what we are witnessing...

Goban Saor wrote:

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:To continue with the boxing analogy, maybe it’s time for the women to step into the ring. The women I refer to are Caroline Kennedy and the Oswald sisters.
 
Caroline Kennedy is in a particularly difficult position. Ever since the HSCA found in 1979 that  JFK was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, the US Government has had a solemn duty to conduct a follow up investigation to find out who was involved in the conspiracy. Its failure to do so makes it an accessory after the fact.
 
Caroline Kennedy is now a senior US Government representative as Ambassador to Japan. She is thus implicated, albeit perhaps at some remove, in her father’s murder....

Why don't you write her and tell her all that, Goban. And be sure to refer to her father as "JFK" as opposed to "President John F. Kennedy." I'm sure she'll appreciate your take on the whole matter of her own implication in her father's death.

As you seem to imply that what I said is wrong, Dan, I'd appreciate it if you could specify the flaws in my reasoning.

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:To continue with the boxing analogy, maybe it’s time for the women to step into the ring. The women I refer to are Caroline Kennedy and the Oswald sisters.
 
Caroline Kennedy is in a particularly difficult position. Ever since the HSCA found in 1979 that  JFK was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, the US Government has had a solemn duty to conduct a follow up investigation to find out who was involved in the conspiracy. Its failure to do so makes it an accessory after the fact.
 
Caroline Kennedy is now a senior US Government representative as Ambassador to Japan. She is thus implicated, albeit perhaps at some remove, in her father’s murder....

Why don't you write her and tell her all that, Goban. And be sure to refer to her father as "JFK" as opposed to "President John F. Kennedy." I'm sure she'll appreciate your take on the whole matter of her own implication in her father's death.

As you seem to imply that what I said is wrong, Dan, I'd appreciate it if you could specify the flaws in my reasoning.

"Caroline Kennedy is now a senior US Government representative as Ambassador to Japan. She is thus implicated, albeit perhaps at some remove, in her father’s murder...."

The flaws in the reasoning appear to involve questionable premises in the argument, since they led to a ridiculous conclusion: i.e., that Caroline Kennedy "is thus implicated, albeit perhaps at some remove, in her father's murder...."

Of course, that really wasn't necessary for me to fucking spell that out, was it?

You guys reeealllly have no idea how tired some of us are at playing these games and having our time wasted.

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:Ahhh, the old "let's break out the logical fallacy exposition" -- the kids today eat that shit up.


Saying something stupid is one thing. Saying something utterly ridiculous is another.

Saying something "radical-sounding," utterly ridiculous on the face of it, in an online "conspiracy" forum -- is yet another. I regard that as evidence of insincerity, since it's not clearly possible that the expressed idea could be genuinely believed in by the author himself. (Always assuming he's sane, of course.)

And asking to have spelled out what the problem is with something utterly ridiculous on the face of it............is still more evidence of insincerity. It's merely a game someone's asking you to play.



And here I've been unnecessarily mean and ignoring terlin because I thought he was Drago, when it's now much clearer that St. Gobban is Drago while terlin's most likely Don Jeffries. That's why the team-up with Tim Gratz didn't make sense (if terlin was Drago), but makes much more sense if he's Jeffries -- for instance, the tendency towards Revisionist History (in favor of Richard Nixon in Gratz's case, and the Confederacy in terlin's case). Naturally, I find that nauseating, but it's nothing personal towards terlin other than him being a prolific author pushing such shit. The most obvious indicator for Drago, of course, is that his ego will not let him get quiet, since no one has ever or could ever dare to challenge his innate superiority over all the rest of humankind. He wouldn't even be able to recognize that there could be anything wrong with the idea that Caroline Kennedy is implicated in her father's murder -- because, after all, it was HIS idea -- et ergo, ipso facto, the idea must be right!

Now if only we could figure out which one's Len Colby and which one's Ralph Cinque. My money was on JFK Student for the former and nonsqtr on the latter, but I'm not so sure anymore. Might just be some confused kids filling in.

And could someone please explain to me why in the name of God and all the Prophets I should have to spend my twilight years dealing with the same tired old turds I've had to put up with for the better part of the last 10 years??? Taking a pistol and shooting off each one of my toes would be more satisfying, and far less excruciating.

All in my opinion, of course. Logic need not apply.

Stan Dane wrote:All I can say is that I'm glad I'm in Alpine for the next few days. No need to think, but then, I don't do that very well anyway. Excuse me...it's time for another drink!
 

terlin wrote:Goban,

I know what you're trying to say but just because "the government" did or did not do something does not necessarily make everyone employed by the government an accessory.

By that line of reasoning, since it is a government "of the people", then every citizen of the country is an accessory to the cover-up.

That might be true. But I do not seriously think you will win over many acolytes by pointing out the fact.

Faroe Islander wrote:just found this movie in a DPD basement, think this just might solve the case : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-zjn-cVMI

steely dan wrote:

Faroe Islander wrote:just found this movie in a DPD basement, think this just might solve the case : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-zjn-cVMI

I'm betting the movie is nowhere near as good as the one i've just found. Mine does nothing for the case, but will get more hits.

terlin wrote:

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:Ahhh, the old "let's break out the logical fallacy exposition" -- the kids today eat that shit up.


Saying something stupid is one thing. Saying something utterly ridiculous is another.

Saying something "radical-sounding," utterly ridiculous on the face of it, in an online "conspiracy" forum -- is yet another. I regard that as evidence of insincerity, since it's not clearly possible that the expressed idea could be genuinely believed in by the author himself. (Always assuming he's sane, of course.)

And asking to have spelled out what the problem is with something utterly ridiculous on the face of it............is still more evidence of insincerity. It's merely a game someone's asking you to play.



And here I've been unnecessarily mean and ignoring terlin because I thought he was Drago, when it's now much clearer that St. Gobban is Drago while terlin's most likely Don Jeffries. That's why the team-up with Tim Gratz didn't make sense (if terlin was Drago), but makes much more sense if he's Jeffries -- for instance, the tendency towards Revisionist History (in favor of Richard Nixon in Gratz's case, and the Confederacy in terlin's case). Naturally, I find that nauseating, but it's nothing personal towards terlin other than him being a prolific author pushing such shit. The most obvious indicator for Drago, of course, is that his ego will not let him get quiet, since no one has ever or could ever dare to challenge his innate superiority over all the rest of humankind. He wouldn't even be able to recognize that there could be anything wrong with the idea that Caroline Kennedy is implicated in her father's murder -- because, after all, it was HIS idea -- et ergo, ipso facto, the idea must be right!

Now if only we could figure out which one's Len Colby and which one's Ralph Cinque. My money was on JFK Student for the former and nonsqtr on the latter, but I'm not so sure anymore. Might just be some confused kids filling in.

And could someone please explain to me why in the name of God and all the Prophets I should have to spend my twilight years dealing with the same tired old turds I've had to put up with for the better part of the last 10 years??? Taking a pistol and shooting off each one of my toes would be more satisfying, and far less excruciating.

All in my opinion, of course. Logic need not apply.

Well said, Dan!

Now if we could only figure out who the rest of the characters here are. I figure Stan Dane is really Ed. Ledoux, Greg Parker is really Bill Kelley, and Goban is really Greg Burnham.

Still can't figure who you might be though.

Given the choice of Drago or Jeffries, I think I would rather be Fetzer. He, at least, is another prolific writer pushing shit.

I just do not see how I got tangled up with writing "revisionist history".

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:I'm sorry for a number of things in your regard, particularly when you would seem to be Terry Adams instead of any of the above (I guess?). But I'd say Greg Parker is who he appears to be, as is Stan Dane: they're identifiable by username, while others have been identifiable although they experiment with variations (e.g. steely dan, A DiEugenio Protege, Colonel Von Hello And Back Again). I'm also most likely who I appear to be, though I've forgotten what my middle name is, but it started with a W, I'm sure of that.

greg parker wrote:I think I see where you're going with this. Laurel & Hardy - H & L. Harvey & Lee - L & H.

One with a woman with a bag - the other with a man with a bag.

One a comedy - the other a tragedy.

L & H non-identical. H & L non-identical (except in certain circumstances as required)

L & H associated with communists. H & L associated with anti-communists.

It all fits.

--------------------

The inspiration for the bag came from Minsk.

greg parker wrote:I think I see where you're going with this. Laurel & Hardy - H & L. Harvey & Lee - L & H.

One with a woman with a bag - the other with a man with a bag.

One a comedy - the other a tragedy.

L & H non-identical. H & L non-identical (except in certain circumstances as required)

L & H associated with communists. H & L associated with anti-communists.

It all fits.

--------------------

The inspiration for the bag came from Minsk.

Terry W. Martin wrote:Goban,

I know what you're trying to say but just because "the government" did or did not do something does not necessarily make everyone employed by the government an accessory.

By that line of reasoning, since it is a government "of the people", then every citizen of the country is an accessory to the cover-up.

That might be true. But I do not seriously think you will win over many acolytes by pointing out the fact.

Goban Saor wrote:

Terry W. Martin wrote:Goban,

I know what you're trying to say but just because "the government" did or did not do something does not necessarily make everyone employed by the government an accessory.

By that line of reasoning, since it is a government "of the people", then every citizen of the country is an accessory to the cover-up.

That might be true. But I do not seriously think you will win over many acolytes by pointing out the fact.

I didn’t mean to be away from the forum for so long but I was away from home for a few days and one thing led to another.
 
By way of a short reply to your point Terry, it doesn’t follow that when a corporate entity is found guilty of a crime or offence everyone employed by or associated with that entity is guilty.
 
I was thinking about writing a long reply using the Holocaust as an analogy and including references to authors such as Primo Levi, Ian Kershaw and Mark Roseman but it’s hardly necessary and anyway it would probably be in breach of the Godwin rule.
 
My excursion during the weekend included a Guinness fuelled symposium on many topics in the course of which I mentioned our discussion here and my Ms Kennedy faux pas. One normally quite astute person said that Caroline Kennedy should run for the presidency in 2016 and I don’t know if it was the Guinness or what but that struck me as a kind of ‘perfect storm’.
 
So there it is. We should organize a petition urging Caroline Kennedy to run for the presidency in 2016 with a view to, among other things, establishing an investigation to follow up on the finding of the HSCA in respect of her father’s assassination.
 
Given the manner of the gestation of this idea I fear that from an objective viewpoint it might seem quite mad but I wonder if anyone thinks it has any merit at all.

Goban Saor wrote:Well it seemed like a good idea at the time...

If you find yourself among people who say they are committed to finding the truth about things, but it turns out only a few specific versions of things are approved by them, you have to try to figure out how that is different from having to accept the official versions of things, as handed down to us by the authorities in charge.

And unfortunately you may find it is evidence for the real truth: that those in charge can live with some variations in the versions of things, as long as none of it really leads anywhere and threatens their political power; and that the apparent truth-seekers -- with their own clubhouses and their own in-house authorities -- may have been expressly established to control the flow of information and the direction of all argument.

That would point to the Conspiracy Research Community itself as being a large counterintelligence operation.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."


And as it was the case with the Nazi Gestapo, building up a bad-ass reputation is much of the battle -- and why so many seem like they would rather talk about the Big Bad CIA than fuck.

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:Well it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Guinness fueled symposiums are always full of good ideas, Goban. I am just surprised you remembered them the next morning.

Its not so outrageous. We are talking about a country that voted GW twice into office so anything is possible. What would be impossible, for Caroline Kennedy if she chose to run, is to avoid comparisons to her father. I think even her brother had his own reservations about that. I can't think of a taller order in American politics.