Prayer Man Poll

First topic message reminder :

Where do you stand?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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,
 
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.

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.

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.

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,
        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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe Frazier could be offered immunity from prosecution if he agrees to tell what he knows about the Case? Would such a thing be possible?

JFK Student wrote:Maybe Frazier could be offered immunity from prosecution if he agrees to tell what he knows about the Case? Would such a thing be possible?

JFK Student,
 
That would still not be enough for some people. You’ve seen earlier on this thread how the MLK Memphis trial verdict was rubbished.
 
Frazier could testify in the US Supreme Court in whatever kind of case you like, civil or criminal, that Prayer Man is Oswald and those people would move the goalposts to demand more ‘proof’ for whatever spurious reason or other.
 
It is already proved beyond reasonable doubt that Prayer Man is Oswald. That ‘verdict’ does not depend on a judge’s or a jury’s interpretation of what Frazier might or might not say on a witness stand.
 
It depends on simple logical deduction from what Frazier has already said and not said.

Goban Saor wrote: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.

This forum was only one example; at the time (re Tom's points) I also had in mind The EF, whose JFK section had/has similar numbers (6 to 20 visitors). I've paid no attention to other forums except for Deep Foo Foo, and it's been some time since I looked over there, but I had noticed there were only a handful of regular posters (so, again, an echo chamber). The Education Forum of course began as a teaching resource with many, many topic areas, so its overall visitors were always above 100 (with the vast majority looking at non-"conspiracy" items); that's dropped to around 80 since the new management took over.

My point (at the time, re Tom's points) was not to bewail the situation or belittle the effort, but to point out the simple fact of the matter as I saw it. I decided not to add to the discussion as I only had that to say along with observing I was able to take some satisfaction that my blog had recently gotten 30 pageviews from France and 20 from Romania -- so Tom's point about "a wider readership" was a relative matter: is the goal to be read by more of those already in the Conspiracy Research Community; or to be read by a more general audience, of regular human beings (and on a larger scale, world-wide)?

As Greg's alluded to in his reply above, Duncan's problem is not just deception but deception that's obvious, due to the unrealistic exaggeration of the numbers. Could anyone really believe his forum would get anywhere near the pageviews and visitors that The Education Forum gets (where international students and teachers can still go for educational research on a wide, wide variety of topics)?

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.

If the vast majority of people -- common (i.e., "ordinary") people -- aren't going to change anything, then who will? An elite? And if an elite, will they be more of the Leninist variety or the Nazi variety ....... or Maoist, Tea Party, Libertarian, Fifth Monarchy men, Savonarola followers, Jughead cult, Manson family, etc etc etc? I don't trust self-appointed elites, because I don't trust narcissism; and I don't trust invitations to despair and cynicism -- because politically that's a breeding ground for totalitarianism. (In other words, people are shit so treat them accordingly). I hold fast to the idea that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time (indefinitely).

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.

Fair enough, but I would repeat: What better place to inquire of him regarding that issue? Or is "to solve the Prayer Man problem specifically" something that doesn't need to involve Frazier at all? What would solve that problem then?

I actually hadn't intended to seem dismissive of civil trials or mock trials. They can be very important in terms of evidentiary findings obviously, as well as setting legal precedents and procedures for presentations of arguments. But there's nothing final and definitive in them, no criminal penalty in their result, and they carry no obligation to be noticed by anyone. The result in the OJ Simpson civil trial was that the families of the victims got some closure in knowing the record was clarified; but Simpson remained free after stabbing a couple of human beings to death and didn't pay the damages ruled against him (as far as I can recall).

Another issue is quality. The civil trial against Simpson established what should've been clear enough in the criminal trial: Simpson was guilty of murdering two people. It also showed even more clearly what the criminal trial was: a ridiculous circus that resulted in a travesty of justice. You brought up the civil trial regarding the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of "what we're up against" in terms of public indifference. The transcript of that trial can be seen here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060628230756/http://www.thekingcenter.org/tkc/trial.html

I don't think it was the best example to use if it gives me an opportunity to talk about it. Not just because I have an extremely low opinion of the quality of the handling of "conspiracy cases" by one William F. Pepper, but because the proceedings were apparently only meant to establish a finding of conspiracy with the assistance of Lloyd Jowers (in what I regard as the high probability of his intention to misdirect the truth of the matter). Also, I was previously too absent-minded to mention two other people I'd dearly love to see on a witness stand in a serious inquiry: Danny Joe (Joe Daniel) Hawkins and Thomas Tarrants III. I believe we'd get quite a bit better handle on certain things with those two good ole boys questioned under oath than with any number of interviews held with a willing fellow like Lloyd Jowers, since Greg Parker, Larry Hancock and Stuart Wexler can tell you that Hawkins and Tarrants refuse to talk about their past (refuse to give an interview). You'd have to figure that Tarrants in particular would have to be very forthcoming once he'd sworn to tell the truth, because his soul was saved by Jesus and Charles Colson long ago. He's right with God, goddamit, so should have no problem at all filling in some blanks that might help us understand some things about Dr. King's murder.

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.”

Sun left out the fourth alternative: knowing the enemy but not yourself. Being the very wise man that he was, maybe he figured it was too obvious to point out the problem with that.

Goban Saor wrote: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.

Goban,

          Thank you again for supporting my former statement that you seek to distract from the issue at hand with personal observations based on your opinion and little actual evidence. Your ideas claiming that I make spurious statements require evidence and direct statements, not what you perceive is insulting from those who disagree with your ideas. I do not seek the last word, just the more reasonable one based on most evidence and not just what I support.

If you have conclusive evidence then present it. Otherwise you are making (ironically) a spurious claim.