Prayer Man Poll

greg parker wrote:Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Goban Saor wrote:

greg parker wrote:Goban,

I never said it wasn't clear. I was wondering about where you expect it to lead. If your only interest is in satisfying yourself, then I guess it does not have to go any anywhere at all. I'm not averse to that option. In the end, it may be the one we all have to settle for.

Greg,

I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying here. I’d like to deal with just one point for now if I may. It concerns my analysis of Frazier not denying that Prayer Man is Oswald. I’ll call it the Frazier/PM analysis for the nonce.

When you say, ‘I never said it wasn’t clear’, are you referring to my Frazier/PM analysis? And if you are saying that my analysis is clear, do you mean that you consider it to be valid?

greg parker wrote:......Putting him on the stand is not about advancing our knowledge through his testimony (unless he suddenly has a change of heart). It is a tactical way of presenting the PM case for the larger purpose of ......

Goban Saor wrote:Carmine,
 
Here you go again. The MLK Memphis case proved in a court of law that MLK ‘was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agents of his own government’.
 
Now you say we must prove what is already proven.
 
Can you explain this perverse behaviour – and there has been a pattern of such online behaviour by you on this thread and previously – by you?

Carmine Savastano wrote:Goban,
             Unless you are a legal expert and have some case citations to support your claims, no that is not the end of the story, it is the end in your opinion.

Again you can cliam my accusation is baseless, yet you are the one who has constantly questioned my motivations for reasonable questions, you are the one who states something is conclusive with no conclusive evidence. Thus your methods are questionable in my view, not mine.

You claim Frazier explicitly "confirmed" your ideas by a non statement, I would suggest better methods. Your reasoning may satisfy you but it does not satisfy evidentiary standards.

My statement that you relied on insults and allegations regarding me is not tactic, it is the facts of the thread. You claim you directed no personal attacks? Allow me to refresh your memory. 

"That seems a clever divide and conquer tactic", "evades the substance of the issue", "misrepresents the issue", "your evasion and misrepresentation",  all these are distractions are attempts to undermine my reasoning with non evidence. If you wish to attack my contentions fine but your allusions of dishonesty are indeed personal attacks. I can disagree with someone and not claim conclusive evidence when I do not have it, that is another difference between our methods.

Paul,
        Believe what you wish, I stated my view and do not feel the need to justify it further, if some will not consider the possibility they are mistaken. As I stated to Goban, popular does not infer correct, the SBT is popular with some people. Perhaps you read too much into a poll.

Goban Saor wrote:Dan,

I agree that getting Frazier into the witness box is important for those reasons and, of course, for the purpose of eliciting what he knows about aspects of the case other than the Prayer Man aspect. I also agree with the overall aim of this forum of getting the JFK assassination case reopened.
 
However, it’s worth bearing in mind that, as described by James Douglass (p. 498, The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease), that on December 8^th 1999 a Memphis jury’s verdict found that Dr Martin Luther King Jr ‘was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government’. 

Douglass continues:
 
I can hardly believe that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect, scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?”
 
That is a stark illustration of what we’re up against – almost total public indifference to the truth about the evil forces that really rule the US and the world. Why is that? ‘Know thine enemy’, the ancient text says. Do we not need to agree on who or what the enemy is before deciding on tactics and strategies?

The simple fact is that there's a core of about a dozen people who regularly keep an eye on this forum; it seems to drop in half shortly after I sign in and rarely rises to as much as two dozen. Even if those numbers are doubled or tripled at the standalone forums with All-Stars like David Lifton, Sir Charles Drago and Pugsley Tartuffe (the Never-Vanquished), we're still only talking about 50 or so people interested in seeing what's going on. We'll not be making any revolution with those two platoons.

I have faith in the fundamental decency and even wisdom of "ordinary" people. I may be wrong in that, but it keeps me going.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        You are reading again into a subtext I never stated. I did not insult your intelligence or anyone else's you choose to be offended. I am not attempting to turn anything around I have consistently stated my views. I said it was fine that we disagree and wished you luck, you seem to wish a confrontation. 

What I said might offend you but that makes it no less accurate. Popular does not infer correct, just as the common knowledge has changed about many subjects with greater inquiry. Evidence is what proves our views. I can accept that I can be mistaken, your methods seem unable.

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:Dan,

I agree that getting Frazier into the witness box is important for those reasons and, of course, for the purpose of eliciting what he knows about aspects of the case other than the Prayer Man aspect. I also agree with the overall aim of this forum of getting the JFK assassination case reopened.
 
However, it’s worth bearing in mind that, as described by James Douglass (p. 498, The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease), that on December 8^th 1999 a Memphis jury’s verdict found that Dr Martin Luther King Jr ‘was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government’. 

Douglass continues:
 
I can hardly believe that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect, scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?”
 
That is a stark illustration of what we’re up against – almost total public indifference to the truth about the evil forces that really rule the US and the world. Why is that? ‘Know thine enemy’, the ancient text says. Do we not need to agree on who or what the enemy is before deciding on tactics and strategies?

I agree completely with the points Greg's made in response to your post, Goban. I'll add some things that've been on my mind since Tom Scully brought up some issues several weeks ago -- forum pageviews and gaining a wider readership. The simple fact is that there's a core of about a dozen people who regularly keep an eye on this forum; it seems to drop in half shortly after I sign in and rarely rises to as much as two dozen. Even if those numbers are doubled or tripled at the standalone forums with All-Stars like David Lifton, Sir Charles Drago and Pugsley Tartuffe (the Never-Vanquished), we're still only talking about 50 or so people interested in seeing what's going on. We'll not be making any revolution with those two platoons.

And unfortunately it also means we're largely talking amongst ourselves in an echo chamber. I think I've made it clear enough that I believe that's what is wanted. It's good that Jim or Lisa Pease or James Douglass can point out certain issues, but if the only ones who know about it are "within the community" then that's where it's likely to stay. And mock trials or even civil trials don't amount to much for similar reasons, as there's no result that anyone's obliged to notice much less do anything about.

When I first read your discussion with Carmine, I took your point to mean that BW Frazier's ambivalence/reluctance/prevarication on the issue was "the icing on the cake" -- to all of what Sean had presented. I thought it might be helpful to mention that when I saw you and Carmine got into a debate about Frazier's equivocation being sort of the main issue (as opposed to the last nail in the coffin, as I took it); and since that's how I took it, I was a bit mystified about seeing an objection to putting Frazier on a witness stand. There are several people I'd like to see on a witness stand in some serious inquiries, not the least of which would be Ruth Paine and Sirhan Sirhan. Where better to have a talk with them? Or is it better to keep dragging things out, with an interview here and an "explosive and tantalizing" new piece of information there?

I don't have any illusions about what we're all up against, and I can understand and appreciate having pessimism and despair. But I believe "the evil forces" always make the same mistake about "ordinary" people -- they think they're stupid cattle who can be endlessly deceived. And since they always have that cynicism, they never anticipate any uprising or even dissent about how they keep on screwing people. But I respect cattle and never thought it would be wise to irritate one, and I have faith in the fundamental decency and even wisdom of "ordinary" people. I may be wrong in that, but it keeps me going.

On your final point, I see no reason to agree on any identification of "the enemy." I don't define myself in reference to any enemy; I do what I think is right and what I think needs doing. Let the enemy worry about his own ass.

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        You are reading again into a subtext I never stated. I did not insult your intelligence or anyone else's you choose to be offended. I am not attempting to turn anything around I have consistently stated my views. I said it was fine that we disagree and wished you luck, you seem to wish a confrontation. 

What I said might offend you but that makes it no less accurate. Popular does not infer correct, just as the common knowledge has changed about many subjects with greater inquiry. Evidence is what proves our views. I can accept that I can be mistaken, your methods seem unable.

Carmine, you referred to the popular poll numbers when addressing my post when I have never, at any stage, mentioned them or brought them up to argue against your contentions. Not once. You quite clearly infer that I, perhaps, read too much into a poll. Is that the subtext you never stated, Carmine? I am offended that you misrepresent my stance.
I don't wish to have a confrontation with you. It is clear you are far too busy deflecting for that to ever happen. We disagree, no doubt, but at least try and adopt a method that would enable you to be accurate about why we disagree. That way you won't need to accept the mistake you have made with me regarding my own methods.

Carmine Savastano wrote:

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,
        You are reading again into a subtext I never stated. I did not insult your intelligence or anyone else's you choose to be offended. I am not attempting to turn anything around I have consistently stated my views. I said it was fine that we disagree and wished you luck, you seem to wish a confrontation. 

What I said might offend you but that makes it no less accurate. Popular does not infer correct, just as the common knowledge has changed about many subjects with greater inquiry. Evidence is what proves our views. I can accept that I can be mistaken, your methods seem unable.

Carmine, you referred to the popular poll numbers when addressing my post when I have never, at any stage, mentioned them or brought them up to argue against your contentions. Not once. You quite clearly infer that I, perhaps, read too much into a poll. Is that the subtext you never stated, Carmine? I am offended that you misrepresent my stance.
I don't wish to have a confrontation with you. It is clear you are far too busy deflecting for that to ever happen. We disagree, no doubt, but at least try and adopt a method that would enable you to be accurate about why we disagree. That way you won't need to accept the mistake you have made with me regarding my own methods.

 Paul,
         I was not referring to you I was making a statement that I support evidence over what might be popular. I did not misrepresent your stance I stated that no stance is conclusive because it its popular. Now you must attempt to claim I am deflecting because I am not giving you the answer you seek. 

How unfortunate. 

You state you do not seek a confrontation, yet your methods belie that claim in my view. Your opinion of my methods are in my view deficient. However, feel free to believe they are viable. Yet I would not claim my opinions of you are conclusive, I suppose that is because I do not base my views on just opinions.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Paul,

   Actually I was referring to all that read too much into a poll seeking confrontation. When I make a mistake I shall admit it, your view of my statements, like you view of other things is your view. I seek evidence and offer it, I do not feel the need to speculate on the motivations without substantial evidence of others when they disagree. Their motivations are in my view largely irrelevant, their evidence is the issue in my view.