Why I Don't Waste Time Posting On JFK Issues in Google Groups

Google groups is a later iteration of Usenet newsgroups and newsgroup culture after Google took them over ca. 2001. According to a Wikipedia entry:.

By 2001, the Deja search service was shut down. In February 2001, Google acquired Deja News (and its archive), and transitioned its assets to groups.google.com.Users were then able to access these Usenet newsgroups through the new Google Groups interface.

But cursory inspection shows that contrary to the claim of being a better information repository, Google groups is as beset by noise from trolls, morons and screwballs as Usenet was in the mid 90s. In fact, I'd say even more.  The JFK assassination is a case in point and shows pretty well that most of the numskulls who post aren't interested in serious discussion - but drive -by snark that would embarrass an intelligent 8-year old. But this was one reason that in 2001 I stopped forthwith with Deja news and never signed onto Google groups. Too much noise, not enough signal.

In the current discussions in the JFK assassination forum author Richard Charnin has tried valiantly to introduce the resident peanut gallery to my recent JFK assassination book, but with zero success. He's received one to two line responses (again,  most that a 2nd grader wouldn't write), ranging from: "Jeez why should I waste money on some book full of CT shibboleths and nonsense!" (Amazing he could use the word "shibboleths")  to "I bet he don't have a job and sits in his mom's basement writing this stuff!" (Actually no, I'm nearly 69 and long since retired - able to travel and work on my own projects. You should be so lucky, Sparky!)

But this is the sort of drivel one must put up with if he dares to cast pearls before swine. Because given their nature, swine won't appreciate what's on offer and will generally use the occasion only to evacuate their bowels - or in this case resort to verbal diarrhea via their keyboards.  This is the low quality dreck that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the cybersphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.

Heck, most of these turkeys couldn't distinguish Oswald's CI/SIG 201 file from his 74-500 file, far less Kennedy's  NSAM-263 from Johnson's NSAM-273.  I warrant they've never even read them ....or the cables from the Mexico City station (dispatched compliments of station chief David Atlee Phillips)  that clearly sets up Oswald as the patsy. They talk and write about this being "more CT nonsense" but the very writing of such idiocy shows they're not invested in the truth (as James Douglass shows in his 'JFK and the Unspeakable') but denial and propaganda.

Another dolt actually asked Mr. Charnin if I ever "came up with an original theory on the assassination".  But why would I when the existing JFK records, released files clearly show  - to any person with an IQ at least one standard deviation beyond normal - that there is no need to "reinvent the wheel" as it were. All the evidence is there and points to a CIA-instigated hit - which this bozo would learn about if he possessed the reading level (2nd year college) to appreciate my book. Also, to appreciate my original mathematical approach to the analysis of the backyard photos (using fractional calculus) and the rifle shots.

But see, when people lack aptitude - either in reading or mathematics- the only response they're left with is the default  put down, irresponsible (uninformed) criticism, and simpleton snark. They aren't going to applaud the work - because hell, they aren't prepared to exercise their minds to a degree that exceeds accepting  more than the simplest answers. It's more comfortable to remain brainwashed zombies gobbling up lone nut propaganda.

This brings up my other main point on why I won't waste time with these clueless nimrods: they already have made their minds up on what's true and what's false - just like the climate change deniers. It is what I have earlier called "false knowledge syndrome".  As I noted in a post elaborating on the condition:

"Sure, all humans want to believe they’re rational, but Kahan's work shows that in reality most people employ their reason  ex post facto to  rationalize what they already want to believe. Thus, if they already believe global warming is a "hoax" their brains won't work in order to process new information that invalidates that, but rather they will search for bogus information (say from a Terry Lovell, or Richard Lindzen, or Jason Lisle) that reinforces their misperceptions. "

Let's also bring in another related observation for those who so vehemently (and mindlessly) defend the lone nut bunkum (which one Mensa Bulletin letter writer in 1995  compared to "accepting the virgin birth").  Then there is this percipient take compliments of Matt Ridley in his Wall Street Journal column of Sept. 10, 2011:

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?"

A point surely missed by the uneducated yahoos who inhabit Google Groups, namely the JFK discussion forum.  Because if a rational man like Richard Charnin (and even long time researcher Anthony Marsh- who noted whenever he gave an original theory it was shot down in the forum) can be so summarily dismissed there is no hope for rational exchange.  Further, the evidence is manifestly clear that the bulk of respondents are fools and trolls just as wedded to their own wacko conspiracy theories (in this case irrationally anti-CT) as those who currently believe U.S. Army special forces are in Texas for an Obama "takeover"

The worst tragedy is that, leaving out all subjective back and forth,  these morons are totally unable to see how the basic physics - mechanics points to conspiracy.( I.e. grasping that Jackie's limo  trunk motion is impossible for a rear shot such as from the Book Depository, because the direction of linear momentum is always in the direction the bullet travels)  It is almost like trying to impart or teach Chinese to chimps.  As for the mathematical proofs - such as via Charnin's Poisson  analysis or use of my fractional calculus - when you  have to deal with those possessing subnormal IQs (who wouldn't be able to do even basic algebra) you're not going to get kudos because again...showing your work is analogous to showing Chinese to a chimp. A chimp isn't likely to read that page of Chinese characters but more probably defecate on it.

Bear in mind these misfits who find it so easy to slam a reflective book of analysis they haven't read,  likely couldn't even write a convincing comic book. But this is what you get when you offer substantive fare for consideration to mentally deficient imps who are more at ease wallowing in their own verbal feces and hurling it at anyone who dares try to enter their 'den' for education purposes.

This is why it's a total waste of time, mental capital and energy to attempt to dispense any pearls of wisdom regarding the JFK assassination (and I'd guess global warming as well) on Google Groups. It is simply not a venue conducive to intellectual exercise or exchange.

If I were Richard Charnin I wouldn't waste another minute of time or mental energy on the Google Groups JFK forum. He's better served writing a follow-up to his excellent original conspiracy book - this time focusing on LBJ's role. Perhaps doing a Poisson analysis showing that what too many regard as disconnected, "coincidental" events: i.e.  destruction of the bloody suit coat, cleaning and disassembly of the limo and even the Bethesda autopsy- could only have been orchestrated by Johnson. He had the means, motive and opportunity (as well as the power)  to do it and everything to lose (owing to the exploding Bobby Baker scandal) if JFK wasn't in a box by the time the entourage left Big D.

Something to consider.

Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination (Pt. 1- Oswald's Background)

1. What personality disorder(s) did Lee Oswald have, if any?

BPD - or borderline personality disorder, is now generally believed to have its genesis in  'schizophrenogenic mothers’[1]. Often, this can arise from incest- or some other form of emotional or physical abuse. While not asserting this happened to Oswald, there are some other markers which give indications it may have. Those include:

i) Borderlines tend to have significant sexual difficulties (ibid.) (We know Oswald had these in his marriage)

ii)  Borderlines crave attention. (We know Oswald did from his TV appearances, and flaunting his Russian while in the Marines)

iii)  From 25% to 65% of borderlines have suffered separations from a parent, generally in preschool or adolescent years[2]. (This conforms to what we also know about Oswald's early family history).

iv)  Families of BPDs tend to be isolated and self-contained. Thus borderlines have no external families by which to gauge their pathology[3]. We know this applied to Oswald's mother and her family – which kept their issues to themselves as far as they could.

v)  Borderline adolescent males tend to aggressively act out their impulses. These can include bouts of hyperactivity, stealing, truancy etc.[4] We know this applied to Oswald when his family lived in New York and later, New Orleans.

vi) In late adolescence and adulthood - borderline males display a low tolerance to frustration which "makes it difficult for them to stay in school, and likewise wander between jobs and residences"[5]. As we know Oswald changed jobs often as well as places of residence.

In sum, it is clear that Lee Harvey Oswald likely had at least one personality issue: BPD or borderline personality disorder. It is also quite likely he had at least one other, since "an estimated two-thirds of borderlines have one other personality disorder”[6]..In addition,

Kutcher et al (1989)[7]  have found electro-physiological abnormalities that are 'unique' to both schizotypal and borderline disorders. This strongly suggests that BPD and schizotypal disorder share a common genesis, and may well represent a single type of schizophrenia.
 

It should also be noted that a primary feature of BPD is 'splitting' which means a person can alternate between being very caring, warm and sensitive - as his wife Marina has acknowledged in interviews[8], and being aloof and  emotionally withdrawn depending on the subject's perception of the person he is relating to at that time[9]. (If the image is positive, the subject will be warm and caring, if negative, the subject will be hostile and withdrawn. This splitting of images of perception likely has its roots in how the child related to his mother in formative years, alternately seeing her as 'good' – or 'bad' depending on her actions and her level of care, or perceived care)

Lastly, it is important to note that borderline personality disorder is not a sociopathy, indeed: "depressed and lonely borderline males hide behind sociopathic facades" [10]. Hence, because of certain borderline tendencies and images - 'feeling of omnipotence' - it is possible to confuse their condition with that of sociopaths.[11] Clearly, as a probable sufferer of BPD, Lee Harvey Oswald was no sociopath. Clearly also, he was likely confused with one, which is why it became easier to accept or believe he was the assassin.

2. Would this have made Lee more or less likely to be the assassin?

In my own opinion, and taking key factors into account, I believe it would have made him much less likely to be the assassin. However, his 'profile' would have made him more likely to be accused of being the assassin.

Why less likely as an assassin? While the borderline male (adolescent) does have some propensity for violence, it is on the scale of the known, interpersonal level: fist fights, destruction of property. As we know Oswald was guilty of these in his younger (teen) years. However, the assassination of a sitting President elicits an entire new magnitude and order of violence, which Oswald clearly did not possess. He did occasionally inflict violence on Marina, but it is an enormous step from that (violence to a known, loved one) to killing a stranger - even an important stranger. This simply does not fit a schizotypal-borderline profile.

 

 

Some  may opine at this point, ‘but he took a shot at Gen. Edwin Walker!’  No, he did not. No evidence points to it, and what evidence is available discloses a Latino character and short Caucasian in a 1957 Chevy. The car is in a photograph presented as an “exhibit” by the Warren Commission, but the license plate area is defaced. Why? The Latino character is almost certainly Sergio Archacha Smith, and the short Caucasian is the Oswald double that James Douglass documents so meticulously – including multiple witness statements, in is book ‘JFK and the Unspeakable'. It is worthwhile to note that not even Walker himself, in a deposition, believed Oswald made the shot.
 

This evidence was supported by Robert Surrey, one of Walker’s aides who spotted two men prowling around the residence days before the shooting.  The car was described as a 1957 Chevrolet and one of the man as dark-complexioned.  This description of two men and the car exactly fits the description given by James Douglass (op. cit.)  of Sergio Archacha Smith and an Oswald double who drove with him out to the Trinity River after the assassination.

 

 

The fact that Oswald never learned to drive is also critical here. Given a Warren Commission file photo showing the (actual ’57) Chevy parked next to Walker’s home – but with the drivers’ license cut out from the image, why would anyone want to protect Oswald if he really was the perp? It makes no sense. The only reason anyone – likely the Dallas PD or FBI – cut out the plate identification is to protect someone else other than Oswald!

 

 

Another salient point: the slug found at the scene was from a 30.06 as reported from the FBI files cited in Mark North’s excellent book Act of Treason (page 255). So how did a 30.06 rifle mutate into Oswald’s alleged 6.5 mm Mannlicher –Carcano some months later, when all the evidence is Oswald never fired such or was ever photographed with such?  Why would Hoover, the FBI, the Warren Commission and the Dallas Police be so eager to hang this shooting on Oswald, to later implicate him in the JFK assassination? Mark North again has the answer[12]:

“Hoover, the Dallas P.D. and the Warren Commission realized early on that an examination of Oswald’s past reveals only a pacifist engaged in leftist activism. Simply put, he is nonviolent”

North aptly points out (ibid.) subsequently that the Walker shooting – like other “media myths” -  was totally unrelated to the assassination and further:

 

“would have faded into total obscurity but for the fiction that will be created on 11/22/63”

Again, another effort to paint the “red patsy” in time for the real culprits to take out Kennedy.

In effect,  the inherent instability implicit in BPD  would have rendered Oswald perfect fodder for being a 'patsy' (since BPD manipulators are also easily manipulated themselves). Hence, he would be more likely to be accused of being the assassin, particularly by those who painted him into this position. He made the ideal  'fall guy', and his BPD personality profile doubtless played a role in his initial selection in the fake defector program.

(To be continued)

---

[1] Cauwels, J.M.: 1992, 'Imbroglio: Rising to the Challenges of Borderline Personality Disorder' , W.W. Norton & Company.

[2] Cauwels, op. cit. p. 233

[3] Cauwels, op. cit,. p. 235.

[4] Cauwels, op. cit. p. 144.

[5] Cauwels, op. cit. p. 145.

[6] Cauwels, op. cit. p. 62

[7]Kutcher, S. et al. 1989, 'Biological Psychiatry', Vol. 26, pp. 766-74

[8] Marina Oswald Porter, on 'Oprah Winfrey Show', 11/22/96.

[9] Cauwels, op. cit., p.194-95

[10] Cauwels, op. cit., p. 149
[11]
See also: Kelly, Delos:1989, 'Deviant Behavior', St. Martin's Press.(Chapters 5, 16 and 22)

12] North, Mark: 1991: Act of Treason, Carroll & Graf Publishers, p. 255.