Kook qualifications
Neil Coburn
Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
>Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
>
It's really simple. Do you believe in the WCR? Then you *can't* be a kook.
Are you a part of the roughly 90% of America that believes there was a
conspiracy in the death of JFK? Then you *are* a kook.
No other qualifications needed.
(However, if you quote, cite, or in any way refer to the evidence, you'll get
your title faster.)
Robert Harris
dayto...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
> Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
> Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
Yes, you are a kook if you think you need to examine the evidence and
known facts, listen to the witnesses who were there or the scientists
who evaluated the shooting, employ any form of reason whatsoever, study
the actual photos and films of the crime, or use any established
principles of criminology in order to investigate this case.
You are of sound mind and sane, only if you endlessly evade all material
issues related to the crime, and fail to produce excuses on a daily
basis for your inability to defend your position.
Robert harris
Bud
Neil Coburn wrote:
> Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
> Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
I`m sure you are overqualified, the basics are an active
imagination and impaired reasoning skills. I may give a more in depth
examination of what makes a good kook for you later.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <25106-44A...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net>, Neil Coburn
> says...
> >
> >Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
> >Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
> >
>
> It's really simple. Do you believe in the WCR? Then you *can't* be a kook.
Well, they have given the only reasonable explaination to this event
to date.
> Are you a part of the roughly 90% of America that believes there was a
> conspiracy in the death of JFK? Then you *are* a kook.
Not true, and I`ve explained this to Ben many times. He wishes to
wrap himself in the majority because he thinks that makes his position
normal. People generally seem to think something fishy went on. That
doesn`t mean they concur with Ben on the kooky thinks he believes. And,
of course, Ben can in no way support that 90% figure he regularly
throws around.
> No other qualifications needed.
It`s a bit more involved than that. For one thing, what percentage
of the majority that believes there was a conspiracy frequent
newsgroups about the event? That in itself differentiates this clutch
of crackpots from the general public. The kooks who regularly post here
are obsessed fanatic-type kooks engaged in deviant behavior, not the
run of the mill citizen expressing thier suspicions to opinion polls.
> (However, if you quote, cite, or in any way refer to the evidence, you'll get
> your title faster.)
And if you latch on to the unclear testimony, the blurry photo, the
human mistake, or the mispoke word as the shaky foundation for your
theory of an enormous and amazingly complex conspiracy skyscraper, your
entitlement is assured.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <25106-44A...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net>,
> dayto...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
>
> > Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
> > Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
>
> Yes, you are a kook if you think you need to examine the evidence and
> known facts,
Carefully selected facts, isolated, and viewed out of context.
> listen to the witnesses who were there
The one who saw Oz in the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting, maybe? Or
the folks who saw Oz shoot Tippit, or saw him shortly thereafter?
> or the scientists
> who evaluated the shooting,
You accept all the conclusions of the science applied to this case
now? Or selective bits of it?
> employ any form of reason whatsoever,
Reason? What is the reason Oz tried to kill the arresting officers?
Contrive me a tale where Oz didn`t commit the first murder, or the
second, but then makes an attempt at a third.
> study
> the actual photos and films of the crime,
<snicker> Read volumes into blurs. See what you want to see, whether
it`s gunmen, or signs of a damage to the back of JFK`s head.
> or use any established
> principles of criminology in order to investigate this case.
If the standard methods of criminolgy were employed in this case,
and the case left in the hands of the DPD, and the case put before a
Dallas jury, the case against Oz would have been a slam dunk.
> You are of sound mind and sane, only if you endlessly evade all material
> issues related to the crime,
You`d think there wasn`t a suspect who`s rifle was found in the TSBD
for as much as CT avoid that "material". Stock answers meant only to
move away from that, to move on to areas where fantasy and imagination
are called for.
> and fail to produce excuses on a daily
> basis for your inability to defend your position.
I don`t care much to defend, I prefer attacking.
>
>
> Robert harris
Bud
Neil Coburn wrote:
> Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
> Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
Well, Neil, I told you that I might give you a little more insight
into the qualifications of kookdum, and since I consider myself
somewhat of an expert on the subject, I will attempt to illuminate for
you what sets a kook apart from people who are just wrong or mistaken.
It`s a matter of approach to information, the information itself is
irrelevant, anything can be decided to mean anything with the proper
effort. So, to start lets examine the kook approach to this case when
they examine what witnesses say. Now, when viewing any information
received from people, context is probably the most important thing.
I`ll pause here to ask you a simple, direct, easy question. Are human
beings...
A) Fallible, capable of error., or
B) Infallible, flawless in thier observing and
relating.
You won`t be able to answer, being a kook, but it`s "A", fallible.
So, you can see that from the outset, the kooks are proceeding in the
wrong direction. Now, you might say "What about the witnesses that LN
like?" in a high whiney voice. Again, it`s a matter of context. There
is a lot less confusion and questions when you see all the information
in front of you, you see a man shooting another man, than suddenly
hearing loud noise, and seeing damage. But, thats minor compared to the
corroboration of multiple witness observing and relating many of the
same things, and the corroboration of the person these folks saw just
happening to have a gun on him when arrested, among other things. It`s
an interconnected web of support that just doesn`t exist with kook
conjecture. But, I`m not looking to re-argue the Tippit murder, we`re
here to examine the kook mindset, so that you can become a better kook.
Ok, we have a load of fallible human beings witnessing the
assassination, can you state for the record under what conditions human
beings do thier worst observing and relating? Of course not, you are a
kook. High on the list would be a sudden attack from an unknown
position, where people heads explode without warning. You have fear,
confusion, an event of extremely short duration, an event that very,
very few people in Dealy Plaza had enough first hand information to
venture a guess about what had happened. So, lets say that under normal
conditions of observing and relating, maybe 1%-3% of the information
received would be flawed, erroneous, the person misspoke, used faulty
terms, worded things poorly, and all the other things human do on a
regular basis. But, under the extreme conditions of a sudden, brutal
attack, the percentage of related information being flawed must go up,
perhaps to 10, 20, even 30%. So, to be a good kook, you must leap onto
that percentage of garbled, poorly worded, erroneous, information as if
they were carved on a tablet handed to you from Moses himself. Also, a
good thing to keep in mind is that all information is not created
equal. Treat the observations people usually do well at, like counting
a few loud noises, as unreliable, while things a person would not do
well, like saying what color pants the person standing next to them
watching the motorcade was wearing as information a witness most
correctly supply in order to be considered credible.
Well, there are so many things kooks routinely do wrong, from they
way they compartmentalize information, to thier disregard of all the
people who knew Oz best, to the spin that they put on the defining
issue of Oz`s motivation (politics), a rich goldmine of areas to
address, but my insight has suddenly been surpassed by my disinterest
level. Perhaps some of the other LN would like to step in here with
thier suggestions of how you can become a better kook.
David VP
I'll give it a go. In addition to Bud's top-notch "How To Build A
Better And More-Efficient Conspiracy Kook" essay, I'll add these
items.......
1.) Read (and take as Gospel) as many pro-conspiracy books, movies,
videos, DVDs, CDs, and Internet essays as possible. The more, the
better. And it doesn't matter if some (or many) of these pro-CT
materials totally contradict other theories being espoused in other
books/videos. It's good to use them ALL, in one way or another, to
buttress your general, overall "CT claims". Because if one or two are
wrong, you've still got the other 99 to fall back on. After all, a JFK
conspiracy is a JFK conspiracy, regardless of which kook author is
REALLY right...right?
1A.) And it's always a good idea to re-hash and resurrect
long-thought-dead-and-thoroughly-debunked CT crappola too. E.G.: The
Jim Garrison case. CT-Kooks should utilize (and tout as the undeniable
"truth") Garrison's unsupportable shit as MUCH as possible. After all,
if Kook-Garrison is good enough for MULTIPLE authors to get stuff
published (years apart), you know his Clay Shaw nonsense has gotta be
good enough for the average, garden-variety-level (non-author) CT-Kook
too.
2.) Re. the Tippit case specifically --- Always believe (forever) the
info which leads a kook-to-be toward the idea that Oswald didn't do the
crime (no matter what info has surfaced later to fully explain away any
initial "conspiratorial" notions re. the Tippit murder). This item
applies to many areas of the JFK case as well (e.g., the "Mauser vs.
Carcano" thing; and the controversy surrounding Oswald's
ability/inability to get to the 2nd Floor in 90 seconds; among many
other things).
But my #2 here applies more to the Tippit case in particular. Because
NOTHING in this world will convince someone of your bona fide "CT-Kook"
status more quickly than to be able to look him/her squarely in the eye
and admit your sincere belief of: "There is no way Lee Harvey Oswald
killed J.D. Tippit!". That one sentence, all by its lonesome,
automatically earns you a lifetime membership card in the Kook Club
(regardless of ANY of your other beliefs surrounding November 22nd,
1963).
3.) Throw out virtually all of your "common sense" and "reasoned and
logical-thinking" skills. They'll do a rabid conspiracy kook no good
when it comes to studying the JFK and Tippit murder cases. .... Common
sense such as --- WHY in hell would the goofball plotters need to use
TWO OR MORE killers to rid the world of J.D. Tippit, as Jim Garrison
and many other CT-Kooks firmly believe DID occur on 11/22? They ("the
plotters") need ONLY Oswald fingered for this crime, so they're going
to use multiple non-LHO killers (look-alikes?) to do away with Tippit?
Why? Were they just overly-cautious...or just flat-out morons?
Number 3 applies to the JFK case to a great degree too (the part about
"Why Use Multiple Gunmen?", that is). There's a grandiose "plot"
underway to have JUST OSWALD fingered for Kennedy's death; so what do
the real assassins do? They decide to use SEVERAL shooters (front and
rear) to kill the one slow-moving target named John Kennedy. Brilliant,
huh? It's yet another sign that either these pre-planning plotters were
total boobs...or the CT-Kooks who have invented them since 1963 are.
Take your pick.
I'll try to think of #4 and #5 later (shouldn't be too difficult at
all). Numbers one through three just came off the very top of my head
spontaneously.
aeffects
roll over Dudster, another stump has take your spot --
Guess VP is a hop'in and a pray'in we'll forget about his undying
support for daBug forthcoming tomes. We haven't...
Someone, someplace, told me someone has the goods on on daBug, what's
that all about? Curious minds are a'questioning....
David VP
Why would you say this? Why would I want you to "forget" about my
VB-supporting position? I only mention it constantly. Doesn't sound
like I'm shying away from it, or wanting you to "forget".
>>> "Someone, someplace, told me someone has the goods on on daBug, what's that all about? Curious minds are a'questioning...." <<<
You mean you don't already know about the make-believe "Mr. Hodges"
(who hasn't written a single other thing in "his" life, it would
appear...so he's gonna START OUT by trying to nitpick and debunk the
likes of V. Bugliosi's 20-years-in-the-making LN tomes, per Ben-Kook
anyway)??
Surely, Ben-boy has discussed Mr. Hodges' brilliance with his CT
lapdogs. Hasn't he?
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Guess VP is a hop'in and a pray'in we'll forget about his undying support for daBug forthcoming tomes. We haven't... " <<<
>
>
> Why would you say this? Why would I want you to "forget" about my
> VB-supporting position? I only mention it constantly. Doesn't sound
> like I'm shying away from it, or wanting you to "forget".
>
>
> >>> "Someone, someplace, told me someone has the goods on on daBug, what's that all about? Curious minds are a'questioning...." <<<
>
>
> You mean you don't already know about the make-believe "Mr. Hodges"
> (who hasn't written a single other thing in "his" life, it would
> appear...so he's gonna START OUT by trying to nitpick and debunk the
> likes of V. Bugliosi's 20-years-in-the-making LN tomes, per Ben-Kook
> anyway)??
da Bug can't find his way out of his own research these day's -- 20
years to put down LHO when the WC did it in 9 months? You gott'a be
fucking kidding me??? -- Armstrong ran circles around Bugliosi, nothing
left to write..... ROFLMFAO
> Surely, Ben-boy has discussed Mr. Hodges' brilliance with his CT
> lapdogs. Hasn't he?
sweat it out Davey-boy -- Love to have a buck for everytime Hodges name
has been googled the past few day's.....
David VP
Finding Oswald guilty hasn't been the reason for VB's many delays, you
goof. Oswald's guilt is painfully obvious, as anyone with any CS&L can
easily see. Some delays have been due to the fact that VB has written
several books since he started his JFK project, plus the fact that a
large % of his tome will be devoted to debunking all the different
kooky conspiracy theories. .....
"Every detail and nuance is accounted for {in VB's "Final Verdict"},
every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public.
While reading it we have the eerie feeling that we are in Dallas the
day a lone gunman changed the course of history." -- W.W. Norton & Co.,
Inc. (June 1998)
So, in a real sense, it's the CT-Kooks who have caused many of the
delays for Vince. The more kooky theories to debunk, the longer it
takes I suppose..
Hopefully, though, Vince won't be wasting any space on the nutty
"Assassins In Virtually Every Tree In Dealey Plaza" theory. (With these
many shooters ALL out in the open, subject to being photographed -- and
actually BEING photographed -- by numerous cameramen on 11/22.)
Will the kooks ever cease to be....kooks? .....
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=49021
David VP
And turning up zero returns each time the name's Googled.
Ben Holmes
says...
Yep... my adsense campaign is doing quite well... :)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"{Mr. Bugliosi} can't find his way out of his own research these day's -- 20
>>>>years to put down LHO when the WC did it in 9 months? You gotta be fucking
>>>>kidding me?" <<<
>
>
>Finding Oswald guilty hasn't been the reason for VB's many delays, you
>goof. Oswald's guilt is painfully obvious, as anyone with any CS&L can
>easily see. Some delays have been due to the fact that VB has written
>several books since he started his JFK project, plus the fact that a
>large % of his tome will be devoted to debunking all the different
>kooky conspiracy theories. .....
John W. Hodges just got started last year, when the first draft manuscript of
Bugliosi's turned up at his publisher. Who knows, Hodges may even beat Bugliosi
to market...
>"Every detail and nuance is accounted for {in VB's "Final Verdict"},
>every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public.
>While reading it we have the eerie feeling that we are in Dallas the
>day a lone gunman changed the course of history."
You can google equally accurate statements about Hodges upcoming book.
>So, in a real sense, it's the CT-Kooks who have caused many of the
>delays for Vince. The more kooky theories to debunk, the longer it
>takes I suppose..
Not for ordinary people, no.
>Hopefully, though, Vince won't be wasting any space on the nutty
>"Assassins In Virtually Every Tree In Dealey Plaza" theory. (With these
>many shooters ALL out in the open, subject to being photographed -- and
>actually BEING photographed -- by numerous cameramen on 11/22.)
What about the theory proposed by your namesake, Dave? He was seriously
advancing the proposition that the shooter was with his two spotters on the
stairs in the grassy knoll...
Then he did what all LNT'ers eventually do... he disappeared...
>Will the kooks ever cease to be....kooks? .......
You tell us. You're the expert on yourself...
Robert Harris
>
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> In article <25106-44A...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net>,
>> dayto...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
>>
>> > Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
>> > Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
>>
>> Yes, you are a kook if you think you need to examine the evidence and
>> known facts,
>
> Carefully selected facts, isolated, and viewed out of context.
Odd, that with all those terrible distortions I made, you can't name a
single one, isn't it??
Why can't you be specific?
Oh, I almost forgot "shutup about the evidence", right:-)
>
>> listen to the witnesses who were there
>
> The one who saw Oz in the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting, maybe? Or
>the folks who saw Oz shoot Tippit, or saw him shortly thereafter?
Of course.
>
>> or the scientists
>> who evaluated the shooting,
>
> You accept all the conclusions of the science applied to this case
>now? Or selective bits of it?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any that I disagreed with,
although I am generally leery of the term, "all".
Why don't you be specific and describe the ones you think I
contradicted?
>
>> employ any form of reason whatsoever,
>
> Reason? What is the reason Oz tried to kill the arresting officers?
Obviously, he was trying to kill himself, as he did in Russia.
>Contrive me a tale where Oz didn`t commit the first murder, or the
>second, but then makes an attempt at a third.
What for? I think he was guilty as hell, as you already know.
Who exactly, are you hoping to fool with all this pretense?
>
>> study
>> the actual photos and films of the crime,
>
> <snicker> Read volumes into blurs.
Which "blurs" Bud?
Why can't you be specific?
>See what you want to see, whether
>it`s gunmen, or signs of a damage to the back of JFK`s head.
What images did I misinterpret, Bud?
Why can't you be specific?
>
>> or use any established
>> principles of criminology in order to investigate this case.
>
> If the standard methods of criminolgy were employed in this case,
>and the case left in the hands of the DPD, and the case put before a
>Dallas jury, the case against Oz would have been a slam dunk.
That's nice.
What does that have to do with my arguments, which you are trying to
attack?
>
>> You are of sound mind and sane, only if you endlessly evade all material
>> issues related to the crime,
>
> You`d think there wasn`t a suspect who`s rifle was found in the TSBD
>for as much as CT avoid that "material". Stock answers meant only to
>move away from that, to move on to areas where fantasy and imagination
>are called for.
>
>> and fail to produce excuses on a daily
>> basis for your inability to defend your position.
>
> I don`t care much to defend, I prefer attacking.
I would have to say your skills in each, are about the same:-)
Robert Harris
>
>>
>>
>> Robert harris
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Love to have a buck for everytime Hodges name has been googled the past few day's." <<<
>
>
> And turning up zero returns each time the name's Googled.
>
Which means nothing. Google my father's name and nothing will show up.
David VP
Well....this isn't true at all. .....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beelzebub&btnG=Google+Search
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2006 13:12:30 -0700, "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Robert Harris wrote:
> >> In article <25106-44A...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net>,
> >> dayto...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
> >> > Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
> >>
> >> Yes, you are a kook if you think you need to examine the evidence and
> >> known facts,
> >
> > Carefully selected facts, isolated, and viewed out of context.
>
> Odd, that with all those terrible distortions I made, you can't name a
> single one, isn't it??
Did I say distortions? I chracterized the kook approach as one of
isolating facts, and viewing them out of context.
> Why can't you be specific?
Why do you say I can`t?
> Oh, I almost forgot "shutup about the evidence", right:-)
It`d be nice.
> >> listen to the witnesses who were there
> >
> > The one who saw Oz in the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting, maybe? Or
> >the folks who saw Oz shoot Tippit, or saw him shortly thereafter?
>
> Of course.
Then why is the case such a mystery to you?
> >> or the scientists
> >> who evaluated the shooting,
> >
> > You accept all the conclusions of the science applied to this case
> >now? Or selective bits of it?
>
> Off the top of my head, I can't think of any that I disagreed with,
> although I am generally leery of the term, "all".
>
> Why don't you be specific and describe the ones you think I
> contradicted?
Why don`t you be specific and list the ones I stated you disagreed
with?
> >> employ any form of reason whatsoever,
> >
> > Reason? What is the reason Oz tried to kill the arresting officers?
>
> Obviously, he was trying to kill himself, as he did in Russia.
Good call. "They say it only takes a minute to die."
> >Contrive me a tale where Oz didn`t commit the first murder, or the
> >second, but then makes an attempt at a third.
>
> What for? I think he was guilty as hell, as you already know.
Do I? The last discussion I had with you of any real substance
occurred back in 2004. At that time , I asked you if Oz was a shooter
in the assassination. You replied "I don`t know, but I seriously doubt
he was." It may come as a surprise to you, but I don`t track any
changes in the positions of the kooks who post here.
> Who exactly, are you hoping to fool with all this pretense?
No pretense. I`m not up on your current opinions on the case. You
may find this incredible, but it`s information that doesn`t hold a lot
of interest for me.
> >> study
> >> the actual photos and films of the crime,
> >
> > <snicker> Read volumes into blurs.
>
> Which "blurs" Bud?
Blurs occuring in the photographic evidence that kooks make claims
about.
> Why can't you be specific?
Why do you say I can`t?
> >See what you want to see, whether
> >it`s gunmen, or signs of a damage to the back of JFK`s head.
>
> What images did I misinterpret, Bud?
>
> Why can't you be specific?
"...signs of damage to the back of JFK`s head."
> >> or use any established
> >> principles of criminology in order to investigate this case.
> >
> > If the standard methods of criminolgy were employed in this case,
> >and the case left in the hands of the DPD, and the case put before a
> >Dallas jury, the case against Oz would have been a slam dunk.
>
> That's nice.
Yet not viewed as an matter of great importance here.
> What does that have to do with my arguments, which you are trying to
> attack?
What arguments did you make in the post I responded to?
> >> You are of sound mind and sane, only if you endlessly evade all material
> >> issues related to the crime,
> >
> > You`d think there wasn`t a suspect who`s rifle was found in the TSBD
> >for as much as CT avoid that "material". Stock answers meant only to
> >move away from that, to move on to areas where fantasy and imagination
> >are called for.
> >
> >> and fail to produce excuses on a daily
> >> basis for your inability to defend your position.
> >
> > I don`t care much to defend, I prefer attacking.
>
> I would have to say your skills in each, are about the same:-)
My skills in both may be equal, but my preference is to attack.
Neil Coburn
Kooks are the guys who have nothing else to do but ridicule anyone who
disagrees with them. Neil Coburn
Sam
news:25106-44A...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
> Can anyone provide a list of qualifications I want to be certain I am a
> Sure Enough kook. Neil Coburn
following the lead of .joe mccarthy would make one a kook, he's the lawyer
from marquette university who created mccarthyism and died of alcoholism
he also may have had ties to skull & bones
Bud
A kook might think that...
Anthony Marsh
More false claims.