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

[fullflavormenthol]

10.) Slow learner.

11.) Considers everything argument that isn't in 100% in agreement with them as invalid. Hence a constant accusation that the opposing party has not taken up the argument.

 

[Disbelief]

11.) Considers everything argument that isn't in 100% in agreement with them as invalid. Hence a constant accusation that the opposing party has not taken up the argument.

12.) Believes that he instills fear in others.
13.) Considers this of vital importance - so much so that he pounds away for hours on his keyboard instead of taking it up with someone who can do something about it.

 

[dafydd]

12.) Believes that he instills fear in others.
13.) Considers this of vital importance - so much so that he pounds away for hours on his keyboard instead of taking it up with someone who can do something about it.

That is because there is nothing to take up.

 

[BeAChooser]

12.) Believes that he instills fear in others.

I know I don't. But this apparently does, in your case:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/forg.gif

Which is why you don't want to discuss it.

Which is why you are desperately clinging to this latest tactic.

I don't think you are fooling most people.

Not even yourself.

I think you are just , Db, and you know it.

 

[Disbelief]

I know I don't. But this apparently does, in your case:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/forg.gif

Which is why you don't want to discuss it.

Which is why you are desperately clinging to this latest tactic.

I don't think you are fooling most people.

Not even yourself.

I think you are just , Db, and you know it.

Here, let me type this slowly so maybe you understand. I do not give a **** about this stupid conspiracy theory and most people don't. The reason I do not want to discuss it, is because it does not really interest me. What has interested me is your truther tactics, which I have been pointing out - specifically because you have been claiming that "non-believers" are are acting the truther role.

Does that clear things up for you? That should be easy enough English for you to understand, though I already know your likely response. You truthers are so easy to predict.

14.) Extremely antagonistic

 

[BeAChooser]

Here, let me type this slowly so maybe you understand. I do not give a **** about this stupid conspiracy theory and most people don't. The reason I do not want to discuss it, is because it does not really interest me.

And yet here you are. No one forced you to join a thread that doesn't interest you, Db.

What has interested me is your truther tactics

I suggest you go and look at 9/11 Truther threads. You'll find that one side in those threads routinely refuses to address the facts. Guess which side that is, Db?

14.) Extremely antagonistic

LOL! You might want to check a mirror before you post again because your very first post on this thread was this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6404033&postcount=483

and your very first sentence in it was this:

I'll chime in and say BAC is delusional.

Now I'd call that "extremely antagonistic".

And right after that you claimed:

I have read the thread and am not swayed by his points.

But I think it's clear that you didn't read the thread at all. You lied, Db, which is why you find yourself backed into a corner ... totally unwilling to actually debate any of the facts and inferences I noted in the thread ... and now claiming the topic of this thread doesn't interest you in the least. Not even the so-called *suicide* note.

 

[A'isha]

So, when is the prosecutor you contacted with all your earthshattering evidence going to take said evidence to a grand jury to get indictments, BAC?

I mean, that's what you're doing with all your "evidence", right, BAC? You're not just posting endless walls of text on an internet message board for no apparent purpose or anything, are you?

 

[Disbelief]

And yet here you are. No one forced you to join a thread that doesn't interest you, Db.

Your reading comprehension is really bad, considering I explained why I was here in the very next sentence that you quoted.

I suggest you go and look at 9/11 Truther threads. You'll find that one side in those threads routinely refuses to address the facts. Guess which side that is, Db?

I suggest that you look at my posting history and realize that is where I routinely post. Your facts have been addressed by numerous posters here, but you fail to comprehend.

LOL! You might want to check a mirror before you post again because your very first post on this thread was this one:

Now I'd call that "extremely antagonistic".

Not antagonistic, realistic.

But I think it's clear that you didn't read the thread at all. You lied, Db, which is why you find yourself backed into a corner ... totally unwilling to actually debate any of the facts and inferences I noted in the thread ... and now claiming the topic of this thread doesn't interest you in the least. Not even the so-called *suicide* note.

No, I did not lie, you just do not like that others do not agree with your absurd theory. I notice that you never posted a poll like you were requested. I guess you already know what the results will be.

Now, my name here is Disbelief and you will stop shortening it. If you do so again, you will be reported to the mods.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
I suggest you go and look at 9/11 Truther threads. You'll find that one side in those threads routinely refuses to address the facts. Guess which side that is?

I suggest that you look at my posting history and realize that is where I routinely post.

Then you should know better.

Your facts have been addressed by numerous posters here, but you fail to comprehend.

Go ahead. Prove that the issues I raised regarding the so-called suicide note, for instance, have been addressed on this or any thread. Post a link to where that's happened. I bet you can't do it. Which makes you a LIAR. And lying is something Truthers routinely do to avoid debating the facts in an honest manner.

Now, my name here is Disbelief and you will stop shortening it. If you do so again, you will be reported to the mods.

Sure thing. If that's your BIG concern.

 

[Disbelief]

Then you should know better.

This is how I know truther habits, which you are clearly displaying.

Go ahead. Prove that the issues I raised regarding the so-called suicide note, for instance, have been addressed on this or any thread. Post a link to where that's happened. I bet you can't do it. Which makes you a LIAR. And lying is something Truthers routinely do to avoid debating the facts in an honest manner.

Good, now you are moving the goalposts, another famous truther tactic. Here is what you said:

I suggest you go and look at 9/11 Truther threads. You'll find that one side in those threads routinely refuses to address the facts. Guess which side that is, Db?

Where now you want me to prove that someone has addressed a specific point (the suicide note). Nothing in the post I commented on talked about the suicide note, just the generalities. I can point to many points addressing your other evidence, which proves I am not lying. So, who is not debating honestly?

Sure thing. If that's your BIG concern.

No, you just think like a truther and that you can try to coyly get in ad homs.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Go ahead. Prove that the issues I raised regarding the so-called suicide note, for instance, have been addressed on this or any thread. Post a link to where that's happened. I bet you can't do it. Which makes you a LIAR. And lying is something Truthers routinely do to avoid debating the facts in an honest manner.

Good, now you are moving the goalposts

I didn't move anything.

I just proved you are a LIAR when you claimed my "facts have been addressed by numerous posters here".

And lying is a very common Truther characteristic.

 

[A'isha]

I just proved you are a LIAR when you claimed my "facts have been addressed by numerous posters here".

And now we see the value of the Gish Gallop to those who employ it.

 

[Lyrandar]

I just proved you are a LIAR when you claimed my "facts have been addressed by numerous posters here".

The problem with this comment is that our definitions of facts being addressed are quite different. A lot of it relies on value judgments as to how likely alternate explanations are or how much the official story relies on the piece of evidence in question.

The problem with that is that such judgments are very, very vulnerable to being affected by things like political ideology, no matter what the presented evidence is. Which leads us to BAC's extreme right-wing viewpoint and desire to see the Clintons crucified (okay, maybe you don't actually literally want that, but you do think they're evil and should be punished in some way) affecting his judgment, and therefore the validity of his argument. There's just about no airtight way to prove that such judgments are disconnected from reality, too - in many cases they are wrong but not drastically so. (This is why I haven't posted on this thread in a while.)

Incidentally, another consequence of the difference in defining how facts need to be addressed is that BAC can't distinguish between people running away from an airtight argument and people running away from a fallacious argument that can't easily be proven wrong.

 

[BeAChooser]

And now we see the value of the Gish Gallop to those who employ it.

For this to be an example of a Gish Gallop, you need to prove what I've posted about the so-called *suicide* note was false. And you won't be able to do that. Instead, you'll go on ignoring the suicide note like you and the others have done since the beginning of this thread, ANTPogo. The only person galloping here is you … galloping away from fact after fact and inference after inference that you simply can't challenge. In fact, here's the ONLY way you dealt with the suicide note in this thread:

Trying to pretend that pretty much every single one of those "points" weren't actually addressed in this very thread, are we, BAC?

Same dishonest tactic as Disbelief.

 

[BeAChooser]

The problem with this comment is that our definitions of facts being addressed are quite different.

LOL! Point at one claim in my post to Disbelief on the so-called suicide note (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 ) that is not true. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you, Lyrandar.

A lot of it relies on value judgments as to how likely alternate explanations are or how much the official story relies on the piece of evidence in question.

I'm still waiting to hear ANY explanation from your side for the facts outlined in post #655. All I hear is … crickets. The silence of Truthers running from facts they can't explain.

This is why I haven't posted on this thread in a while.

LOL! You can't even be honest with yourself, can you. But then that's a Truther characteristic, too.

 

[A'isha]

For this to be an example of a Gish Gallop, you need to prove what I've posted about the so-called *suicide* note was false.

Nope. A Gish Gallop is "an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and ******** to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised."

Same dishonest tactic as Disbelief.

In fact, this is a textbook example of your Gish Gallop. My words in that post were in response to a paragraph you wrote containing 256 words making up nine sentences. Only one of those sentences said anything about the suicide note; all the other sentences were each about one of the other idiotic conspiracy claims you've been repeatedly making. That's probably why you mysteriously declined to provide a link to that post, since it would show that most of those conspiracy claims you talked about there had indeed been addressed. But since there was one claim that apparently wasn't addressed, you decided to totally ignore everything else and fixate on that, claiming that since no one talked about that single specific point, you win. When, in back here in the real world, you've actually completely failed.

 

[Lyrandar]

I find it amusing that BAC's response quoted below contains no denial of my argument that his political views are affecting his judgment.

LOL! Point at one claim in my post to Disbelief on the so-called suicide note (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 ) that is not true.

I can't. All of your explanations are certainly possible. I just think there are perfectly valid alternate explanations which are more likely.

As an example: in that post of yours, you talk about the three handwriting experts' analysis. Having read their reports, I believe they knew about the subject of the case from the beginning of the project. I believe the organization that hired them had the goal to find evidence that would prove the murder theory, not to find evidence that was necessarily true. Given those circumstances, I would not be surprised if the research was affected by partisan concerns, even given the qualifications of the experts.

Exactly what one does with this argument depends to a great deal on how likely it is to be true, and the exact probability someone assigns is difficult to affect with logic, particularly with preconceived ideas resisting it. To someone who believes that the Clintons are evil, it makes no sense, since obviously it's impossible for experts to be wrong. To someone on the extreme left, it's evidence that the official story is true and proof that their counterparts on the right are illogical, since it's obvious that partisan concerns can corrupt anyone. To someone in the middle, it indicates some level of doubt in the experts' analysis but is not conclusive proof that the analysis was biased, since there's some chance of partisan bias and some weight attached to their qualifications.

Proving any one of those judgments to be completely divorced from reality is difficult, since there is some general evidence supporting the argument that even experts can be affected by preconcieved notions and political views and some general evidence supporting the argument that a qualified expert can ignore such problems and make an objective judgment. It would require going even deeper into minutiae about their history, qualifications, and political affiliations than even you've done yet, which is saying something about how much stuff we'd have to dig through.

You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you, Lyrandar.

This (at least I would like to hope) is demonstrably false with a look at my posting history. I apparently can determine facts about 9/11 truth, I'd think, unless I've been posting garbage on that subforum and no one's bothered to call me on it.

Which raises the question: how do you account for otherwise intelligent people so badly screwing up on this one issue and this one issue alone?

I'm still waiting to hear ANY explanation from your side for the facts outlined in post #655. All I hear is … crickets. The silence of Truthers running from facts they can't explain.

You also didn't address my concern that you can't distinguish between people running from an airtight argument and people running from a stupid argument impervious to reason, as long as we're bringing this up.

LOL! You can't even be honest with yourself, can you. But then that's a Truther characteristic, too.

Honestly, I still don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other on this one, and some of what you present certainly seems convincing. Unfortunately (for you), your obvious biases in other areas and your illogical arguments make me very suspicious of even those areas.

 

[BeAChooser]

A Gish Gallop is "an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and ******** to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised."

Except you haven't proven anything I've posted is a half-truth, lie, strawman or **********. In fact, pretty much ALL you've done on this thread is post half-truths, lies, strawmen and ********* of your own. You aren't fooling anyone but those who want to be fooled ... in other words, other Truthers. There is only one reason you won't deal with the specifics I outlined where, for example, the suicide note is concerned. Only one reason. You're a Truther and running from facts is what Truthers do.

And unlike you, I can prove you've done the Gish Gallop on this thread. Here are some specific examples of that:

You claimed the antidepressant proscribed to Foster was "prescribed to him by a doctor who asked if he was suffering from depression when told about his symptoms". That is demonstrably false. You have never presented any evidence that the doctor asked Foster if he was suffering from depression. (See post #159.)

You claimed that I believe "Lisa Foster's declaration that her husband wasn't taking any medication means that he wasn't taking antidepressants." That is demonstrably false. I have always acknowledged the Vince Foster was taking an antidepressant. But not as an antidepressant but instead as a sleep aid, which is precisely the reason the doctor gave for prescribing that drug. (See post #159.)

You claimed that "Legally, Starr had to let anyone mentioned in the report submit their own statement." That is demonstrably false. There was no legal requirement that Starr attach submittals by those mentioned in the report to the report. I even cited the US Code to prove it. (See post #159.)

You claimed that "The judges on the IOC panel ruled that Knowlton had not been given that opportunity, and so Starr had to include Knowlton's statement as an addendum." That is demonstrably false. That is not what they ruled. I even linked the judges "order to attach" and it says nothing of what you claimed. (See post #159.)

You claimed that "Foster was prescribed a dose much higher than the insomnia dose, but fully in line with the depression dose." That is demonstrably false. I provided well over a dozen sources proving it false. (See post #169.)

You claimed that "Watkins prescribed Desyrel, because it could be used to treat both insomnia and depression". That is demonstrably false. Watkins said nothing about needing to treat depression and indeed stated whatever mild depression Foster had was situational and would resolve itself if he simply got more sleep. (See post #169.)

You claimed that "Watkins explicitly prescribed the drug" for the antidepressent part. This is demonstrably false. (See post #169.)

You claimed that "the doctor prescribed the antidepressant in dosages that aren't consistent with simple treatment of insomnia." That is demonstrably false. (See post #169.)

You claimed "Foster was prescribed. 150mg a day, taken in divided doses (three 50mg pills)." That is demonstrably false. In the words of the FBI interview of the owner of the pharmacy, the prescription stated "one to three tablets or 50 to 150 milligrams was prescribed to be taken prior to bedtime." (See post #173.)

You claimed "Foster was prescribed divided doses as in "other purposes" (like for depression), not a single dose (like for insomnia)." That is demonstrably false. (See post #173.)

You wrote "you can try and dismiss Foster's depression entirely (though now I see you admit Foster's family doctor saw signs of depression in him, something you went to great pains to try and deny earlier)." That is demonstrably false. From my very first post I stated that the "doctor indicated whatever depression Foster was experiencing was 'mild'". (See post #254.)

As anyone can see, there are plenty of examples of you doing the Gish Gallop on this thread and debating like a 9/11 Truther. And I could cite many more.

 

[BeAChooser]

I find it amusing that BAC's response quoted below contains no denial of my argument that his political views are affecting his judgment.

LOL! Since when must non-Truthers deny the ravings of people who debate like Truthers? It's best not to even stoop that low.

The simple truth here is I want to debate the facts on this issue, and you don't want to go anywhere near them. It's clear for all to see now.

I just think there are perfectly valid alternate explanations which are more likely.

As an example: in that post of yours, you talk about the three handwriting experts' analysis. Having read their reports, I believe they knew about the subject of the case from the beginning of the project. I believe the organization that hired them had the goal to find evidence that would prove the murder theory, not to find evidence that was necessarily true. Given those circumstances, I would not be surprised if the research was affected by partisan concerns, even given the qualifications of the experts.

LOL! So your alternative is to claim these three experts lied because of partisan concerns … even though you haven't provided any data or source to support the claim that they were partisan.

Let's look at the record of the three handwriting experts you so casually and Truther-like dismiss.

http://www.sanderhicks.com/vince.html

Vincent J. Scalice

Vincent J. Scalice is a certified Questioned Document Examiner with the American Board of Forensic Examiners. Mr. Scalice began studying handwriting analysis over forty years ago, and for the past 22 years has engaged in forensic document examination as a specility. He has testified in hundreds of court cases on civil and criminal matters (please note this too..) pertaining to questioned documents. He has conducted forensic document examination for some of the nation's largest commerical banks, including Citibank and Chemical Bank.

In 1977, Mr. Scalice retired from the New York City Police Department after 21 years of service as a detective first grade with specialties in Identification, Latent Fingerprint Analysis and Crime Scene reconstruction. Since his retirement he has been Executive Director of Forensic Control Systems of Staten Island, New York. He has served as a Consultant to the House Committee on Assassinations which investigated the deaths of President John Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He currently serves as chairman of the Executive Board of Scientific and technical Advisors for the American Board of Forensic Examiners.

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

R. E. Alton

Reginald E. Alton is a world-reconized expert on handwriting examination and manuscript authentication. He has 30 years experience in the field of forensic document examiniation, and has lectured during this period at Oxford University on handwriting and manuscripts, including the detection of forgery and the identification of handwriting to Doctoral and research students in the University of Oxford. In recent years he ruled on charges that some of the manuscripts of the late C.S. Lewis were a forgery. He validated their authenticity. He has ruled on numerous questioned documents and manuscripts, including such noteworthy historical figures as Donne, Shelley, Christina Rossetti, to modern day authors as Oscar Wilde. He has been consulted by civil bodies and by British police authorities and has testified as an expert witness in British courts on criminal matters relating to questioned documents, and has been consulted on anonyous letters and other forgeries.

Mr. Alton, M.C., M.A., is an Emeritus Fellow of St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford, and is currently Dean of Degrees at St Edmund Hall, Oxford's oldest institution for undergraduates. He was Fellow, Tutor and Vice-Principal of St. Edmund Hall and has served as Chairman of the English faculty, as well as lecturer at Pembroke, Jesus and Exeter Colleges in the Univesity of Oxford.

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

Ronald H. Rice

Ronald H. Rice has 18 years experience performing civil, criminal and forensic handwriting examination. He is a Board Certified Handwriting Examiner and Board Certified Forensic Examiner with the American Board of Forensic Examiners, and a member of the National Association of Document Examiners. He has consulted on numerous civil and criminal cases relating to questioned documents, and has testified in state and federal courts. He is currently under contract with the criminal division of the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. He has examined documents in a number of celebrated cases including handwritten documents by Ted Bundy, the alleged Boston Strangler, Lizzie Borden and recently, documents written/printed by O.J. Simpson for CNN (please note that last one). He has been asked to examine documents for the commanding officer of a U.S. Army Military Police Company in West Germany while on reserve training as well as for the United States Navy Investigative Services while a reserve member of Navel Intelligence, attached to Navel Investigative Services. He also serves as a document consulatant for numerous corporations, major law firms and insurance companies in matters relating to questioned documents.

Mr. Rice is the owner of Checkmate, Inc., D.B.A. New England Legal Investigations, based in Boston, Massachusetts. He has been a private investigator for 13 years and a licensed detective for 20 years. He is the published author of the most comprehensive handwriting examination training course currently available through the American Board of Forensic Examiners and trains people in handwriting examination thoughout the country.

If these three can just be dismissed on as thin grounds as you claim with no sources whatsoever to support your attack on their ability to evaluate handwriting impartially, then anyone can be dismissed on those grounds. And that's Truther-like.

And, besides, if it's true their opinion is skewed by partisanship so as not to reflect reality, then it seems to me your side should be able to easily come up with a expert or two of your own to dispute/debunk everything those experts said. But your side hasn't done that. Instead, all we heard from you Foster Truthers was/is the sound of silence. Not even the Capital Police officer who the FBI/Fiske used originally to declare the note authentic is willing to stand up and defend his initial judgment. On the contrary, as I've shown, his statements appear to indicate he knows his procedure and conclusion were faulty.

I apparently can determine facts about 9/11 truth, I'd think, unless I've been posting garbage on that subforum and no one's bothered to call me on it.

I can make the same claim on that subforum. For a time I was very active debunking Truthers. Then I decided it was a waste of time. Although in your case, here, I'm happy to make an exception.

Which raises the question: how do you account for otherwise intelligent people so badly screwing up on this one issue and this one issue alone?

Could be any number of reasons. Partisanship is one of them. It's amazing how many of those on the *it was suicide* side of this debate seem to hold VERY liberal views … and seem to jump in and defend the Clintons anytime their honesty/etc. is questioned. I guess we could test you by simply asking where you stand on such topics as Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Filegate, Travelgate and Rapegate? Well, Lyrandar?

 

[A'isha]

Except you haven't proven anything I've posted is a half-truth, lie, strawman or **********. In fact, pretty much ALL you've done on this thread is post half-truths, lies, strawmen and ********* of your own. You aren't fooling anyone but those who want to be fooled ... in other words, other Truthers. There is only one reason you won't deal with the specifics I outlined where, for example, the suicide note is concerned. Only one reason. You're a Truther and running from facts is what Truthers do.

Uh huh.

At least you've provided post numbers this time. I encourage anyone who gives a crap (which, given the way you've been conducting yourself, probably isn't a whole lot of people) to read those posts for themselves, and not simply trust what BAC has said about them.

In the meantime, BAC, what's the name of the prosecutor you've taken your evidence to? If you don't have one, I know a number of people at the law schools here, people with connections among Washington DC prosecutors. I'd be more than happy to help you bring your evidence to a prosecutor of your choice!