REOPENKENNEDYCASE
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Search
Display results as :
Advanced Search
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking google      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website
RSS feeds

Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 
Like/Tweet/+1
Affiliates
free forum
 



Go down

Who is Prayer Man?

1 - 2%
50 - 81%
1 - 2%
0 - 0%
0 - 0%
0 - 0%
0 - 0%
0 - 0%
6 - 10%
4 - 5%
 
Total Votes: 62
 
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Mon 20 Oct 2014, 9:30 pm
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?

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
greg_parker
greg_parker
Admin
Posts : 6790
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 62
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Mon 20 Oct 2014, 10:25 pm
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?
Goban,

yes, I understood that part - and yes, I consider it valid for what I think I will hereafter for the sake of clarity refer to as our exercise in metahistory (refer to previous definition).

What I was trying to get my head around is this part I don’t see how putting Frazier into a witness box could advance our knowledge of this element of the case – the question of whether PM is Oswald – one whit. 


If we don't take it to court, where do we take it? Apparently nowhere. If so, what is the point, apart from satisfying our own curiosity?

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 ...... fill in your own blanks (or not). I have already laid my purposes/aims out.

_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
              Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me


"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." 
Don Jeffries

"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott

https://gregrparker.com
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Tue 21 Oct 2014, 10:51 am
Greg,
 
Thanks for that clarification. That means we agree that we have conclusive evidence in Frazier’s testimony that Prayer Man is Oswald.
 
I won’t pretend that the question you ask, ‘where do we take it?’ is an easy one to answer. I have some ideas swirling around in my head and I’ve jotted stuff down but nothing very coherent.
 
Stuff like the truth being the most powerful weapon but without people to first acknowledge it and then uphold it nothing will change. So acknowledging and speaking the truth about Prayer Man is an important first step. Mahatma Gandhi’s term ‘Satyagraha’ meaning ‘truth force’ or ‘soul force’ etc but nothing more concrete than that.
 
And so long as it is left as a mere possibility or even probability that Prayer Man is Oswald we are stuck there going round in circles. Once we have accepted the conclusive evidence that he is Oswald, only then can we think about where that takes us. Once we have empowered ourselves with the weapon of truth then we can think about the tactics and strategies.
 
As for what those tactics and strategies might be I haven’t come up with anything new.
 
As it’s well past midnight here, I’ll have to let it percolate overnight and probably beyond before I come back with anything constructive.
 
I just wanted to get back to you before hitting the scratcher to say thanks for your unequivocal reply.
 
Good night up here. Good morning down there.

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
dwdunn(akaDan)
dwdunn(akaDan)
Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 57
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA
http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Tue 21 Oct 2014, 11:41 am
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 ......
Under oath on the witness stand, a person is under some constraint to tell the truth. Whether he would tell the truth or not, or just say "I don't know," he would know he was going on public record and there is at least the possibility of a penalty for perjury. That public record becomes part of the historical record, so one way or the other, down the line it will be known whether he was being truthful or not. He can say whatever he wants in interviews, just like anybody else can.

_________________
"While his argument seems to lead that way, Master Reggie didn't explicitly say it was the CIA that was running the Conspiracy Research Community. He may have meant the CIA has been built up as a bogey-man, as in the theodicy of the right-wing extremist fringe; thus, it may be the latter who are in charge of the apparent research effort. That would help explain the degree of bigotry and psychopathology one finds there."          (from "Master Jasper's Commentary on Master Reggie's Commentary on the Pogo koan" in Rappin' wit' Master Jasper, 1972, p. 14, all rights reversed)
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Tue 21 Oct 2014, 8:12 pm
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 8th 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?

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
greg_parker
greg_parker
Admin
Posts : 6790
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 62
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Tue 21 Oct 2014, 9:03 pm
Goban,

the point that needs to be made is that the King trial was a civil trial and therefore had a lower standard of proof required. Nonetheless your point is taken.

I do believe this is a different situation and one that is winnable. We have a puncher's chance. But that requires that the punches keep being thrown with at least some landing. If we stop throwing them, we may as well throw in the towel and buy shares in Fox.

_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
              Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me


"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." 
Don Jeffries

"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott

https://gregrparker.com
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 2:09 am
Greg,

           Your mention of the King trial indeed is relevant because the Commission operated on the same standard a lower threshold for Oswald's guilt. I agree we need to have higher standards than the Commission if we are going to overturn its most unproven findings.

Dan,
       You are spot on. We must use every legal means available to demonstrate the feasibility of our contentions. 

Goban,
            To know that officials suppressed and denied feasible justice in my view is not enough. Some people have wasted decades making enemies lists and launching crusades that have done in my view little to actually further the reopening the case. If we seek to change things it is not enough to believe they are guilty, we must prove it.
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 3:50 am
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?

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 5:38 am
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?

Goban,

        Indeed, "there I go". The case was proven in a court of law, however as Greg stated it was under "a preponderance of evidence" the same standard the Commission used. However, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt and thus a lesser standard. I actually support the King case finding, but also realize the standards used to arrive at the judgement are important.

Again your attempt at personal attacks are deficient. If you wish a lower legal threshold and use the same methods the Commission did have at it, I will prefer higher standards. Higher standards can rebuff the attacks that plague decisions based on lesser ones.

Additionally, the popularity of ideas does not infer they are correct, it infers they are popular.
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 5:59 am
Carmine,

The standard of proof applied in the MLK Memphis case was the relevant one. End of story. Introducing the Warren Commission in this context is a misdirection for various reasons that I won’t even go into.
 
The repetition of your baseless accusation that I am attempting ‘personal attacks’ on you does not make it true. I have addressed that baseless accusation earlier on this thread and I am not going to belabour it again here. You tried the ‘personal attack’ allegation ploy on Martin Hay too recently in this forum when he caught you out misrepresenting documentary evidence. The ‘personal attack’ allegation is a standard ploy of a certain kind of disruptive individual in internet forums. So on that score also you have a case to answer in my view.

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 7:06 am
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.
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 7:25 am
Carmine,
 
I won’t waste my and everyone else’s time addressing in detail all the flaws and inaccuracies in your latest post.
 
I’m not going to engage in a protracted slugfest with you. It’s something you’re just too good at. It requires a rhino skin resistance to reason and logic that you exemplify.
 
That too is a typical characteristic of the kind of disruptive individual I referred to earlier.

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 7:36 am
Goban,

           If you won't waste your time, then why do you keep replying? Again, you make claims with no evidence, at least you are consistent in that. 

Disruptive? Only to unproven speculations and those who cannot use feasible methods and venture to personal insults. Unlike you Goban, I do not need to call others disruptive to honestly express myself and deal with others reasonably. Censorship and suppression is exactly what created the problems in this case in the first place. If contending ideas offend you, you are in for many future disappointments. Ideas that cannot be defended with substantial evidence or debated are weak ideas.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 8:08 am
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.
Carmine, it is my view that your view is the mistaken one. Just like you believe my view to be. I thought we left it at that. I take offense at you suggesting I am merely opting for the popular. That is a load of rubbish and an insult to my intelligence.
As far as the poll is concerned, you felt the need to disclose how you voted whereas I can't even remember if I did vote. Don't try and turn this around. You made your bed now go and lie on it. I am not pissing on your sheets. You are.
dwdunn(akaDan)
dwdunn(akaDan)
Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 57
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA
http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 9:14 am
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 8th 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.

_________________
"While his argument seems to lead that way, Master Reggie didn't explicitly say it was the CIA that was running the Conspiracy Research Community. He may have meant the CIA has been built up as a bogey-man, as in the theodicy of the right-wing extremist fringe; thus, it may be the latter who are in charge of the apparent research effort. That would help explain the degree of bigotry and psychopathology one finds there."          (from "Master Jasper's Commentary on Master Reggie's Commentary on the Pogo koan" in Rappin' wit' Master Jasper, 1972, p. 14, all rights reversed)
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 9:57 am
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.
greg_parker
greg_parker
Admin
Posts : 6790
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 62
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 10:19 am
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.
Dan,

The JFK assassination forum is currently showing 690 guests and 47 as viewing the forum.

Duncan is bullshitting.

With some forums, you can set the thing to show numbers for the last hour, day or presumably also, for the last week and presents them as being "current".


I have faith in the fundamental decency and even wisdom of "ordinary" people. I may be wrong in that, but it keeps me going.
Me too. And "fundamentally decent" is how I see all regular posters here, as well, regardless of differences in opinions.

_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
              Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me


"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." 
Don Jeffries

"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott

https://gregrparker.com
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 11:27 am
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.
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 11:38 am
@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 8th 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.
Dan,
 
What you say about the small readership of this forum is disappointing. It seems of a piece with the lack of interest by the general public in the MLK Memphis trial I referred to earlier.
 
I have used the term idiotes elsewhere in the forum. It’s an ancient Greek word for people who have little interest in public affairs. Unfortunately it seems to have been always the case that a critical mass of people are so distracted by ‘bread and circuses’ and ‘foreign quarrels’ organised by powerful elites that they are unaware of or choose to ignore the hierarchical social order that grinds them down.
 
I’m thinking here, for example, of the almost 12 million Germans who freely voted for the Nazis in the 1932 election to maintain the Nazis as the largest political party in the Reichstag.
 
That seems to be the way it’s been for most of human history. The anarchist movement in Spain in the 1930s was a rare exception in modern times. That is why I don’t share your faith in the capacity of ‘ordinary’ (whatever that means) people to change anything. As the James Douglass’s comments I quoted show, the vast majority of ‘ordinary’ people were more interested in the OJ Simpson trial or the Bill Clinton affair than in the MLK trial. Of course, much of what I’m saying here is a matter of my political viewpoint.
 
And by the way, it’s not a matter of me considering myself intellectually or morally superior to ‘ordinary’ people. But I do consider myself a thinking person, as someone who uses the brains I’ve got to the best of my ability to try to make sense of the world I live in. And I would say the same of members of forums such as this. But we are in the anti-authoritarian minority it seems. To say that not enough people think independently to make a difference is a statement of the obvious. I believe that a major reason for that is the so called education system.
 
The more I think about it the more merit I see in the ideas Ivan Illich presented in his seminal 1970s book Deschooling Society. The system of mass education that we currently have destroys in people their innate capacity to be what Paulo Freire calls ‘considerers of the world’.
 
I don’t share your dismissive view of civil trials such as the MLK trial. It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself in that regard. You previously spoke about the importance of court rulings as matters of historical record. Civil court rulings are matters of historical record. The fact that most people ignore the MLK judgment is part of the political malaise I’m talking about. Dismissing the importance of that judgment is just another symptom of that malaise.
 
That judgment was hard won against all the odds. For strategic and tactical purposes, I believe that those of us interested in fighting the good fight should make the most of whatever victories of that kind are won because they are so few and far between and because they are usually gained at a huge cost of great effort and sacrifice by a brave few.
 
I never said I objected to putting Frazier on a witness stand. What I said is that I didn’t see how it could help us to solve the Prayer Man problem specifically.
 
It goes without saying that my ‘Frazier/PM analysis’ is icing on the cake. Sean Murphy presented more or less the same analysis in post # 791, page 53, dated 20th September 2013, on the Prayer Man thread. My version is based on that and also takes into account a modicum of further information gleaned from Frazier’s recent comments to Albert Rossi. Also, phrases that I used such as ‘in the circumstances’ and ‘in this situation’ in conjunction with the analysis were meant to imply the contextual framework elaborated so brilliantly by Sean Murphy with some assistance by others on the Prayer Man thread.
 
Finally, I disagree with you when you say we don’t need to identify ‘the enemy’. If we don’t try to analyse the forces we are trying to fight against, I can’t see how we will get very far.I have already quoted the Bible on this. Maybe you’ll find Sun Tzu more persuasive:
 
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 12:17 pm
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.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 2:53 pm
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.
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.

You were referring to me, Carmine.
How unfortunate it is that you won't admit to it or confront your mistake.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Thu 23 Oct 2014, 2:13 am
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.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Thu 23 Oct 2014, 7:39 am
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.
The evidence in this case, Carmine, is that you clearly speculated I simply followed the polls when forming my opinion on PM without any evidence or substance to your statement. First you must confront your mistakes before you can admit them. You seem reluctant to follow that process.
I do not feel motivated enough to continue this dizzying exchange with you any further. It is irrelevant to this thread and a waste of time.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Thu 23 Oct 2014, 10:51 am
Paul,
          You can claim what you wish yet that does not make it correct. I disagree as is my right based on the lack of conclusive evidence and reasonable skepticism. Just because I did not provide the answer you wish is not inference that my answer is incorrect. 

No there is no evidence of your claim because I never stated your view was based on polls, you chose to imply that from my response. If I have something to to say, have no fear I will say it plainly. 

If their is conclusive evidence, as some have claimed then offer it. I am more than happy to refine my view. I consider all the evidence not just that which agrees with my ideas.


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Fri 24 Oct 2014, 2:42 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Goban_Saor
Posts : 454
Join date : 2013-07-16

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

on Thu 23 Oct 2014, 5:59 pm
Carmine,
 
Thank you for demonstrating yet again your tremendous capacity for grinding people down with unrelenting streams of spurious verbiage and what I referred to earlier as your ‘rhino skin resistance to reason and logic’.
 
One instance of reason and logic you have tried to bury with your spurious verbiage is the conclusive evidence adduced earlier on this thread that Prayer Man is Oswald.
 
But, as always, I will leave the spurious last word to you.

_________________
All is but a woven web of guesses. (Xenophanes)

The truth. No; by nature man is more afraid of the truth than of death...For man is a social animal – only in the herd is he happy. It is all one to him whether it is the profoundest nonsense or the greatest villainy – he feels completely at ease with it, so long as it is the view of the herd, or the action of the herd, and he is able to join the herd. (Soren Kierkegaard)

So let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late. (Bob Dylan)
Sponsored content

Prayer Man Poll - Page 6 Empty Re: Prayer Man Poll

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum