On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:32:28 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 10:22:23 AM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > > > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > > > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > > > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > > > > opinion is not well received.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > > > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > > > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > > > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > > > > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > > > > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > > > how to bully dissenters.
> > >
> > > If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.
> >
> > Or if one did not realize that they had been trained to do so...
>
> You flatter yourself that you are clever enough to see through such things.
It's not a matter of 'seeing through such things'. It is a matter of looking at all information objectively. Anyone can do that.
>That alone should tell you something.
Tell me what? That I have a different opinion than you do?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He allows his minions to
> > > > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > > > to live with that.
> > >
> > > Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> > > guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >One of your
> > > > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > > > about something.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > > > in place.
> > >
> > > I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> > > challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> > > blanks.
> >
> > This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.
>
> You seemed to be struggling, thought you could use the help.
How can anyone *believe* the "WC conclusions* when even their star witness, Marina Oswald, recanted after reading the 26 vols of H+E?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > > > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > > > about their position.
> > >
> > > Make one, I dare you.
> >
> > LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station
> > wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas.
>
> OJ was *never* seen with the knife he almost decapitated his wife with.
Your opinion. You are entitled. That OJ was guilty was not what the criminal trial found. Does that mean you are not in agreement with due process?
>
> > Based on the information
> > available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.
> >
> > Your turn.
>
> You mean I can`t connect Oswald`s rifle to Oswald`s work? On the day he
> happened to carry a long paper covered object to work, an act he denied?
No, an act Frazier denied by his statement about the size of the bag. The size of the paper bag was inconsistent with that of the M-C even broken down. So how did LHO get the M-C into the TSBD?
> You`ll offer a mix of denial and weak excuses, so I`ll save you from your
> turn.
>
I did not...
> And so you know, you didn`t offer a cogent argument, you offered
> hobbyist trading card number 3,792. Hobbyists have been churning these
> things out for decades trying to muster support for the terrible idea that
> Oswald was a patsy.
LHO SAID he was a patsy. Do you deny that?
>This is just one of the blanks I was referring to, the
> only thing you are establishing is your own desperation, nothing about
> what occurred.
>
>
> > > > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > > > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
> > >
> > > You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.
> >
> >
> > I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina,
> > their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E.
>
> What does that even mean?
Marina Oswald, was sequestered by the SS until after she gave her testimony to the WC. At that time, she said she thought Lee was guilty. Years later she read the 26 vol. H+E and changed her mind. Based on all the information available, she felt that he was innocent. She has maintained that position.
>
> > So, start from
> > scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.
>
> Yes, the hobbyist approach, throw out relevant information and then
> proceed.
I am including information that perhaps you were unaware of.
>
>
> > The
> > > real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> > > nowhere for them to go.
> >
> > The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is
> > called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of
> > a dead end.
>
> Thinking doesn`t occur in a vacuum, it never starts at zero. The Dallas
> police knew they had the right man day one, how could they not? How could
> anyone not?
I remember the hours after the assassination and the tumult over LHO. Everyone wanted an answer. Most everyone thought he was guilty, even if just from the raised-fist salute at the Texas Theater and the ever present smirk. But a lynchmob mentality was Un-American, or so it seemed at the time. He would go to trial and everything would be sorted out there.
But then he was shot before our eyes. LHO did not live to stand trial in a court of law. If he had, he would have been technically innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Unless he pled guilty, evidence from both sides would have been presented. Had that happened and he had been found guilty, I would not be having this conversation with you. I accept the verdict of Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing. I would have done the same with LHO. I ask questions about LHO because he was killed before trial.
>
>
> > >Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> > > and that is what keeps them from making progress.
> >
> > Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'
>
> And there is where you will stay until the end of your days. And that is
> what you want.
>
I want the whole truth. And I don't want anyone to do my thinking for me. I have to discover it for myself.
> > >
> > > > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
> > >
> > > The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> > > known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> > > a different cut off the same dead horse.
> >
> > That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.
>
> Not at all. We haven`t sat around trying to figure out how what is in
> evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent, that is game played solely by
> conspiracy hobbyists.
Not entirely accurate. There are WC defenders, such as Sandy M, who regularly make up conspiracy theories for the CTs and try to get them to answer to them. So that can complicate things.
>But you can`t put a compelling "Oswald was innocent"
> scenario on the table despite these efforts.
>
LHO was, by his own words, a traitor. He was a marked man when he returned to the US. His Marines discharge had been downgraded. He probably fired at Gen. Walker and moved to NOLA so the FBI couldn't find him.
I do not think LHO was an innocent. I don't see how he fired the shots with an old rifle he had not used since NOLA while doing so little damage to the limo. That speaks volumes to me. That is just my opinion.
Because LHO set of alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries during the last months of his life (USSR, US and Cuba) whatever he did or did not do, I do not think he acted alone, if for no other reason than that so many people let him slip through the cracks.
>
> > >
> > > > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > > > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > > > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > > > if at all, in the assassination.
> > >
> > > Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> > > but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
> > >
> >
> > I don't have to.
>
> Nor can you.
He was not found guilty in a court of law. You have your opinion and I have mine.
>
> > All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act
> > alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
> > -- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the
> > thesis of the WCR.
>
> No, these blanks have no impact at all on the WC`s findings.
The WC created a comfortable myth for the citizens at the time. It did not use due process. So you agree with their opinions. I am not persuaded.
>There are
> just noise produced by hobbyists when they are challenged to produce
> something tangible. "alarms" mean nothing.
>
The WCR was a pragmatic document for its time. The HSCA came to a different conclusion. Neither used due process, so it is all a matter of opinion. You are persuaded. I am not.
> > >
> > > > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
> > >
> > > You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
> >
> > That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They
> > just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for
> > themselves imo.
>
> I didn`t need the WC at all, I would have figured out the guilty party
> had that body never been formed. It`s a simple crime actually, as long as
> you don`t cling in desperation to the idea that Oswald was a patsy.
LHO said he thought he was used as a patsy because everyone knew he had defected to USSR.
Whether he was or not, he did make a good candidate for a fall guy imo.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/world$20gone$20mad$20/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4/-eobWoCbrv4J
Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 10:22:23 AM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > > > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > > > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > > > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > > > > opinion is not well received.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > > > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > > > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > > > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > > > > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > > > > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > > > how to bully dissenters.
> > >
> > > If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.
> >
> > Or if one did not realize that they had been trained to do so...
>
> You flatter yourself that you are clever enough to see through such things.
It's not a matter of 'seeing through such things'. It is a matter of looking at all information objectively. Anyone can do that.
>That alone should tell you something.
Tell me what? That I have a different opinion than you do?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He allows his minions to
> > > > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > > > to live with that.
> > >
> > > Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> > > guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >One of your
> > > > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > > > about something.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > > > in place.
> > >
> > > I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> > > challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> > > blanks.
> >
> > This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.
>
> You seemed to be struggling, thought you could use the help.
How can anyone *believe* the "WC conclusions* when even their star witness, Marina Oswald, recanted after reading the 26 vols of H+E?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > > > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > > > about their position.
> > >
> > > Make one, I dare you.
> >
> > LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station
> > wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas.
>
> OJ was *never* seen with the knife he almost decapitated his wife with.
Your opinion. You are entitled. That OJ was guilty was not what the criminal trial found. Does that mean you are not in agreement with due process?
>
> > Based on the information
> > available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.
> >
> > Your turn.
>
> You mean I can`t connect Oswald`s rifle to Oswald`s work? On the day he
> happened to carry a long paper covered object to work, an act he denied?
No, an act Frazier denied by his statement about the size of the bag. The size of the paper bag was inconsistent with that of the M-C even broken down. So how did LHO get the M-C into the TSBD?
> You`ll offer a mix of denial and weak excuses, so I`ll save you from your
> turn.
>
I did not...
> And so you know, you didn`t offer a cogent argument, you offered
> hobbyist trading card number 3,792. Hobbyists have been churning these
> things out for decades trying to muster support for the terrible idea that
> Oswald was a patsy.
LHO SAID he was a patsy. Do you deny that?
>This is just one of the blanks I was referring to, the
> only thing you are establishing is your own desperation, nothing about
> what occurred.
>
>
> > > > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > > > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
> > >
> > > You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.
> >
> >
> > I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina,
> > their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E.
>
> What does that even mean?
Marina Oswald, was sequestered by the SS until after she gave her testimony to the WC. At that time, she said she thought Lee was guilty. Years later she read the 26 vol. H+E and changed her mind. Based on all the information available, she felt that he was innocent. She has maintained that position.
>
> > So, start from
> > scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.
>
> Yes, the hobbyist approach, throw out relevant information and then
> proceed.
I am including information that perhaps you were unaware of.
>
>
> > The
> > > real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> > > nowhere for them to go.
> >
> > The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is
> > called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of
> > a dead end.
>
> Thinking doesn`t occur in a vacuum, it never starts at zero. The Dallas
> police knew they had the right man day one, how could they not? How could
> anyone not?
I remember the hours after the assassination and the tumult over LHO. Everyone wanted an answer. Most everyone thought he was guilty, even if just from the raised-fist salute at the Texas Theater and the ever present smirk. But a lynchmob mentality was Un-American, or so it seemed at the time. He would go to trial and everything would be sorted out there.
But then he was shot before our eyes. LHO did not live to stand trial in a court of law. If he had, he would have been technically innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Unless he pled guilty, evidence from both sides would have been presented. Had that happened and he had been found guilty, I would not be having this conversation with you. I accept the verdict of Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing. I would have done the same with LHO. I ask questions about LHO because he was killed before trial.
>
>
> > >Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> > > and that is what keeps them from making progress.
> >
> > Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'
>
> And there is where you will stay until the end of your days. And that is
> what you want.
>
I want the whole truth. And I don't want anyone to do my thinking for me. I have to discover it for myself.
> > >
> > > > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
> > >
> > > The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> > > known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> > > a different cut off the same dead horse.
> >
> > That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.
>
> Not at all. We haven`t sat around trying to figure out how what is in
> evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent, that is game played solely by
> conspiracy hobbyists.
Not entirely accurate. There are WC defenders, such as Sandy M, who regularly make up conspiracy theories for the CTs and try to get them to answer to them. So that can complicate things.
>But you can`t put a compelling "Oswald was innocent"
> scenario on the table despite these efforts.
>
LHO was, by his own words, a traitor. He was a marked man when he returned to the US. His Marines discharge had been downgraded. He probably fired at Gen. Walker and moved to NOLA so the FBI couldn't find him.
I do not think LHO was an innocent. I don't see how he fired the shots with an old rifle he had not used since NOLA while doing so little damage to the limo. That speaks volumes to me. That is just my opinion.
Because LHO set of alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries during the last months of his life (USSR, US and Cuba) whatever he did or did not do, I do not think he acted alone, if for no other reason than that so many people let him slip through the cracks.
>
> > >
> > > > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > > > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > > > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > > > if at all, in the assassination.
> > >
> > > Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> > > but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
> > >
> >
> > I don't have to.
>
> Nor can you.
He was not found guilty in a court of law. You have your opinion and I have mine.
>
> > All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act
> > alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
> > -- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the
> > thesis of the WCR.
>
> No, these blanks have no impact at all on the WC`s findings.
The WC created a comfortable myth for the citizens at the time. It did not use due process. So you agree with their opinions. I am not persuaded.
>There are
> just noise produced by hobbyists when they are challenged to produce
> something tangible. "alarms" mean nothing.
>
The WCR was a pragmatic document for its time. The HSCA came to a different conclusion. Neither used due process, so it is all a matter of opinion. You are persuaded. I am not.
> > >
> > > > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
> > >
> > > You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
> >
> > That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They
> > just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for
> > themselves imo.
>
> I didn`t need the WC at all, I would have figured out the guilty party
> had that body never been formed. It`s a simple crime actually, as long as
> you don`t cling in desperation to the idea that Oswald was a patsy.
LHO said he thought he was used as a patsy because everyone knew he had defected to USSR.
Whether he was or not, he did make a good candidate for a fall guy imo.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/world$20gone$20mad$20/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4/-eobWoCbrv4J
Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment