what we are witnessing...

Sun 20 Oct 2013, 9:48 am

First topic message reminder :

I know the claims have been made for a very long time that witness testimony has been changed/suborned. But I honestly don't believe the case for that has ever been all that strong. Suspicion isn't evidence.

I think what we have witnessed

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1

here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t34-was-eddie-piper-on-the-6th-floor

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17269

& here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t453-the-rearranged-boxes

to give just some examples, changes all that and is the bones and meat of a prima facie case that Oswald's alibi would not be permitted to stand, and wherever possible, the real story would be turned into a variation on the truth, but leaning towards his guilt.

There is, imo, no longer any justification for defending the WC findings or its methodology.

These threads, among others, contain the real story, or very close to it, about what happened just prior, during and just after the assassination.

The pity is that this story will remain buried in forums. They have no real impact on how the history is written.

It is a large part of my frustration.

Wed 20 Aug 2014, 10:20 pm

Goban Saor wrote:

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:To continue with the boxing analogy, maybe it’s time for the women to step into the ring. The women I refer to are Caroline Kennedy and the Oswald sisters.

Caroline Kennedy is in a particularly difficult position. Ever since the HSCA found in 1979 that JFK was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, the US Government has had a solemn duty to conduct a follow up investigation to find out who was involved in the conspiracy. Its failure to do so makes it an accessory after the fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thu 21 Aug 2014, 2:10 am

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:

Dan Wenceslas Dunn wrote:

Goban Saor wrote:To continue with the boxing analogy, maybe it’s time for the women to step into the ring. The women I refer to are Caroline Kennedy and the Oswald sisters.

Caroline Kennedy is in a particularly difficult position. Ever since the HSCA found in 1979 that JFK was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, the US Government has had a solemn duty to conduct a follow up investigation to find out who was involved in the conspiracy. Its failure to do so makes it an accessory after the fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The claim that a proposition is ridiculous does not in itself make it so. At various stages down through history the received ‘wisdom’ was that propositions such as the earth is spherical, slavery is wrong and women should have the right to vote were ridiculous. So much for received wisdom.

I have elaborated a chain of reasoning leading to the conclusion that Caroline Kenedy ‘is implicated, albeit perhaps at some remove, in her father’s murder’. For me this conclusion is not so much ridiculous as unpalatable and indeed appalling.

I would therefore be very happy if you or anyone else could identify any flaw in the chain of reasoning that leads to that conclusion. I have already requested you to identify any such flaw.

You have failed to do so. Instead you make an unsubstantiated claim: ‘The flaws in the reasoning appear to involve questionable premises in the argument…’.

You haven’t identified the alleged ‘questionable premises in the argument’. You merely claim the premises in the argument are questionable ‘since they led to a ridiculous conclusion’.

In other words, you have committed logical fallacy known as argument from consequences. The mere fact of a statement being inconvenient or unpalatable does not render it untrue.

Thu 21 Aug 2014, 5:05 am

PS. I suggest we desist from further discussion of Ms Kennedy in this context. It is obviously a sore and contentious topic and it doesn’t help to advance the case we have a common interest in pursuing.

However, I do think that the rest of my argument – that the failure of the US Government to establish a follow up investigation to that of the HSCA makes it an accessory after the fact to the assassination of John F Kennedy – could be useful for the purpose of this forum.

Thu 21 Aug 2014, 7:55 am

Goban,

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

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

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

Thu 21 Aug 2014, 9:07 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thu 21 Aug 2014, 10:29 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said, Dan!

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

Still can't figure who you might be though.

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

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

Fri 22 Aug 2014, 4:36 am

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

Fri 22 Aug 2014, 4:52 am

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

Enjoy Alpine.

I have fond memories of the place...

And have a drink on me.

Fri 22 Aug 2014, 6:37 am

terlin wrote:Goban,

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

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

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

Terry,

Things are in a bit of a heap here and I'll reply as soon as possible.

Sat 23 Aug 2014, 9:57 am

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

Sun 24 Aug 2014, 12:07 pm

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

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

Sun 24 Aug 2014, 8:21 pm

steely dan wrote:

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

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

Steely, are you going to share or just leave us in suspense?

Mon 25 Aug 2014, 5:20 pm

terlin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said, Dan!

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

Still can't figure who you might be though.

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

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

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

Greg pointed out a few weeks ago that there are no certainties about anyone being who they claim to be, which is certainly right. But when a username is chosen that doesn't indicate who a person is, and no introduction is given as to who one is, then it's only natural to conclude that the person wants their identity to be unknown. That's understandable in a lot of cases -- like Tim Gratz for instance: he's got a reputation and has been made fun of a lot. But if he wants to come across as an anonymous "friendly lawyer" in a venue like this, given his background in such venues, it might come across as a bit disingenuous as to what he's really doing.

The same for someone who chooses a name like "Goban Saor," which might lead people to believe he's a good old Irish fellow concerned about President Kennedy's murder. I think I suggested a very good solution for him: write to Caroline Kennedy and share with her his concerns and his beliefs. We can sit around and bitch all we want about what a mean old world it is, about how the MSM and the MIC and the CIA and the NSA are all stacked against us, but that hasn't exactly produced results, has it? Goban has a perfect opportunity to really get us somewhere, by enlisting Caroline Kennedy in the effort.

I do apologize about the "pushing shit" reference, and about the misidentification(s) leading to uncivil behavior on my part. I don't really see it as anything other than part of the "pro-South" agenda that's been going on since the 1970's in the US; I just think we can do better, because that agenda has had its chance and proven to be unworkable and unworthy of us. The "revisionist history" I had in mind was this (my comments in square brackets):

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/204697

Many conspiracy buffs put Edwin Stanton in the mix of the plot to kill Lincoln. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The evidence easily proves his innocence but opens his involvement in and even darker plot of his own creation: the quiet extermination of the assassin, John Wilkes Booth. With the actor dead, Stanton's secret would remain forever hidden. But what was it he wanted hidden?

[conspiracy buffs.......hmmm, that's usually what WE are called, by those who try to dismiss what some of us are doing]

Otto Eisenschimyl shocked the world by implicating Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in the plot to kill Abraham Lincoln. That author made Stanton the mastermind behind the plot and not just another of Booth's stooges.

Mainstream historian's have always dismissed his charges and claimed there was nothing unusual in the Secretary's behavior. After all, they claim, the Confederate government was the mastermind behind the plot.

[which would make sense, wouldn't it ....... Civil War and all that sorta thing; since they couldn't win the war they'd at least get some revenge]

This volume attempts to show both sides in that debate are wrong. Eisenschimyl misread Stanton's actions and the historians are no closer to proving the Confederate connection than when Stanton first unveiled the claim almost a century-and-a-half ago.

[sounds good but qualifies as an unproven assertion unless of course you prove in your book that "historians are no closer to proving the Confederate connection etc"]

The question hinges on motives. Once one understands the motives behind Stanton's actions, all that he did makes perfect sense.

On Booth's side of the ledger, it is the lack of a cohesive motive that has kept the historians at drift since the assassination. No one has yet come forward with a solid motive for the actor's insane act.

[other than a not at all insane and quite comprehensible act of revenge for the defeat of the Confederacy, whether under the direction of larger forces or not (e.g. a plot by agencies of the Confederate States)]

Perhaps by putting both of these investigations together in one place, and shaking well, we can begin to make a little sense out of the ages-old confusion that is the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

We might be able to shed a little light on the plot to kill Lincoln, but we most definitely reveal what was behind the plot to kill John Wilkes Booth.

Mon 25 Aug 2014, 9:46 pm

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

Dan,

I understand the confusion of names in the forums and I have changed mine to my real name - although the various pen-names used on my published volumes might extend the confusion somewhat.

As far as the "pro-South" agenda, I am not a purveyor of that carp. I just do not happen to think the CSA was behind the assassination of Lincoln. I do not buy the findings of Stanton's version of Warren Commission a la 1865 but it is a good template to helping understand the faulty 1963 investigation.

Terry

Tue 26 Aug 2014, 7:37 am

I think the Laurel and Hardy is interesting because of the fact there is a woman with a rifle wrapped in a heavy paper bag Very Happy

, and I bet this is the original inspiration for the paper bag, and it says to me that in Dallas on november 22 1963 nobody would suspect a woman ( or a Black man ) as the shooter or even as the one that brought the rifle inside the TSBD.
But then Again, there were 2 rifles there on the 20´th or 21. and nobody did notice these rifles.

Tue 26 Aug 2014, 8:17 am

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

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

One a comedy - the other a tragedy.

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

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

It all fits.

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

The inspiration for the bag came from Minsk.

Tue 26 Aug 2014, 11:40 am

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

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

One a comedy - the other a tragedy.

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

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

It all fits.

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

The inspiration for the bag came from Minsk.

Yes, Greg. "It all fits."

As my pappy (non-Junker) would say: It's as clear as ditch water.

Tue 26 Aug 2014, 11:40 am

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

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

One a comedy - the other a tragedy.

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

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

It all fits.

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

The inspiration for the bag came from Minsk.

Yes, Greg. "It all fits."

As my pappy (non-Junker) would say: It's as clear as ditch water.

Tue 26 Aug 2014, 1:02 pm

Despite his non-Junker status, your pappy sounds like a wise old dude.

Wed 27 Aug 2014, 7:24 am

Terry W. Martin wrote:Goban,

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

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

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

I didn’t mean to be away from the forum for so long but I was away from home for a few days and one thing led to another.

By way of a short reply to your point Terry, it doesn’t follow that when a corporate entity is found guilty of a crime or offence everyone employed by or associated with that entity is guilty.

I was thinking about writing a long reply using the Holocaust as an analogy and including references to authors such as Primo Levi, Ian Kershaw and Mark Roseman but it’s hardly necessary and anyway it would probably be in breach of the Godwin rule.

My excursion during the weekend included a Guinness fuelled symposium on many topics in the course of which I mentioned our discussion here and my Ms Kennedy faux pas. One normally quite astute person said that Caroline Kennedy should run for the presidency in 2016 and I don’t know if it was the Guinness or what but that struck me as a kind of ‘perfect storm’.

So there it is. We should organize a petition urging Caroline Kennedy to run for the presidency in 2016 with a view to, among other things, establishing an investigation to follow up on the finding of the HSCA in respect of her father’s assassination.

Given the manner of the gestation of this idea I fear that from an objective viewpoint it might seem quite mad but I wonder if anyone thinks it has any merit at all.

Wed 27 Aug 2014, 8:27 am

Goban Saor wrote:

Terry W. Martin wrote:Goban,

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

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

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

I didn’t mean to be away from the forum for so long but I was away from home for a few days and one thing led to another.

By way of a short reply to your point Terry, it doesn’t follow that when a corporate entity is found guilty of a crime or offence everyone employed by or associated with that entity is guilty.

I was thinking about writing a long reply using the Holocaust as an analogy and including references to authors such as Primo Levi, Ian Kershaw and Mark Roseman but it’s hardly necessary and anyway it would probably be in breach of the Godwin rule.

My excursion during the weekend included a Guinness fuelled symposium on many topics in the course of which I mentioned our discussion here and my Ms Kennedy faux pas. One normally quite astute person said that Caroline Kennedy should run for the presidency in 2016 and I don’t know if it was the Guinness or what but that struck me as a kind of ‘perfect storm’.

So there it is. We should organize a petition urging Caroline Kennedy to run for the presidency in 2016 with a view to, among other things, establishing an investigation to follow up on the finding of the HSCA in respect of her father’s assassination.

Given the manner of the gestation of this idea I fear that from an objective viewpoint it might seem quite mad but I wonder if anyone thinks it has any merit at all.

She'll need some work done, Goban.

How Many Times Can Caroline Kennedy Say 'You Know' in Under a Minute?

what we are witnessing... - Page 10 18m7nuoin9l4apng

what we are witnessing... - Page 10 18m7nuoin9l4apng

Wed 27 Aug 2014, 10:07 am

Well it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Wed 27 Aug 2014, 12:24 pm

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

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

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

Wed 27 Aug 2014, 2:03 pm

In this context we may consider the Commentary on the Pogo koan, by the paranoid Zen master, Reggie:

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

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

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

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

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

Wed 27 Aug 2014, 9:58 pm

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

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

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

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

Indeed, Paul, your penultimate post prompted me to google Caroline Kennedy interviews on youtube and she does seem to suffer in comparison with her father in political terms.

what we are witnessing...

what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...

Re: what we are witnessing...