+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious (/thread-4547.html)
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - Ed Jewett - 12-10-2010
Similar issues confront the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - Paul Rigby - 12-10-2010
Just think how much easier it would be for TPTB to control a unified movement? In diversity lies strength, the free exchange of opinion, and the right to disagree.
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - Peter Lemkin - 13-10-2010
Here I have to disagree. No one is proposing [I hope] a unified group-think and all do not have to see eye-to-eye on anything; rather to not undercut each other personally and work together to alert the Nation and the World to the significance of the event and doing something about it!!!...such as seeing justice done; the guilty identified and prosecuted; the innocent vindicated and the TRUTH told. Its a tall order, given the differences, but on most things even those [honest and real] researchers who disagree on other points can agree and take action. The two different Dallas meetings [for example - there are other divisions!] is just the most absurd, destructive, divisive of 'efforts' [taken to the logical extension, each researcher with a novel 'take' would hold his/her own conference only...... We need a real investigation; likely an international one with international jurists and professionals. Such action will take some unity of purpose.
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - John Kowalski - 13-10-2010
Can some one tell me what the divisions are within the research community.
John
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - Jack White - 13-10-2010
John Kowalski Wrote:Can some one tell me what the divisions are within the research community.
John
I would not attempt to divine what motivates the main groups
and I think both/all are sincere. That said:
JFK Lancer...tries to stay middle of the road and non-controversial.
Vigorously opposes certain research, such as Z film fakery. Tries
to steer research away from US/MilIndComp involvement. Opposes
US involvement in 911.
COPA...More traditional old-school research group, supported by
earlier main-line researchers such as Wecht and Groden. Encourages
new research. Kept alive solely by John Judge.
Mavericks/Loners...unaffiliated with the other groups. Responsible
for much good research and new thinking, but difficult for the mainline
groups above to deal with. Includes some like Livingstone and Lifton.
Lifton and Livingstone were early to recognize problems with the Zfilm.
My opinion. Hope this helps.
Jack
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - John Kowalski - 13-10-2010
Jack White Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Can some one tell me what the divisions are within the research community.
John
I would not attempt to divine what motivates the main groups
and I think both/all are sincere. That said:
JFK Lancer...tries to stay middle of the road and non-controversial.
Vigorously opposes certain research, such as Z film fakery. Tries
to steer research away from US/MilIndComp involvement. Opposes
US involvement in 911.
COPA...More traditional old-school research group, supported by
earlier main-line researchers such as Wecht and Groden. Encourages
new research. Kept alive solely by John Judge.
Mavericks/Loners...unaffiliated with the other groups. Responsible
for much good research and new thinking, but difficult for the mainline
groups above to deal with. Includes some like Livingstone and Lifton.
Lifton and Livingstone were early to recognize problems with the Zfilm.
My opinion. Hope this helps.
Jack
Jack:
Thanks for the info.
John
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - Peter Lemkin - 13-10-2010
John Kowalski Wrote:Jack White Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Can some one tell me what the divisions are within the research community.
John
I would not attempt to divine what motivates the main groups
and I think both/all are sincere. That said:
JFK Lancer...tries to stay middle of the road and non-controversial.
Vigorously opposes certain research, such as Z film fakery. Tries
to steer research away from US/MilIndComp involvement. Opposes
US involvement in 911.
COPA...More traditional old-school research group, supported by
earlier main-line researchers such as Wecht and Groden. Encourages
new research. Kept alive solely by John Judge.
Mavericks/Loners...unaffiliated with the other groups. Responsible
for much good research and new thinking, but difficult for the mainline
groups above to deal with. Includes some like Livingstone and Lifton.
Lifton and Livingstone were early to recognize problems with the Zfilm.
My opinion. Hope this helps.
Jack
Jack:
Thanks for the info.
John
Oh, my...I sense I'm about to get myself in trouble with some people I respect and would care if they respected me...but truth is truth and that is what this is all about. I agree with all Jack said above. Lancer people are sincere, IMO, and motivated, BUT just can't BELIEVE [go there!] that things are really that bad and we've been had....not once, but multiple times. They seem to [generalizing] feel that America was hijacked/deceived once [11/22/63]. COPA [although not uniformly!] is more likely to believe that we have never had a moment/ polity action, war/assassination, covert op, etc. that wasn't a hijacking, deception and false-flag op. I think Lancer are not [mostly] trying to deceive, but simply can not 'deal' with such a reality, and thus use psychological denial [and other such] to 'deflect' it. Sadly, this coincides with much of the USA populace. Lancer folks are, generally, also enamored of the 'Camelot' myth. I think JFK was a man changing from an Oligarch to a Free-thinker and that is exactly why he was murdered by the men behind the curtain - who lurk there still!
IMO, 9-11 was a carbon-copy of Dallas [and I could name others], only larger and more dangerous. To deny this is, IMO, a fatal flaw [fatal to the human race and all hope for humans...] :goodnight:
IMHO. :adore: :banghead:
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - John Kowalski - 13-10-2010
Peter Lemkin Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Jack White Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Can some one tell me what the divisions are within the research community.
John
I would not attempt to divine what motivates the main groups
and I think both/all are sincere. That said:
JFK Lancer...tries to stay middle of the road and non-controversial.
Vigorously opposes certain research, such as Z film fakery. Tries
to steer research away from US/MilIndComp involvement. Opposes
US involvement in 911.
COPA...More traditional old-school research group, supported by
earlier main-line researchers such as Wecht and Groden. Encourages
new research. Kept alive solely by John Judge.
Mavericks/Loners...unaffiliated with the other groups. Responsible
for much good research and new thinking, but difficult for the mainline
groups above to deal with. Includes some like Livingstone and Lifton.
Lifton and Livingstone were early to recognize problems with the Zfilm.
My opinion. Hope this helps.
Jack
Jack:
Thanks for the info.
John
Oh, my...I sense I'm about to get myself in trouble with some people I respect and would care if they respected me...but truth is truth and that is what this is all about. I agree with all Jack said above. Lancer people are sincere, IMO, and motivated, BUT just can't BELIEVE [go there!] that things are really that bad and we've been had....not once, but multiple times. They seem to [generalizing] feel that America was hijacked/deceived once [11/22/63]. COPA [although not uniformly!] is more likely to believe that we have never had a moment/ polity action, war/assassination, covert op, etc. that wasn't a hijacking, deception and false-flag op. I think Lancer are not [mostly] trying to deceive, but simply can not 'deal' with such a reality, and thus use psychological denial [and other such] to 'deflect' it. Sadly, this coincides with much of the USA populace. Lancer folks are, generally, also enamored of the 'Camelot' myth. I think JFK was a man changing from an Oligarch to a Free-thinker and that is exactly why he was murdered by the men behind the curtain - who lurk there still!
IMO, 9-11 was a carbon-copy of Dallas [and I could name others], only larger and more dangerous. To deny this is, IMO, a fatal flaw [fatal to the human race and all hope for humans...] :goodnight:
IMHO. :adore: :banghead:
What does IMO stand for?
Yes, the men behind the curtain are always a problem. Discerning their motives and methods is a challenge that would be best met by a unified group. Has any prior attempt being made to set goals for the JFK research community?
John
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - Magda Hassan - 14-10-2010
John Kowalski Wrote:What does IMO stand for?IMO = In my opinion
John
IMHO = In my humble/honest opinion
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious - Dawn Meredith - 15-10-2010
John Kowalski Wrote:John
It is hardly a secret, or unthought of by ALL who attend Dallas, that there have for as long as I can remember now been TWO competing pro-conspiracy conventions - the stupidest thing I can think of. A minor difference in some details of what did or didn't 'happen' plus many bruised egos are involved. I have often wondered too if the keepers of the Big Lie don't work sub rosa to keep things divided, and individual researchers at each others throats...... From my point of view they do a pretty good job of it, overall. Good luck getting things united. It is certainly a worthy goal....but I think there is more to wrestle with than just the 'research community'. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest strategies.[/QUOTE]
Who are in the two groups and what divides them?
John[/QUOTE]
The two groups are COPA and Lancer and they divide themselves. As to why ask John Judge (COPA) and Debra Conway (Lancer).