JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[RoboTimbo]

If you read James DiEugenio's book 'Destiny Betrayed' you'll see dense vetting of the evidence and a clear evidence trail for CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. No honest objective person would deny that after reading 'Destiny Betrayed' and 'JFK And The Unspeakable'.

DiEugenio has completely exonerated New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and his case against the New Orleans plotters headed by CIA operative Clay Shaw. In doing so he has proven beyond a doubt that Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' is fact-based and accurately reflected the Jim Garrison trial center of the plot.

2/10. Too obvious. You have to tone it down a bit and use some subtlety to get a higher score.

 

[BStrong]

If you read James DiEugenio's book 'Destiny Betrayed' you'll see dense vetting of the evidence and a clear evidence trail for CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. No honest objective person would deny that after reading 'Destiny Betrayed' and 'JFK And The Unspeakable'.

DiEugenio has completely exonerated New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and his case against the New Orleans plotters headed by CIA operative Clay Shaw. In doing so he has proven beyond a doubt that Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' is fact-based and accurately reflected the Jim Garrison trial center of the plot.

I'd describe Dieugenio's book and thought process as dense, but I've never heard of "dense vetting."

Is this a branch of gunshot science?

 

[Jetblast]

I'd describe Dieugenio's book and thought process as dense, but I've never heard of "dense vetting."

Is this a branch of gunshot science?

I'd say JREF is pretty much done as far as credibility.


Destiny Betrayed is a very serious well-researched book that proves Garrison's case. The thing about JREF is that it pretends a very high level of credibility through supposed site rules and rules of conduct but then you see the people who pretend to represent the site's theme offer childish trolling as BStrong does here. I don't think it's fooling anyone. This site has very little honor. It's pretty much dark in here. Denizens of the dark. A presumption of dishonesty and deceit.

If we went point for point on DiEugenio's evidence I think we would see JREF deniers couldn't disprove anything he wrote. Honest people understand that's why JREF trolls are only left to mockery.

 

[Jetblast]

2/10. Too obvious. You have to tone it down a bit and use some subtlety to get a higher score.

A trolling answer forced by the facts DiEugenio offers and you are in contempt of. You have no credibility.


This site pretends to be a serious site enforced by moderators selectively enforcing site rules, but answers like this prove otherwise. This isn't a serious site.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A trolling answer forced by the facts DiEugenio offers and you are in contempt of. You have no credibility.


This site pretends to be a serious site enforced by moderators selectively enforcing site rules, but answers like this prove otherwise. This isn't a serious site.

LOL. 1/10, you aren't supposed to acknowledge the posts pointing out your trolling.

 

[Dcdrac]

what is your evidence that htis book you cite is considered to be well researched?

WHo has declared it to be?

 

[Tolls]

In doing so he has proven beyond a doubt that Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK' is fact-based and accurately reflected the Jim Garrison trial center of the plot.

All I have to say is:
Back, and to the left...
Back, and to the left.

 

[BStrong]

I'd say JREF is pretty much done as far as credibility.


Destiny Betrayed is a very serious well-researched book that proves Garrison's case. The thing about JREF is that it pretends a very high level of credibility through supposed site rules and rules of conduct but then you see the people who pretend to represent the site's theme offer childish trolling as BStrong does here. I don't think it's fooling anyone. This site has very little honor. It's pretty much dark in here. Denizens of the dark. A presumption of dishonesty and deceit.

If we went point for point on DiEugenio's evidence I think we would see JREF deniers couldn't disprove anything he wrote. Honest people understand that's why JREF trolls are only left to mockery.

Your posts are treated with the seriousness they merit.

If you wish to carry water for a particular CT you need to make an actual case based on the actual evidence - not the assertions you wish to treat as evidence.

I would enjoy engaging Dieugenio in discussion on his findings, but you're no Dieugenio.

 

[Border Reiver]

I'd say JREF is pretty much done as far as credibility.

You know, you make this assertion in pretty much every thread you post to, and keep coming back. You also fail to provide actual evidence as to why your assertions should be assumed correct when the evidence in a matter says something else, or logically leads to a radically diifferent conclusion than you reach.

 

[JayUtah]

I'd say JREF is pretty much done as far as credibility.

According to whom?

Destiny Betrayed is a very serious well-researched book that proves Garrison's case.

But you can't describe how you arrived at that opinion. As I said before, like most JFK conspiracy theories, yours is simply that you read a conspiracy book and now you think you're smarter than all your critics.

The thing about JREF is that it pretends a very high level of credibility through supposed site rules and rules of conduct but then you see the people who pretend to represent the site's theme offer childish trolling as BStrong does here. I don't think it's fooling anyone. This site has very little honor. It's pretty much dark in here. Denizens of the dark. A presumption of dishonesty and deceit.

Your emotionally laden personal attacks are not an argument. As I've noted over the past several weeks, you cannot seem to make an argument on any point without resorting to commenting on what a den of deception and iniquity JREF is. Given your strong moral objection to the character of your interlocutors and your unabashed display of it, why should anyone be fooled into engaging you on any point you would make?

If we went point for point on DiEugenio's evidence I think we would see JREF deniers couldn't disprove anything he wrote.

Begging the question. You don't get to claim victory based on what you suppose would happen if you were to make an argument.

As with all your other threads, you've simply latched onto an author or two and are repeating his claims without being able to discuss them yourself at any useful level of understanding. You don't give any indication that you've approached those works critically. In fact the opposite: you seem to have concluded, ad hominem fashion, that these authors are unimpeachable authorities.

Honest people understand that's why JREF trolls are only left to mockery.

Begging the question. Your line of reasoning in every JREF thread you contribute to is that invisible lurker can see how obviously right you are and how obviously detracted and dishonest your critics are. That's not an argument.

 

[BStrong]

I voted for "Probably just Oswald acting alone" , the reason I voted "probably" is the nagging doubt that 40+ medical witnesses seem to suggest otherwise.

Baloney

 

[Mudcat]

Baloney

In your heart, you know you're wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

A trolling answer forced by the facts DiEugenio offers and you are in contempt of.

Emotionally laden hyperbole. This is what rhetoricians sometimes call "verbal violence." We disagree that your author has treated the facts of this case defensibly and fairly. We disagree with your author's conclusions and lines of reasoning based on his factual observations and assumptions. In any other context this would simply be the jumping-off point for a discussion or debate. However, in the context of a discussion with you, we first have to correct your hyperbole: it isn't "contempt" of something to have good reasons for disbelieving it. Trying to shame your critics away from disagreeing with you is not an argument.

The other problem is that your posts don't seem to distinguish between "fact" and "stuff you read," the latter being things that may or may not be true. And in your previous arguments in this thread and elsewhere, we have all shown you where exactly you (or rather, your source) was in error. Yet you persist in citing those statements again and again as if there were not contest regarding their authenticity or factual correctness.

If you are unwilling to let go of the notion that your sources are infallible and that what they assert must be considered invariably true, then there is no point in trying to engage you. When you are so obviously entrenched and when you assiduously ignore all requests for substantiation or evidence, people get the idea you're just here to browbeat them.

You have no credibility.

According to whom? And why is this relevant to any point you're trying to make?

This site pretends to be a serious site enforced by moderators selectively enforcing site rules, but answers like this prove otherwise.

You have written off every serious attempt to engage you as "contempt for the facts," and then go on to declare victory at every turn. That's tantamount to having fingers in your ears and yelling loudly your own beliefs despite all that's happening around you. That's certainly not an argument. If you refuse to take serious answers seriously, you will likely be afforded little to no respect, even when you attempt to make a legitimate argument.

As to selective enforcement of the rules, you haven't given any evidence that the rules are selectively enforced, or if so, that they are selectively enforced to the detriment of your side of the debate. In this thread I wrote a lengthy post containing scholarly articles and video examples of gunshot effects on human tissue, and it was removed too by the moderators -- the point being that I'm not the least immune to moderator enforcement.

However, I can point out that a common argument given in support of failed or failing lines of reasoning is that one could have made a much better showing but for the moderators selectively removing one's best arguments. Whatever infraction I may have committed to cause the post to be removed, the notion remains that it I considered its contents to be points well made against yours, and that now my line of reasoning has to suffer its removal. In other words, quit blaming moderation for your failure.

But I will applaud you for at least finally acknowledging, even by inference, that your arguments are failing. There would be no point in shifting blame for the failure if you didn't believe that you weren't failing.

This isn't a serious site.

Yet you keep coming back, ostensibly only to tell us repeatedly that we aren't a serious site, that we have no credibility, and that no one should listen to us. Can you explain why you do this, and why its relevant to any point you might be trying to make? You clearly have no intention of entertaining a debate over your beliefs, and you clearly believe you cannot be given a fair hearing here. If you concede all that, then would we be right in saying your only reason to come here anymore is to make personal attacks and gloat over your supposed victory? And in that case, wouldn't the properly rational response be to ignore you, or at best to rebuke you?

 

[Robrob]

A trolling answer forced by the facts DiEugenio offers and you are in contempt of. You have no credibility.

Is this like a magic word for you? You use it continually and completely out of context.

Could you please provide a definition of what you think you mean when you use it?

 

[JTF]

Fantasy World

Jim Garrison's investigation was a travesty and a joke. To argue otherwise is to live in a fantasy world. According to his military records, Garrison was mentally ill and his time in New Orleans included protecting mob boss Carlos Marcello. Garrison had no ethics, no morals, and no soul.

Despite Oliver Stone's attempt to lend credibility to Garrison's case against poor Clay Shaw, the documented record demonstrates that Garrison was so incompetent that he didn't even present the closing argument at the Shaw trial.

I'm shocked that Jetblast hasn't put forth his special brand of nonsense on threads that discuss Bigfoot, UFO's, psychics, and ghosts. By the way, Hoover died in 1972.

 

[SpitfireIX]

By the way, Hoover died in 1972.

J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972. The original point was correcting the misapprehension of some poster that Herbert Hoover, whom a conspiracist author cited up-thread confused with J. Edgar, died before JFK was assassinated.

 

[Robrob]

I'm shocked that Jetblast hasn't put forth his special brand of nonsense on threads that discuss Bigfoot, UFO's, psychics, and ghosts. By the way, Hoover died in 1972.

He's been known to post similar unsupported drivel in Flight 800 conspiracy threads.

 

[FrederickEason]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Oswald was, in fact a very important intelligence asset and black project operative. He became Herbert Hoover's most treasured non-official cover operative.

He was not.

Oswald was the most aware of the agents and operatives he was tied to.

He was not tied to any agents.

Modern cancers are the result of US agencies attempting to weaponize cancer.

They are not.

They later claimed to have eradicated Polio.

Which they did.

Later, even more twisted medical bureaucrats invented "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" to further obfuscate their Polio failure.

Chronic fatigue syndrome, if it is even a unique syndrome, shares little to no symptoms with poliomyelitis.

Before long, Oschner revealed to her that she was wanted for a secret program to weaponize cancer.

She was not.

She would extract the worst and fastest-growing tumors, blend them and separate the material to be injected into other rats. As the process continued, the best cancers were identified. Oswald assisted in her work, transporting the animals and other materials. It was Oswald who would often deliver the distilled tumor mixture to the group running the accelerator. Judyth was told never to make direct contact with Oschner again and had never even seen the accelerator facility.

This never happened.

David Ferrie. When he died at the hands of JFK assassination conspirators, in his apartment was found a cancer research paper written by him.

This also never happened.

There, they would conduct their first human trial of the cancer weapon on a criminally insane inmate.

Another event that never happened.

Beginning to see the pattern?

Anyone can make up a story like this, but without evidence to support it, that's all it is. A story.

 

[skepticidal]

Jim Garrison's investigation was a travesty and a joke. To argue otherwise is to live in a fantasy world. According to his military records, Garrison was mentally ill and his time in New Orleans included protecting mob boss Carlos Marcello. Garrison had no ethics, no morals, and no soul.

Despite Oliver Stone's attempt to lend credibility to Garrison's case against poor Clay Shaw, the documented record demonstrates that Garrison was so incompetent that he didn't even present the closing argument at the Shaw trial.

I'm shocked that Jetblast hasn't put forth his special brand of nonsense on threads that discuss Bigfoot, UFO's, psychics, and ghosts. By the way, Hoover died in 1972.

So, you're saying that Clay Shaw was NOT Bertrand and was never a CIA contract agent?

To me, if someone accuses me of being someone else, specifically and I refute that I'd pretty damn well be sure. It would be absolutely fine if I was portraying another identity, so long as it wasn't the one I was specifically accused of.

As it turns out, there's good evidence Shaw was Bertrand and he was a contract agent for the CIA. But, I'm not going to provide any of that evidence here. I simply don't care whether people get this information who don't themselves take the time to find it. And, what is evidence anyway?

In the end, it's your choice to hold Clay Shaw and his fancy parties in such high regard. I hold no one in high regard.

 

[Robrob]

As it turns out, there's good evidence Shaw was Bertrand and he was a contract agent for the CIA. But, I'm not going to provide any of that evidence here. I simply don't care whether people get this information who don't themselves take the time to find it. And, what is evidence anyway?

Yeah, that was predictable.