKING" you talk of..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-and-the...ters/16273
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/jfk_unspeakable.html
I've read the book twice and have no idea what you are talking about....
Cite a page number - I'd be happy to look it up.
Speaking of WINNING....
Where are all the posts congratulating your efforts and aknowledging your contributions in support of Piper's book...
Does ANYONE HERE believe you've "WON" besides Mark??
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
David Josephs Wrote::lol:
Thanks Albert... the years at the DVP/McAdams' school of ad hominem have not been wasted on you...
I've lost and you've won. Cause of course THAT'S what we're all all here trying to do here... WIN...
And now you're claiming that Unspeakable BACKS Piper...
Here are two reviews - please copy and paste ANY REVIEW FROM ANYONE who can point to Unspeakable and this "BACKING" you talk of..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-and-the...ters/16273
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/jfk_unspeakable.html
I've read the book twice and have no idea what you are talking about....
Cite a page number - I'd be happy to look it up.
Speaking of WINNING....
Where are all the posts congratulating your efforts and aknowledging your contributions in support of Piper's book...
Does ANYONE HERE believe you've "WON" besides Mark??
I appreciate your admission that you were foolishly wrong in accusing me of saying Douglass was wrong. Your forthrightness goes a long way in showing your character and the honesty and integrity of your arguments.
Quick question David - I must have missed your reply as to why exactly the Israelis bricked-over the elevator at Dimona when Kennedy's inspectors visited?
You're flagrantly dodging David. (Which is why you've lost this debate)
I'd also like an honest and direct answer whether Kennedy's call for a nuclear ban treaty at American University in June 1963 would have made Israel's inclusion in this more or less likely?
Why do you keep running from this?
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Albert Doyle Wrote:David Josephs Wrote::lol:
Thanks Albert... the years at the DVP/McAdams' school of ad hominem have not been wasted on you...
I've lost and you've won. Cause of course THAT'S what we're all all here trying to do here... WIN...
And now you're claiming that Unspeakable BACKS Piper...
Here are two reviews - please copy and paste ANY REVIEW FROM ANYONE who can point to Unspeakable and this "BACKING" you talk of..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-and-the...ters/16273
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/jfk_unspeakable.html
I've read the book twice and have no idea what you are talking about....
Cite a page number - I'd be happy to look it up.
Speaking of WINNING....
Where are all the posts congratulating your efforts and aknowledging your contributions in support of Piper's book...
Does ANYONE HERE believe you've "WON" besides Mark??
I appreciate your admission that you were foolishly wrong in accusing me of saying Douglass was wrong. Your forthrightness goes a long way in showing your character and the honesty and integrity of your arguments.
Quick question David - I must have missed your reply as to why exactly the Israelis bricked-over the elevator at Dimona when Kennedy's inspectors visited?
You're flagrantly dodging David. (Which is why you've lost this debate)
Oh, any time - believe whatever it is you need to Albert... speaking of sarcasm missed... oy!
I respect a great number of the posters and researchers on this forum and from EF and Lancer before that...
Other than "anti-semitism" what are your reasons for not a single one of them agreeing with your and by deafualt Piper's assessment of the situation?
or at least giving it the least bit of credibility?
Jealousy maybe ?? 
Why the word "Israel" does not appear in a single review of Douglass' book - if this was such a central theme and the KEY to his assassination - how could they miss it so badly?
Albert... if claiming "victory" is the only way you can move forward with your life, claim it.
Anyone reading the thread and following the links and sources will find out for themselves.
I found Piper's book pporly constructed and filled with speculation and "would have's" and "could have's"... just like your posts.
Given that you've "solved" the case... is your purpose here only to "spread the word"... or put Piper's and your conclusion to the test of peer review?
The first requires zealous faith in the unproveable, while the latter has all the rest of us rolling our eyes...
Does ANYONE HERE agree with Piper's assessment?
{crickets chirping} :zzzz:
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Why my good man David. You haven't answered the questions.
1) Why did the Israelis brick-over the elevator at Dimona for Kennedy's inspectors?
2) Would Kennedy's bold call for a nuclear ban treaty at American University in June 1963 make it more likely or less likely that Israel would be included? Would it be likely that JFK's being in a tense negotiation with Ben-Gurion over Israel's attempt to develop nuclear weapons at the time was not a source of Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown? Or that it wasn't caused by Kennedy introducing this edict? Or even better, that Ben-Gurion's breakdown itself was caused by his being approached to join-in on the removal of Kennedy? That Kennedy would make the unprecedented step of calling for the cessation of further nuclear weapons and not include Israel with whom he was having a major conflict at the time over their nuclear weapons?
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Albert Doyle Wrote:Why my good man David. You haven't answered the questions.
1) Why did the Israelis brick-over the elevator at Dimona for Kennedy's inspectors?
2) Would Kennedy's bold call for a nuclear ban treaty at American University in June 1963 make it more likely or less likely that Israel would be included? Would it be likely that JFK's being in a tense negotiation with Ben-Gurion over Israel's attempt to develop nuclear weapons at the time was not a source of Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown? Or that it wasn't caused by Kennedy introducing this edict? Or even better, that Ben-Gurion's breakdown itself was caused by his being approached to join-in on the removal of Kennedy? That Kennedy would make the unprecedented step of calling for the cessation of further nuclear weapons and not include Israel with whom he was having a major conflict at the time over their nuclear weapons?
Amazingly perceptive of you Albert... you're right... I am ignoring your questions as they are, in YOUR mind, rhetorical and therefore not worth the time or effort.
How many "WOULD's" and "COULD's" and "More likely" versus "less likely"'s can you throw into a statement and keep expecting it to be considered a supported conclusion??
You sound like a WCR lawyer asking questions...
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I
shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an
opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm.
copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of
approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to
250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of
declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper
right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm.
from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right
mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones,
traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior
portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the
pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising
the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right
side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea
causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you
have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be
true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be
consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?
So, would a wound EXITING THE THROAT be considered an EXIT WOUND - under THOSE circumstances?
:thumbsup:
Your incredulous and condescending tone for Q2 above is indicative of your entire presentation on this thread.... It's cute and all, to speculate as you are in doing that question...
but ASKING the question does not qualify the answer.... that's called tautology
Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct
The FACT of the matter is JFK had little if any effect on developing Israel's Dimona reactor because Israel felt that their needs were more important than the needs of the world/region/allies... THAT is plain to see from what has been posted...
By June of 1963 Dimona was in full operation - JFK was not having the least bit of an effect on the producing of a nuclear weapon all the while BG is lying to its closest ally and friend IN THE WORLD...
but that charade could not be why BG breaks down... or the idea that if it became known to the US, the US would expose the lie and create all sorts of havoc in the middle east by the hands of BG, not JFK.
"The Dimona reactor became active some time between 1962 and 1964, and with the plutonium produced there the Israel Defense Forces most probably had their first nuclear weapons ready before the Six-Day War. When the United States intelligence community discovered the purpose of the site in the early 1960s, the U.S. government demanded that Israel agree to international inspections. Israel agreed, but on the condition that U.S., rather than International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors be used, and that Israel would receive advance notice of all inspections. Israel is one of only three nations thought to possess nuclear weapons never to have signed the NPT ( others are India and Pakistan )."
I have to thank you though for exposing this joke for further scrutiny... I've known the players and knew their stories for many years and had never heard how Sy Hersh found out what no other researcher or historian or close Kennedy advisor/author found out about Israel.... and Sy, being such a credible source (sarcasm alert !!!) how can we do anything but accept his being privy to something no one on the planet can coroborrate... or has ever mentioned...
By now Albert...
you can have the final word as I'll be disconnecting from this travesty of research
and DVP/VB-like responses, "How could you be so stoopid as to NOT understand and accept this as the truth.... nothing else makes sense and you're a maroon for even trying"
Mark Stapleton
Unregistered
David Josephs Wrote:Amazingly perceptive of you Albert... you're right... I am ignoring your questions as they are, in YOUR mind, rhetorical and therefore not worth the time or effort.
If his response to easy questions is this childish, how badly would he go responding to a difficult question?
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
David. PLEASE stop replying to these two. NOone is reading it but the three of you and it is beginning to look like the Ed Forum.
You keep saying you are done then you come back. Then they do in color codes and other bs. We know what they believe.
Most of us disagree. It's like trying to argue with a LN. A losing battle.
My two cents.
Dawn
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Unfortunately Dawn is offering her usual two cents in a subject that probably requires a lot more pocket change than she inputted. Geesh, considering the information, I'm not sure that "No one is reading it and most disagree"...as well as "It is beginning to look like the Education Forum" is credible vs the credibility of the information itself. With all due respect I ask anyone to view Dawn's total input in this subject vs those who defend it. Honestly, I'd like to see where this subject had been intellectually defeated to the point where it can be dismissed by such quick means. if anything, David's input strengthens its credibility.
If you look at the offerings of both sides, gee, I'm kind of confused where exactly those who dislike this debate feel they have a right to condemn it from a position of authority or credibility vs the content of the posts? It's also nice to know that you are now referred to as "these two" lol. If I may be so bold I think Dawn stepped-in because David was losing the argument so pathetically.
If we were to refer to a Deep Political perspective and analyze the actual subject matter and information in Piper's material I'm afraid it would win any contest over its merit. Especially when the challenge is presented in such a limited form as it is above. If we called upon the dictates of Deep Political analysis and inputted Piper's information we would see it would pass muster as far as deep political validity. And because of this I protest that efforts to censor discussion of the subject matter on such a demeaning and self-contradictory political basis is a violation of deep political practice itself. Anyone with a respectful appreciation of Deep Political Science would realize that Piper's information has serious deep political value and may very well represent some of the deepest deep political information associated with the Assassination. To call for its censorship in such a shallow manner is a gross violation of deep political practices and is what should be shunned here and not those who seek to pursue it.
One the worse things you can do in this business is approach it as if you yourself embodied some sort of precedent or judicial license where you or your person represented an automatic opinion that needed no scrutiny or justification. That in itself is a violation of the carefully designed principles of democracy. The founding fathers designed a check and balance system that made each and every person, no matter how powerful or popularly entrenched, earn their credibility by having to justify, by a universal standard of truth, that which they practiced or believed. No person or cause could come in and automatically dictate the validity or acceptability of anything without having to pass this standard. This would be borne out by the protection of free speech so persons who fought for politically unpopular truths would have a safe democratic playing field on which to do that.
I'm afraid the problem here is that, by the material itself, it is more than light travesty to suggest that Mark or I represent the "LN" side. David makes that jump when he compares me to Belin. Belin was on the Lone Nut side. Since Mark and myself are arguing evidence that clearly constitutes the conspiracy side, and very definitely a side that Belin himself, not to mention his personal biases, would have fought bitterly against, just as Dawn and David do, it is kind of a ridiculous flip to pose us on the Lone Nut/Belin side while posing themselves on the conspiracy-exposing side. Any objective view would see automatically how wrong a comparison that is and how they themselves are the ones practicing the LN intolerance and methods (censorship and intimidation being one of their worst methods). And how that contradiction serves as proof of the validity of Piper's material through its ability to force it.
No, this subject is one that has proven to be very risky for those who defend it. I dare suggest that some people who don't like it are doing so because of their awareness that their personal careers could be crushed by those who guard the politic. Any objective view of the actual material itself would show that there is nothing outrageous or uncredible about it. It's just politically unpopular. So, in my opinion, the undeserved reaction towards it speaks louder than words and exposes why the material is credible, albeit in an indirect way. I'm disappointed that any group that claims to honor a deep political perspective as its main focus would treat this obviously credible material with such self-indicting scorn. I would also suggest that the reluctance to even discuss that material proves its validity. We're not talking mobile forgery labs here. We're talking proven main credible members of the assassination cabal, their loyalties, and agendas. There's real and credible evidence in Piper's material that deserves more than these blunt dismissals as do those deep political followers who defend it. I'm afraid Dawn needs to expand her deep political understanding and realize that majorities don't always possess the credible viewpoint. Nor is such an outcome necessarily a loss for those who defend it. I myself am quite happy with this debate because we have won this in spades as is evidenced by the input and behavior of the opposition. You don't always need agreement to win.
There are some things that can't be ignored with silence and substance-devoid dismissal. This is one of them I'm afraid.
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2012
Dawn Meredith Wrote:David. PLEASE stop replying to these two. NOone is reading it but the three of you and it is beginning to look like the Ed Forum.
You keep saying you are done then you come back. Then they do in color codes and other bs. We know what they believe.
Most of us disagree. It's like trying to argue with a LN. A losing battle.
My two cents.
Dawn
Dawn...
I still find the subject very intriguing... the more I look, the more I find Piper wrong... and felt there should be SOME counterbalance to Mark and Albert... at least links to information that makes sense and accurately reflects the time... as opposed to Sy Hersh's version.
I've done enough then... and will focus on other areas of interest.
Cheers
DJ
|
