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

[angrysoba]

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.

15) It's important because whereas EVERYONE else is too cowardly to take up this case BeAChooser is mighty brave!

16) Quintessential Truther tactic: Demands everyone discuss X. When X is discussed changes the topic to Y.

 

[Lyrandar]

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.

... Wouldn't this be a good opportunity to act reasonable and even-minded as opposed to taking more potshots at me? I'd say the former would go much farther towards convincing me that I'm wrong about you.

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

This is the other problem I have with your debating style - what makes you think I haven't read that?

I have. I gave it a fair bit of thought. And then I attempted to concisely and simply state my opinion, namely that I "would not be surprised" if their work "was affected" by some type of bias. Note - I am not saying their work assuredly was compromised, or that it cannot be trusted at all. This is one of the stronger pieces you've brought up since I joined this discussion. It's merely not the 100% certain indestructible argument which you seem to be portraying it as - there's some doubt and/or chance that you are wrong.

If this were the only point of yours which seemed mildly questionable, it probably wouldn't even matter. Unfortunately, it's not - many of the rest of your points are not nearly as solid as you think they are.

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.

If "our" side doesn't feel that that study was legitimate, I can see them simply refusing to give them any attention at all. I don't really know what reasons the government had or has.

Also, if the Capitol Police officer was unqualified as you say, then I find it just as likely that he could misidentify the note as a forgery when it really wasn't one. Lack of qualification for something like that means that his opinion shouldn't be trusted either way, whether he says it's a forgery or not. That does raise the question of why he was used for the analysis in the first place, of course.

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.

Why, thank you, I'm honored.

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?

I don't know the least thing about most of them. My interest in politics and social issues started sometime around 2003 or 2004 - I don't know all that much about the Clinton era beyond a very general impression. There is a reason I know literally nothing about this case beyond what I've read in this thread and a couple of the links.

In any case, the general impression I have is fairly good. Clinton did his fair share of stupid things, but he also did a fair number of good things as well. I don't agree with everything he did, but I agree with enough to be satisfied overall. That enough info to satisfy your test, BAC?

Finally, as long as you're bringing up partisanship as a possible source of error: what about yours?

 

[Disbelief]

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.

See, you are lying here and you continue to move the goalposts. You keep changing the meaning when I say that your claims have been addressed, which the vast majority have. Now, you want to know why a specific claim of yours has not been addressed.

Would you like me to post where your other claims have been addressed to prove it is you who are lying? Do you think that others reading this can not see through your pathetic truther tactics? As a matter-of-fact, it appears that many already agree with me.

 

[BeAChooser]

At least you've provided post numbers this time.

I've provided post numbers lots of times, Truther. Even in the posts to which you refer.

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.

I certainly hope they do. Everyone should know how dishonest a poster you are, ANTPogo. Everyone.

 

[BeAChooser]

Demands everyone discuss X. When X is discussed changes the topic to Y.

LOL! I promise, angrysoba, that if you take up the topic of the so-called suicide note with me, I won't discuss anything but that topic with you. Until you try to change the topic. You game?

 

[BeAChooser]

This is the other problem I have with your debating style - what makes you think I haven't read that?

I have. I gave it a fair bit of thought.

Really? What in those resumes gave you the impression that those three experts were just partisans?

I don't see anything at all to suggest that in those resumes.

I don't think you put any thought into it at all.

And then I attempted to concisely and simply state my opinion, namely that I "would not be surprised" if their work "was affected" by some type of bias.

Like I said, you could use that excuse to negate ANY expert opinion on ANY subject. That's a Truther excuse.

Note - I am not saying their work assuredly was compromised, or that it cannot be trusted at all.

Oh yes you were, as any casual reading of your posts would indicate.

It's merely not the 100% certain indestructible argument which you seem to be portraying it as - there's some doubt and/or chance that you are wrong.

LOL! Yet you must think the "it was suicide" crowd has a "100% certain indestructible argument", since no post you've made has cast any doubt on their assertions.

Your comments have been entirely directed at casting doubts on challenges to their assertions.

many of the rest of your points are not nearly as solid as you think they are.

You haven't proven that. You haven't proven ANYTHING, Lyrandar.

If "our" side doesn't feel that that study was legitimate, I can see them simply refusing to give them any attention at all.

Spoken like a Truther rather than a skeptic who wishes to deal in sourced fact and clear inferences.

Also, if the Capitol Police officer was unqualified as you say

"as you say"? Why phrase the fact that the Capital Police officer was not Board Certified in handwriting analysis (as opposed to other three experts you simply dismissed out of hand) in that manner? It's not *me* saying that, Lyrandar. It is a sourced statement of fact that you seem desperate to not acknowledge.

then I find it just as likely that he could misidentify the note as a forgery when it really wasn't one.

There you go again, arguing like a Truther. If he's incompetent, isn't he more likely to reach the conclusion that *management* wants him to reach? He's more likely to not make waves (that he can't defend because he isn't an expert) and go along for the ride to keep his job.

Lack of qualification for something like that means that his opinion shouldn't be trusted either way, whether he says it's a forgery or not. That does raise the question of why he was used for the analysis in the first place, of course.

Exactly. Explain why Fiske would have chosen him to provide an opinion given his lack of qualifications? Obviously, there were plenty of Board Certified handwriting experts in the US. Doesn't that suggest that Fiske was incompetent too? Or might he simply have had an expectation that the Officer (who was under the chain of command) would go along with any theory that Fiske pushed? The theory that Fiske outright lied about in his report, as a matter of fact.

I guess we could test you by simply asking where you stand on such topics as Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Filegate, Travelgate and Rapegate? Well, Lyrandar?

I don't know the least thing about most of them.

Wow, you really have been living in a cave.

My interest in politics and social issues started sometime around 2003 or 2004 - I don't know all that much about the Clinton era beyond a very general impression.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself rather than making silly statements like "Clinton did his fair share of stupid things". What he did in those cases wasn't stupid but illegal.

I don't agree with everything he did, but I agree with enough to be satisfied overall.

Yet you admit you know the least thing about those topics. Sounds to me like you are operating from ignorance of the facts and you're "satisfied" with doing that. Because those were clear examples where the Clintons and Clinton administration violated just about every law that can be violated. But you are "satisfied overall"? I think you just destroyed any pretext of being an impartial fact-driven skeptic, Lyrandar.

Finally, as long as you're bringing up partisanship as a possible source of error: what about yours?

I've provided my sources for the facts I've presented on Foster, Lyrandar. If you have a problem, attack the sources. Show the error in what they say. You won't, because you can't.

 

[BeAChooser]

See, you are lying here and you continue to move the goalposts. You keep changing the meaning when I say that your claims have been addressed, which the vast majority have.

LOL! What's it feel like knowing you stepped in it, Disbelief?

Knowing that you outted yourself as someone who uses lies and Truther tactics to debate?

 

[Disbelief]

LOL! What's it feel like knowing you stepped in it, Disbelief?

Knowing that you outted yourself as someone who uses lies and Truther tactics to debate?

17.) Babbling.

You really are delusional. I notice that we are now up to 17 ways that you have acted like a truther and you have not rebutted a single one.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

17.) Babbling.

You really are delusional. I notice that we are now up to 17 ways that you have acted like a truther and you have not rebutted a single one.

Because he can't. It has never been about "proving" that those who don't buy into the Arkansas Project nonsense are anything like truthers. It has always been a thinly veiled way to attack the individual while ignoring the argument.

This thread is where BAC comes when he gets tired of derailing other non-related threads into one of the many Arkansas Project CT's and getting the posts moved to AAH. He comes here to pretend he is Alex Jones and there is a vast audience hanging on his every word, and by sprinkling LOL and emoticons throughout his gish gallop style posts that people will assume he is actually winning some kind of debate.

 

[Lyrandar]

Really? What in those resumes gave you the impression that those three experts were just partisans?

I don't see anything at all to suggest that in those resumes.

I don't think you put any thought into it at all.

I never said they were just partisans. I've seen and heard of plenty of instances where even qualified experts with very impressive resumes have been swayed by personal opinion, partisanship, or any number of other motives besides the given evidence.

I merely wish to point out that such problems are possible here. I cannot say that such problems were present with any certainty, but given the possibility, what you are doing is more on the level of casting random doubts and aspersions on the official story rather than a solid counterexample.

... Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Still, the fact that it's not quite up to "solid counterexample" level is one more point where your argument loses some points.

LOL! Yet you must think the "it was suicide" crowd has a "100% certain indestructible argument", since no post you've made has cast any doubt on their assertions.

Your comments have been entirely directed at casting doubts on challenges to their assertions.

Given that I came to this thread with absolutely no knowledge of this issue, the fact that I trust the other side more and am more willing to attack your side should probably serve as a clue for how well your argument comes off to the average lurker.

You haven't proven that. You haven't proven ANYTHING, Lyrandar.

I haven't done much worth of note, no. Based on what I'm reading here, several of the others have done so to a greater degree than you'd like to admit.

Spoken like a Truther rather than a skeptic who wishes to deal in sourced fact and clear inferences.

I've seen similar arguments advanced in multiple threads on this subforum and the 9/11 subforum. Would you still disagree with that argument even if it was advanced for an issue whose official theory you support?

"as you say"? Why phrase the fact that the Capital Police officer was not Board Certified in handwriting analysis (as opposed to other three experts you simply dismissed out of hand) in that manner? It's not *me* saying that, Lyrandar. It is a sourced statement of fact that you seem desperate to not acknowledge.

Mostly, it's me agreeing with your statement while at the same time leaving myself an escape route in case this argument is dishonest or exaggerated.

There you go again, arguing like a Truther. If he's incompetent, isn't he more likely to reach the conclusion that *management* wants him to reach? He's more likely to not make waves (that he can't defend because he isn't an expert) and go along for the ride to keep his job.

True. That is a very likely possibility.

That said, I wasn't trying to say that he would be just as likely to screw up the other way - I'm saying that we can't use him to say the note is real and you can't use him to say the note is false.

Exactly. Explain why Fiske would have chosen him to provide an opinion given his lack of qualifications? Obviously, there were plenty of Board Certified handwriting experts in the US. Doesn't that suggest that Fiske was incompetent too? Or might he simply have had an expectation that the Officer (who was under the chain of command) would go along with any theory that Fiske pushed? The theory that Fiske outright lied about in his report, as a matter of fact.

Superiors have a nasty habit of not knowing exactly what's involved in the jobs of skilled subordinates. I can see him getting asked to do the job because he was available immediately and had related specialties. I see this all the time - my particular field is computer science, so I get people asking me to fix anything related to computers, despite the fact that I'm only really good at programming, not hardware.

That said, that's really only ignorance and incompetence. I'm not really convinced that this problem is necessarily due to malice.

Wow, you really have been living in a cave.

At the risk of damaging your opinion of me beyond all repair... try "middle school". I grew interested in politics early in high school, and I'm in college now.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself rather than making silly statements like "Clinton did his fair share of stupid things". What he did in those cases wasn't stupid but illegal.

Funny, I don't remember any such thing out of my American history classes. It's been a while, which is why I don't remember specifics, but you'd think outright illegality would be more readily remembered.

I suppose I could go back and dig up my old books and notes, but I have the feeling they'll confirm the general impression I'm working off of now - that there were some scandals and controversies, but that these were not necessarily worse than the similar events many politicians have, certainly not to the point of being obviously illegal.

I've provided my sources for the facts I've presented on Foster, Lyrandar. If you have a problem, attack the sources. Show the error in what they say. You won't, because you can't.

Shall I remind you that the problem with partisanship and other such biases is not that they change the facts entirely but that they change which subset of the facts is presented and how they are interpreted? If I had a major problem with any of the sources you've posted, I would have said so by now. The problem I have is that you appear to be cherry picking, quote mining, and then picking the worst possible impression you can think of of what you do bring up.

 

[BeAChooser]

BIt has never been about "proving" that those who don't buy into the Arkansas Project nonsense are anything like truthers.

This thread isn't about your so-called Arkansas Project. It's ONLY about the death of Vince Foster. So please stay on topic.

Quite trying the Truther tactic of connecting a legitimate topic to nonsense that noone but you has mentioned.

 

[BeAChooser]

I never said they were just partisans.

You clearly implied that was their sole motivation in concluding the so-called suicide letter was not written by Vince Foster. You completely dismissed the possibility that they reached that conclusion on exactly the basis they stated.

Given that I came to this thread with absolutely no knowledge of this issue, the fact that I trust the other side more and am more willing to attack your side should probably serve as a clue for how well your argument comes off to the average lurker.

No, it simply says something about YOU. That with "absolutely no knowledge of this issue" you immediately stepped in to support one side. And given that the side you chose to support shows a very partisan tendency in their posts on this forum, I'd call that evidence you yourself are the same sort of partisan.

Based on what I'm reading here, several of the others have done so to a greater degree than you'd like to admit.

I gave you the opportunity to prove that even one claim of fact made in the post on the so-called suicide note was false. And you admitted you couldn't. Quite obviously the others haven't done it either. Let's see if you can even admit that?

I'm saying that we can't use him to say the note is real and you can't use him to say the note is false.

But I can use him to show that the sole basis the government gave for saying the note was real admits he might have been wrong because his procedure was flawed and when he used a better procedure he concluded the opposite of what he originally did. And that is significant.

I can see him getting asked to do the job because he was available immediately and had related specialties.

Oh. please. Fiske was in a position where he could have snapped his fingers and had any expert in the country in his office the next day working for him. Any expert would have jumped to be involved in such a high profile case.

That said, that's really only ignorance and incompetence. I'm not really convinced that this problem is necessarily due to malice.

Perhaps looked at in isolation you might be able to say that, but there are numerous examples where Fiske and Starr did this. Numerous examples of Fiske and Starr outright lying about the facts in their reports. Hard to believe that's just ignorance or incompetence. And hard to see why so many of you "it was just suicide" defenders are still so sure the government was right.

At the risk of damaging your opinion of me beyond all repair... try "middle school". I grew interested in politics early in high school, and I'm in college now.

All the more reason to do a little reading about the 90's. Because many of the folks who brought you Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Filegate, Travelgate, etc are now in power in Washington and thus affecting YOUR future.

Quote:
Then perhaps you should educate yourself rather than making silly statements like "Clinton did his fair share of stupid things". What he did in those cases wasn't stupid but illegal.

Funny, I don't remember any such thing out of my American history classes.

That just speaks to the bias of the public education system. And how poor our schools are nowadays when it comes to teaching history. The schools had campaigns promoting *ethics* at the same time that teacher unions were busy supporting one of the most unethical administrations in the history of this country and a President who literally lied to everyone that could be lied to.

It's been a while, which is why I don't remember specifics, but you'd think outright illegality would be more readily remembered.

Like I said, you should educate yourself. I tried to get you to do this once before but obviously you didn't bother. Do that and you'll conclude your so-called education has been less than adequate where the events of the 1990s were concerned and especially where the Clintons are concerned. You can thank democrat controlled teacher's unions and the liberal mainstream media for that gap in your education. Go read the Cox Report. Go read the La Bella memo. Read David Schipper's book. If you can't find the time to read his entire book, then at least read the article I linked you to previously. Check out what Jerome M. Zeifan (the Democrat who acted as Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment) said about Clinton's activities. Read about Riady and the Riady Non-Refund. Read the Senate Whitewater investigation report. Read about Travelgate. Read about Filegate. Look into the allegations of rape and sexual assault against Bill Clinton. And I could go on. But read the above then come back and try to claim that nothing the Clinton's or Clinton administration did was illegal. I'll stomp in a debate on that topic any day of the week.

The problem I have is that you appear to be cherry picking, quote mining, and then picking the worst possible impression you can think of of what you do bring up.

LOL! How can you claim I'm cherry picking and quote mining when you and your friends on this thread offer no facts or quote to support your side of the story other than to regurgitate your feeling of *trust* in the FBI, Fiske and Starr. You have provided nothing to contest what my sources say are the facts in this matter so how you make a claim like that? When you admit you know next to nothing. And since your side has refused to debate with facts and you refuse to *trust* any of those I've offered, you still know next to nothing, Lyandar. You continue to debate like a Truther. That is to say you don't debate at all, because to rationally debate a topic sooner or later you need to deal in verifiable facts. Not just feelings and opinions.

 

[Lyrandar]

I'll deal with this post in its entirety later when I have more time, but I would like to take care of this one point quickly...

No, it simply says something about YOU. That with "absolutely no knowledge of this issue" you immediately stepped in to support one side. And given that the side you chose to support shows a very partisan tendency in their posts on this forum, I'd call that evidence you yourself are the same sort of partisan.

One of my role models in high school once told me "perception is reality". How other people perceive you is more important, oftentimes, than the impression you intended to give them. If everyone views you in a negative light, then it doesn't matter how you think you're presenting yourself.

This matters whether or not you are the one at fault. I could very well be being stupid and shortsighted in this case. That doesn't change the fact that you are ignoring my reasons for doing so, which are in no small part based on my perceptions of your argument. In the process, you are ignoring one of the more effective ways to fix the problem, namely to think more about how other people are looking at what you're saying and how you can get them to look at you in a positive light.

In short - you're ignoring a way to more effectively argue your case, which is a failure no matter how bad my argument is.

 

[BeAChooser]

That doesn't change the fact that you are ignoring my reasons for doing so, which are in no small part based on my perceptions of your argument. ... snip ... In short - you're ignoring a way to more effectively argue your case, which is a failure no matter how bad my argument is.

Call me a skeptic, but I don't think your reasons for making the arguments you are now making have anything to do with encouraging me to argue my case more effectively, Lyrandar.

 

[Lyrandar]

Call me a skeptic, but I don't think your reasons for making the arguments you are now making have anything to do with encouraging me to argue my case more effectively, Lyrandar.

In some sense, yes, this is a replacement for me calling you and your argument things that would probably get me in trouble (and not really help my point anyway). It's also a way (I hope) to make myself look more reasonable and sensible.

On the other hand, though, that's not the whole story, and you might be surprised at the other element to my motives. Most of my primary problems with politics nowadays center around the increasingly divergent opinions and contentious debate. I'm serious about being a moderate - I think almost everyone has something to contribute, and that compromise and polite discussion are of paramount importance. So if I can get you to start debating in a manner I find more reasonable, I count that as a victory for my cause.

I'm also trying to point out that complaining about other people ignoring your argument's merits is somewhat pointless - particularly given the specific manner of doing so you've chosen, it makes you appear less reasonable, when what (in my opinion) you really need to fix the problem is to appear more reasonable.

Anyway, I at least had better drop this derail - I'll get back on the actual topic with my next post. You can have the last word on this topic, if you want it.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm serious about being a moderate

Sorry, but a *moderate* is generally someone who is uninformed, as you've admitted you are on this and other related topics.

I think almost everyone has something to contribute

And I haven't stopped anyone from contributing. It's been their choice not to contest the facts I've brought out about Foster and to act like Truthers.

and that compromise

Compromise? In a case where one set of parties (FBI, Fiske and Starr) clearly lied and obstructed justice? Tell you what. I'm willing to compromise. Let's exhume Vince Foster's and Ron Brown's bodies and have autopsies performed by a group of verifiably independent forensic pathologists under the observation of those who claimed there was foul play in the cases (like Miquel Rodriquez and Colonel Cogswell). You and your side willing to do that, Lyrandar? Or are you not really as interested in compromise as you want people to believe?

and polite discussion are of paramount importance.

LOL! Where have I not been polite? I've used no foul words in this threads (unlike some on the other side). I haven't called anyone delusional, kook, crazy, nutbar, loathsome or insane (unlike some on the other side who have directed those terms at me from almost the beginning of the thread). I haven't tried to claim anyone on the other side said something that they did not (as has been done repeatedly against me). And in fact I wasn't even the one who first started calling the other side Truther. I only did that after I was called a Truther. And when I've called someone a Truther or a liar I've provided the specific data to prove my assertion (unlike the other side in this debate).

So if I can get you to start debating in a manner I find more reasonable

Maybe you should start with the other side?

I'll get back on the actual topic with my next post.

I look forward to it.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Well it seems BAC has ran away as usual until the next time he gets kicked out of a thread for his insane and wacky Foster theories...so see the rest of you in a month from now.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Well it seems BAC has ran away as usual until the next time he gets kicked out of a thread for his insane and wacky Foster theories...so see the rest of you in a month from now.

Ran away? Kicked out? What the heck are you talking about? Not that your post is even remotely on topic.

 

[BeAChooser]

Well it seems BAC has ran away as usual until the next time he gets kicked out of a thread for his insane and wacky Foster theories

LOL! I think this thread amply demonstrates who "ran away" and why.

 

[7forever]

Foster was murdered, clearly. He was shot once to the back of throat which resulted in a small exit on the nape of the neck. The other shot entered under the right jawline (in the neck) with the bullet remaining in his skull, no exit wound.