• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

kookbreaker said:
These sentences make no sense. Please try again.
Click to expand...

you are trying to distort what I say.

I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide.

missing suicide note

no prints on gun

no photos of crime scene

no evidence that Foster owned a gun made in 1913

no evidence that gun was the murder weapon

no eyewitness

very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses

no motive for suicide

missing X-ray photos
 
Galileo said:
you are trying to distort what I say.

I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide.
Click to expand...

I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks...

missing suicide note
Click to expand...

It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No.

no prints on gun
Click to expand...

BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun.

no photos of crime scene
Click to expand...

Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation.


no evidence that gun was the murder weapon
Click to expand...

Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence.

no eyewitness
Click to expand...

Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching.

very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses
Click to expand...

He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression.

no motive for suicide
Click to expand...

Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever.

missing X-ray photos
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
fullflavormenthol said:
I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks...



It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No.



BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun.



Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation.




Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence.



Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching.



He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression.



Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever.



Evidence?
Click to expand...

There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed.

If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof.
 
Galileo said:
Whoa nellie. I focus on the evidence. It doesn't matter if Hitler told me about the evidence. If Hitler provided the evidence, that is thing, but if Hitler merely pointed me to the evidnece, then that is OK. You are the one claiming a conspiracy, I say Foster is innocent.

You should focus on evidence instead of character assassination and telling me conspiracy theories about who made the film.
Click to expand...

lol @ character assassination. Where did I do that?

All I did was connect the dots!

Look - I understand what you're saying, the evidence is the evidence. But it is equally foolish to suggest that all sources are equal. Maybe in a perfect world we wouldn't have to fact-check and worrie about where we source our info - but we do.

I mean, do I need to read all of a Coulter book to give her a fair shake? I know where she's coming from and what her bias is.

Given the history of these "film" makers isnt it obvious that they are going to have a very slanted interpretation of the facts?

Do you think these people were even capable of making a balanced film about the clintons?
 
Galileo said:
The conclusion was not made by an impartial panel, it was made by a government bureacrat.
Click to expand...

Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?
 
Galileo said:
There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed.
Click to expand...

I made it up? I didn't make anything up. He had a history of clinical depression, that is on record.

If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof.
Click to expand...

Gun powder residue on the hand, history of clinical depression, wound consistant with self-infliction. That is called evidence.
 
Praktik said:
Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?
Click to expand...

there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence.
 
Praktik said:
Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?
Click to expand...
You should look into the Arkansas Project, the implication is that people began pushing this CT and other for completely partisan reasons.
 
Galileo said:
there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence.
Click to expand...


There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence..

Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant?

Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts?

Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism?

Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye.

And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project.

Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history?

And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion?
 
What if Daniel Pipes came out with a movie talking about how great the state of Israel and their policies are - would you approach that neutrally?
 
Malkuth said:
Or rather, underexposure, such as what apparently 'accidently' occurred to all the crime scene photos.
Click to expand...

Putting quotes around 'ACCIDENTLY' has made me rethink the whole suicide explanation. It must be lies!!!!!!!.:rolleyes:
 
Praktik said:
There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence..

Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant?

Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts?

Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism?

Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye.

And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project.

Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history?

And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion?
Click to expand...

I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial.

Juries are made up of impartial panels, not government bureaucrats.

The government should set up an impartial panel to judge the facts whenever they do an investigation into someone's guilt.
 
Galileo said:
I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial..
Click to expand...

Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government).

But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack".

Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me?
 
Galileo said:
That's what you say, but give Foster a chance to defend himself with counsel in front of a jury.
Click to expand...

I agree, in every case of suspected suicide, we should send it to trial and determine for sure if the person is actually guilty of suicide. However, I think we should go one step further and make suicide a capital offense. Everybody found guilty of suicide should be put to death.
 
Galileo said:
I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man.
Click to expand...
You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections.

Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that.
 
Praktik said:
Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government).

But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack".

Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me?
Click to expand...

wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives.

YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom