What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

greg parker wrote:Yeah... but only some - not all in the first volume...

greg parker wrote:

greg parker wrote:Yeah... but only some - not all in the first volume...

And the pre-emptive attacks have started... no sooner did I put up a FB page for the book than one of my good FB buddies, DVP, put up another in his series of old debates with "kooks" on his blog... yep. One in which he calls me a "kook" in every second sentence...

Traveller11 wrote:Okay, for your information, I was actually referring to the JFK Assassination Forum, home of the disinfo campaign.

I just got a little annoyed at Lee for posting my post from another site on here and demanding an explanation, so I fed his own words back to him.

That being said, I don't give a rat's a$$ why Chaney's passing the limo was concealed, but I do feel that if it was ever proven, it would bring down the whole house of cards on the Warren Commission; as would proving any single segment of the Z film was altered.

If Mr. Farley is worried about being called a "crackpot", I'm afraid he is in the wrong business. We're called crackpots and kooks just for showing up on these forums.

Maybe these thoughts and behaviors originate in the reptilian part of the brain.

greg parker wrote:

 it is because of the Fetzers of this world, we all get lumped with the "kook" label. It is a tactic - but only one that is possible because in the name of "unity" so many on "our side" either embrace people like Fetzer, or at least live with his presence. Fuck that. He is as much the enemy as any "Lone Nutter". I refuse to sit around the camp-fire singing "Kumbaya" with utter scumbags.

greg parker wrote:And the pre-emptive attacks have started... no sooner did I put up a FB page for the book than one of my good FB buddies, DVP, put up another in his series of old debates with "kooks" on his blog... yep. One in which he calls me a "kook" in every second sentence...

Martin Hay wrote:

greg parker wrote:

 it is because of the Fetzers of this world, we all get lumped with the "kook" label. It is a tactic - but only one that is possible because in the name of "unity" so many on "our side" either embrace people like Fetzer, or at least live with his presence. Fuck that. He is as much the enemy as any "Lone Nutter". I refuse to sit around the camp-fire singing "Kumbaya" with utter scumbags.

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:

greg parker wrote:Yeah... but only some - not all in the first volume...

And the pre-emptive attacks have started... no sooner did I put up a FB page for the book than one of my good FB buddies, DVP, put up another in his series of old debates with "kooks" on his blog... yep. One in which he calls me a "kook" in every second sentence...

What explains that reaction?
 
I wonder if DVP, Bugs, McAdams and other Looney Nutters are on the "payroll" to keep certain things from getting out of hand. When new threats emerge (such as your new book, etc.), the paid contractors preemptively launch attacks to try to keep the proles under control. If not that, then what psychology explains this kind of reaction to new facts and ideas? 
 
The more I think about it, the Lonely Nuts camp is almost like a religion. People seem to be drawn to it because of faith, not reason. If you show people hard evidence of something (e.g., Prayer Man, doctored records, impossible timelines, provable lying, etc.) it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe they (and wacko fringe CTs) feel like they're getting something valuable from their beliefs, so they intentionally shield themselves from things that challenge their faith and won't listen. They belong to the Lone Nut family and that's all that matters. Their thinking is filtered according their ideological framework.
 
Maybe these thoughts and behaviors originate in the reptilian part of the brain.

Richard Gilbride wrote:I'm saddened to see this kind of friction develop between two forum members, reaching the boiling point like this after only a couple of days over whether James Chaney did or did not pull forward of the limo. It's a molehill that has no resemblance to being a mountain.

It doesn't come down to ultimatums- either he goes or I go, with no in-between. Why don't you each take about a week off, until next Sunday or so, before you post again? That should help calm down the anger level.

Robert is a relative newcomer but earnest, in my view, and brings a lot of expertise in weaponry to the discussion. And Lee's command of the assassination subject material is second-to-none, with a propensity for digging up cutting-edge contradictions. 

There is plenty of room for both of you gentlemen here.

Richard Gilbride wrote:It reeks of favoritism toward Lee Farley, who has a track record of getting a bit too tempermental when he disagrees with someone.

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Hasan,

A few years ago at the Lancer Forum, a Canadian chap commented on the high violent crime rates in the US by making reference to the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic makeup of American society. I responded by saying that he was fortunate to live in a country where there were so few darkies to worry about. Completely oblivious, he agreed with me. But a moderator (who I regard very highly, still) chose to edit my statement by changing "darkies" to "black people"; upon re-reading it, I was appalled to find that it now read as if I were serious in my statement.

I continually find this same problem with the censor's art: by deleting or changing things as they are, they sometimes can make it worse. If I called someone a scurrilous turd, and that was edited as "deleted," most people would more or less automatically assume that I called the person a m*th***c*er. Granted, that might be because that's what they expect from me .... but the point is that trying to do the right thing in censorship very often leads people to believe the worst, and the principle of transparency is usually a better guide because everything's "out in the open" and there's less chance of misunderstandings. Or people being able to take advantage of a situation, like deleting all the posts one has made in a forum ..... and so in one fell swoop, a critic is silenced, friends are protected from prior critiques, the silenced person has no way of proving what was previously said or argued or presented as evidence, and the censor could even conceivably send out private messages to select people making all kinds of claims about the silenced person, with that person not knowing what was claimed and unable to fight back, especially without having any posts to support one's arguments/defense.

This is only a "point of order," Hasan, something to think about.

Take care all,
Dan

Greg wrote:....the aggrieved party left by personal choice. He then contacted and asked that the remarks about him be removed and added that if Hasan and Richard felt anything he said should also be removed, then that should be done as well.

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Hasan,

A few years ago at the Lancer Forum, a Canadian chap commented on the high violent crime rates in the US by making reference to the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic makeup of American society. I responded by saying that he was fortunate to live in a country where there were so few darkies to worry about. Completely oblivious, he agreed with me. But a moderator (who I regard very highly, still) chose to edit my statement by changing "darkies" to "black people"; upon re-reading it, I was appalled to find that it now read as if I were serious in my statement.

I continually find this same problem with the censor's art: by deleting or changing things as they are, they sometimes can make it worse. If I called someone a scurrilous turd, and that was edited as "deleted," most people would more or less automatically assume that I called the person a m*th***c*er. Granted, that might be because that's what they expect from me .... but the point is that trying to do the right thing in censorship very often leads people to believe the worst, and the principle of transparency is usually a better guide because everything's "out in the open" and there's less chance of misunderstandings. Or people being able to take advantage of a situation, like deleting all the posts one has made in a forum ..... and so in one fell swoop, a critic is silenced, friends are protected from prior critiques, the silenced person has no way of proving what was previously said or argued or presented as evidence, and the censor could even conceivably send out private messages to select people making all kinds of claims about the silenced person, with that person not knowing what was claimed and unable to fight back, especially without having any posts to support one's arguments/defense.

This is only a "point of order," Hasan, something to think about.

Take care all,
Dan