This medium doesn't allow you to stop me anywhere from doing anything.
You really shouldn't use such a tone or choice of words. Many people would
find it insulting. I'm sure you can figure out what it implies, and it
doesn't do you well. I know your opinion of both Lifton and of Douglas
Horne who thinks well of Lifton. You are not the person whom I rely on
for good book reviews. Your constant insult that I purvey only "nonsense"
is tiresome, but go on with it if it warms you up. I can handle it for as
long as you can type it. Just keep in mind each time you put out such
insults, I'm think ing the same in response. And since the moderators
find it acceptable, then my saying the same to you is also acceptable.
Consider it said every time you use the word yourself.
Now, let's clear up your latest mistakes and errors. I have not quoted
from books by Horne, but I have quoted from internet articles by him, and
when I do I put the source right after the quote. I wish you would do the
same, but I've learned your style now and can handle what it implies. I
do not have a copy of the 5 volumes Horne wrote up, but one day I will.
Also, your thinking is that I have to buy a book to show "common
courtesy", but that's only YOUR thinking, not mine. If I find it on the
internet, and I think it has merit, I will quote it and point to it as
I've done right along, and I feel no need to buy a book because I quoted
from their work. Further on that, Since most books aren't online in their
entirety yet, I don't read them. Only articles, which tell me all I need
to know. I expect YOU to tell me when you think I've missed something or
misinterptreted a thought from a writer, and you've tried to do that job
to the degree you're able. Thanks for your book suggestions, but no
thanks...:)
> > case in an organized fashion and very detailed. The more I've looked
> > into this case, the more convinced I am that it was indeed a
> > conspiracy, and that there was a great deal of coverup going on, to
> > this day.
>
> We were saying it was a conspiracy long before Lifton's book came out.
> Before ANY book came out 50% of Americans said it was a conspiracy.
>
I'm happy for you being so early with the thought. Did you then
applaud Lifton for voicing your thoughts?
> > I will say that I'm interested in facts and 'factoids' equally as
> > long as they're to the point and offer some logic and common sense.
>
> Someone can assert with logic and common sense that the Earth is flat.
> Scientific evidence says it is not. Go with the scientific evidence or
> worry about falling over the edge.
>
You use your methods and I'll use mine. I find nothing wrong with
science, but it also can be misused, as in the JFK autopsy. This case is
very good for learning what evidence can be fooled around with and used to
give a wrong impression. Only after years has contrary evidence come out
showing what was done wrong with the original evidence. An example might
be dragging out the condition of the MC rifle when the FBI wanted to test
it. UIt wasn't generally known that it was in terrible condition and th
scope was misaligned and the bolt was stricku andit was 'worn andcorroded'
as per Frazier. This makes th eMC less likely to be the killing weapon,
and forcing us to look elsewhere for a rifle and possibly a shooter.
> > I have debated with anyone who wants to about the subject, and
> > almost any part of the case. No one has come up with anything that
> > has shown me that the WCR was anything but a fairy tale to shut people
> > up from complaining that a coup took place. I'm sure I haven't
>
> Yes, I have. I proved that the reason for the cover up was to prevent
> WWIII because everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was a contract
> killer working for Castro.
>
Nope. Won't do. You SAID that, you didn't prove it, at least not to
me. I told you that I doubted very much that WW3 would start over us
accusing another country of killing JFK. And I continue to nelieve
that. Poll the other folks and se what you get.
> > convinced anyone of my views, but my being here and pressing my views
> > as others do to me, only strengthens all our ideas about this case.
>
> Wrong. It detracts from the efforts of serious researchers and provides
> fodder for the WC defenders to dismiss conspiracy notions.
>
Right. Do you consider yourself a "serious researcher"? And my
experience of WCR denialists is that they would go after any one they see
that doesn't hold to their beliefs. If a "Serious researcher" goes to a
public forum and begins to spout all the most recent things he has
discovered about the JFK murder (other than the WCR theories), he'd be
drummed out of the forum he was in, if it wasn't a JFK forum. ANY mention
of other than WCR theories is CT to most people. Don't try to separate
yourself from others here who just listen and converse.
> > It would probably be a good idea for those that disagree with me to
> > speak up and prove their case separate from the quoting of the WCR.
>
> The WCR disproves itself. It has since Day One.
>
Of course, tell the world and see how far you get without something
major to let out. When you get a Lifton or Horce douing it, they seem to
get noticed more than you or I. Of course they put in a lot more work
with their books than we put into our debating.
> > We may not like what we hear from each other, but as long as I can
> > take the insults that have come my way so far, I'll keep on in as
> > proper a fashion as I can.
>
> But you can't take the insults. You beg for mercy.
>
Oh, give it up. I'm surprised that John hasn't pulled half your posts
by now with that sort of stuff in them. We're debating the subjects, not
the persons. Now that I've tried to correct your manners, please bring
out any copies of me begging anyone for anything here.
> > If we didn't have varying viewpoints, we'd have nothing to talk
> > about.
>
> Even people who are on the same side and agree 99% still have things to
> talk about. Groden did not know about the dent of the rearview mirror.
> He did not know that I corrected the HSCA map. He did not know about the
> Skaggs photo proving that the cop seen in the Mentasana film is holding
> his shotgun, not a rifle. As I said before, the research community is so
> diverse that each member can make unique contributions that someone else
> can not. I sent my map to another research who was able to scan it in on
> a large scanner.
>
Well, we have something to talk about. I'm not convinced that there is a
'ding' on the mirror. It doesn't make a lot of sense for how it got where
you say it is. In a very good close up, I looked carefully, and I didn't
see anything except a smudge in the middle of the back of the mirror. It
appears like somrthing that belongs there. The ends were both fine.
AFTER the shooting. You have to be careful talking about things like that
because the CTs will pick it up and blat it all over.