FREE TAPATALK APP

kookbreaker · 20th April 2009, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

by your logic, all those who don't leave suicide notes committed. What about those who did, were they murdered?

These sentences make no sense. Please try again.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 02:17 PM

So you want us to declare all suicides murders?

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

These sentences make no sense. Please try again.

you are trying to distort what I say.

I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide.

missing suicide note

no prints on gun

no photos of crime scene

no evidence that Foster owned a gun made in 1913

no evidence that gun was the murder weapon

no eyewitness

very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses

no motive for suicide

missing X-ray photos

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

you are trying to distort what I say.

I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide.

I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks...

Quote:

missing suicide note

It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No.

Quote:

no prints on gun

BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun.

Quote:

no photos of crime scene

Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation.

Quote:

no evidence that gun was the murder weapon

Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence.

Quote:

no eyewitness

Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching.

Quote:

very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses

He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression.

Quote:

no motive for suicide

Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever.

Quote:

missing X-ray photos

Evidence?

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks...

It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No.

BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun.

Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation.

Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence.

Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching.

He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression.

Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever.

Evidence?

There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed.

If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof.

Praktik · 20th April 2009, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Whoa nellie. I focus on the evidence. It doesn't matter if Hitler told me about the evidence. If Hitler provided the evidence, that is thing, but if Hitler merely pointed me to the evidnece, then that is OK. You are the one claiming a conspiracy, I say Foster is innocent.

You should focus on evidence instead of character assassination and telling me conspiracy theories about who made the film.

lol @ character assassination. Where did I do that?

All I did was connect the dots!

Look - I understand what you're saying, the evidence is the evidence. But it is equally foolish to suggest that all sources are equal. Maybe in a perfect world we wouldn't have to fact-check and worrie about where we source our info - but we do.

I mean, do I need to read all of a Coulter book to give her a fair shake? I know where she's coming from and what her bias is.

Given the history of these "film" makers isnt it obvious that they are going to have a very slanted interpretation of the facts?

Do you think these people were even capable of making a balanced film about the clintons?

Praktik · 20th April 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The conclusion was not made by an impartial panel, it was made by a government bureacrat.

Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed.

I made it up? I didn't make anything up. He had a history of clinical depression, that is on record.

Quote:

If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof.

Gun powder residue on the hand, history of clinical depression, wound consistant with self-infliction. That is called evidence.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?

there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind?

Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?

You should look into the Arkansas Project, the implication is that people began pushing this CT and other for completely partisan reasons.

Praktik · 20th April 2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence.

There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence..

Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant?

Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts?

Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism?

Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye.

And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project.

Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history?

And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion?

applecorped · 20th April 2009, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I focus on the evidence. It doesn't matter if Hitler told me about the evidence.

:covere yes

Praktik · 20th April 2009, 03:25 PM

What if Daniel Pipes came out with a movie talking about how great the state of Israel and their policies are - would you approach that neutrally?

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

You should look into the Arkansas Project, the implication is that people began pushing this CT and other for completely partisan reasons.

I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man.

applecorped · 20th April 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Or rather, underexposure, such as what apparently 'accidently' occurred to all the crime scene photos.

Putting quotes around 'ACCIDENTLY' has made me rethink the whole suicide explanation. It must be lies!!!!!!!.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence..

Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant?

Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts?

Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism?

Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye.

And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project.

Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history?

And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion?

I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial.

Juries are made up of impartial panels, not government bureaucrats.

The government should set up an impartial panel to judge the facts whenever they do an investigation into someone's guilt.

Praktik · 20th April 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial..

Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government).

But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack".

Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me?

cwalner · 20th April 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

That's what you say, but give Foster a chance to defend himself with counsel in front of a jury.

I agree, in every case of suspected suicide, we should send it to trial and determine for sure if the person is actually guilty of suicide. However, I think we should go one step further and make suicide a capital offense. Everybody found guilty of suicide should be put to death.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man.

You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections.

Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government).

But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack".

Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me?

wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives.

YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections.

Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that.

No, I am claiming that Foster is innocent.

Praktik · 20th April 2009, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives.

YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself.

Where did I say anything about the facts of the case?

My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives.

But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide.

Its sad.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Where did I say anything about the facts of the case?

My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives.

But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide.

Its sad.

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence....

Praktik · 20th April 2009, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.

I'm not arguing the evidence of the suicide, that is correct. But my contribution was nonetheless valid, and you have yet to demonstrate why discussion of the motives of the film-makers is invalid.

And if all evidence is to be approached from a mythic position of neutrality - then how do you justify the condemnation of conclusions based solely on the fact they originated - in one of three investigatons - by a "government bureaucrat"?

If that isn't evidence, then what about the conclusions drawn by a band of right-wing fanatics?

applecorped · 20th April 2009, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.

You want a YouTube video of the suicide/murder/assassination/alien abduction, anal probing/staged suicide, don't you?

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

You want a YouTube video of the suicide/murder/assassination/alien abduction, anal probing/staged suicide, don't you?

I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence....

not evidence. There were no prints on the gun.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

not evidence. There were no prints on the gun.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.

He used a .38 cal revolver. Last time I checked .38 cal ammo is not uncommon in the post-1913 world. Unless you are claiming that he somehow had working antique ammunition in his possession at the time?

The chemical composition of gun power does not change depending on the type of gun that is used, especially when it uses a standard ammunition.

So it is evidence. What is that evidence again? Oh yeah, gun powder residue on his hand and a wound that is consistent with self-infliction. BTW...he had a history of clinical depression.

kookbreaker · 20th April 2009, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

not evidence.

Your opinion, not shared by the vast majority of experts in the field.

Quote:

There were no prints on the gun.

Its is rare to get prints. This has already been explained to you.

Quote:

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.

Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days.

SmartyPants · 20th April 2009, 05:06 PM

So let me get this straight: All deaths without an eyewitness, or a witness hearing gunshots, must automatically assumed to be murders?

And by the way, Foster having clinical depression only helps prove the fact that he committed suicide. It is not, however, required. Motive helps in proving a case, but it does not actually PROVE the case as some many CTists seem to believe.

applecorped · 20th April 2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots.

So, if a tree falls in the forest.....................really?

kookbreaker · 20th April 2009, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots.

gunshots?

Arus808 · 20th April 2009, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days.

I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?

Drudgewire · 20th April 2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Arus808

I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?

The main reason I haven't bought a 1911 yet is because I can't find .45 ammo made in the early 20th century.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Arus808

I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.

Drudgewire · 20th April 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.

It's not anecdotal that .38 caliber ammo will work in a .38 regardless of its manufacture date. That's guns 101.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 05:38 PM

It was a .38 cal revolver. It uses .38 cal ammo. They still make .38 cal guns, and still make .38 cal ammo.

Drudgewire · 20th April 2009, 06:05 PM

Just so we're clear:

This is one of the first .38 specials, designed by Smith & Wesson in 1899.

This is the Colt Police Positive, chambered in .38 special. Colt was manufacturing these in 1913.

And this is my carry gun, a S&W 642 airweight. It has the Clinton safety lock meaning it was manufactured after 1998.

THEY ALL FIRE THE EXACT SAME BULLET!!

Arus808 · 20th April 2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.

anecdotal, but you MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT, which of course is not surprising

106 year old .22 caliber rifle made in 1899. FIRES .22 caliber bullets.

Do you honestly think that this rifle WOULD ONLY be able to shoot bullets MADE in 1899 ? That any bullet MADE after 1899 could not be used?

This only proves that you DO NOT know a thing about firearms

20th April 2009, 02:15 PM	#41
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,252	Originally Posted by Galileo by your logic, all those who don't leave suicide notes committed. What about those who did, were they murdered? These sentences make no sense. Please try again.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,252	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

20th April 2009, 02:17 PM	#42
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	So you want us to declare all suicides murders?
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 02:43 PM	#44
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Galileo you are trying to distort what I say. I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide. I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks... Quote: missing suicide note It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No. Quote: no prints on gun BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun. Quote: no photos of crime scene Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation. Quote: no evidence that gun was the murder weapon Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence. Quote: no eyewitness Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching. Quote: very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression. Quote: no motive for suicide Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever. Quote: missing X-ray photos Evidence?
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 03:02 PM	#46
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,275	Originally Posted by Galileo Whoa nellie. I focus on the evidence. It doesn't matter if Hitler told me about the evidence. If Hitler provided the evidence, that is thing, but if Hitler merely pointed me to the evidnece, then that is OK. You are the one claiming a conspiracy, I say Foster is innocent. You should focus on evidence instead of character assassination and telling me conspiracy theories about who made the film. lol @ character assassination. Where did I do that? All I did was connect the dots! Look - I understand what you're saying, the evidence is the evidence. But it is equally foolish to suggest that all sources are equal. Maybe in a perfect world we wouldn't have to fact-check and worrie about where we source our info - but we do. I mean, do I need to read all of a Coulter book to give her a fair shake? I know where she's coming from and what her bias is. Given the history of these "film" makers isnt it obvious that they are going to have a very slanted interpretation of the facts? Do you think these people were even capable of making a balanced film about the clintons?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

20th April 2009, 03:04 PM	#47
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,275	Originally Posted by Galileo The conclusion was not made by an impartial panel, it was made by a government bureacrat. Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind? Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

20th April 2009, 02:30 PM	#43
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by kookbreaker These sentences make no sense. Please try again. you are trying to distort what I say. I say there is too much missing evidence to classify this case as a suicide. missing suicide note no prints on gun no photos of crime scene no evidence that Foster owned a gun made in 1913 no evidence that gun was the murder weapon no eyewitness very weak evidence he was depressed, and a lot of evidence he wasn't depresses no motive for suicide missing X-ray photos

20th April 2009, 03:00 PM	#45
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol I will go ahead and take a stab at some for kicks... It has been established that many suicides don't have a note, and so it is a non-issue as much. Someone distraught enough to kill themselves cannot be expected to be in the right mind to leave a note. Common courtesy..yes, requirement for a suicide? No. BUT Powder residue found on his hand. You fail to mention this. The no prints can also mean that no full prints survived. That isn't uncommon in any crime scene, but the powder residue is important. It means he fired the gun. Please back this claim up, because it makes no since given that there was an official investigation. Except for the gun shot wound and the powder residue on the hand...yes besides all that there is no evidence. Quick call the authorities! Tell them to open a murder investigation in every suicide case in which someone else wasn't watching. He was prescribed Trazodone by his doctor shortly before his death, and in fact there is evidence of years of struggling with clinical depression. Other than suffering from clinical depression....no motive whatsoever. Evidence? There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed. If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof.

20th April 2009, 03:11 PM	#48
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Galileo There's no evidence at all that Foster had clinical depression. You just made that up after he got killed. I made it up? I didn't make anything up. He had a history of clinical depression, that is on record. Quote: If you want to prove a suicide, you need proof. Gun powder residue on the hand, history of clinical depression, wound consistant with self-infliction. That is called evidence.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 03:11 PM	#49
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Praktik Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind? Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film? there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence.

20th April 2009, 03:12 PM	#50
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Praktik Was the movie made by impartial persons? Or was it made by people with an axe to grind? Sounds like selective reasoning at work. If you think the impartiality (or lack thereof) of a government bureaucrat is important - then on what basis do you discount an analysis of the partisanship and ideology of those who made the film? You should look into the Arkansas Project, the implication is that people began pushing this CT and other for completely partisan reasons.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 03:21 PM	#51
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,275	Originally Posted by Galileo there ya go, attacking the filmmaker instead of the evidence. There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence.. Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant? Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts? Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism? Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye. And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project. Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history? And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

20th April 2009, 03:24 PM	#52
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,833	Originally Posted by Galileo I focus on the evidence. It doesn't matter if Hitler told me about the evidence. :covere yes
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

20th April 2009, 03:25 PM	#53
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,275	What if Daniel Pipes came out with a movie talking about how great the state of Israel and their policies are - would you approach that neutrally?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

20th April 2009, 03:26 PM	#54
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol You should look into the Arkansas Project, the implication is that people began pushing this CT and other for completely partisan reasons. I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man.

20th April 2009, 03:27 PM	#55
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,833	Originally Posted by Malkuth Or rather, underexposure, such as what apparently 'accidently' occurred to all the crime scene photos. Putting quotes around '*ACCIDENTLY*' has made me rethink the whole suicide explanation. It must be lies!!!!!!!.
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

20th April 2009, 03:28 PM	#56
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Praktik There YOU go, attacking the government bureaucrat instead of analyzing the evidence.. Lol - look I really dont want to play games but is it your position is that the politics and outlook of people producing political material are irrelevant? Dont you think thats going to have some bearing on the selection and portrayal of facts? Like, if a born-again Christian made a movie he claimed PROVED that Noah's Ark was real, wouldn't I understandably approach his film with some skepticism? Now this is not to say that you should ignore the movie - like heck, I would still WATCH it - but I'd do so with a doubting eye. And knowing the people behind this movie - I am HIGHLY dubious about the whole project. Here's another way to put it - if Limbaugh was to come out with a book talking about how great the Bush foreign policy was - would you approach that neutrally? Or would you approach the book with some skepticism, knowing Limbaugh's history? And you didn't answer my question: why are the motivations of the "government bureaucrat" suspect, but the motivations of the filmmakers off limits for discussion? I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial. Juries are made up of impartial panels, not government bureaucrats. The government should set up an impartial panel to judge the facts whenever they do an investigation into someone's guilt.

20th April 2009, 03:35 PM	#57
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,275	Originally Posted by Galileo I have not alluded to any motivation of government bureaucrats. I am just saying they are not impartial.. Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government). But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack". Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

20th April 2009, 03:38 PM	#58
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,754	Originally Posted by Galileo That's what you say, but give Foster a chance to defend himself with counsel in front of a jury. I agree, in every case of suspected suicide, we should send it to trial and determine for sure if the person is actually guilty of suicide. However, I think we should go one step further and make suicide a capital offense. Everybody found guilty of suicide should be put to death.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

20th April 2009, 03:39 PM	#59
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Galileo I am not pushing a CT. I am defending a innocent man. You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections. Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 03:45 PM	#60
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Praktik Yes you did, and right there you did it again. By saying the government bureaucrat was not "impartial" you were impugning his/her motivations (based on what you haven't said, apart from the fact they work for the government). But when I question the motivations of the film-makers, with evidence, its an "attack". Why this incongruity? Can't you see how you're engaging in the same behaviour you're decrying in me? wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives. YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself.

20th April 2009, 03:47 PM	#61
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections. Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that. No, I am claiming that Foster is innocent.

20th April 2009, 03:53 PM	#62
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,275	Originally Posted by Galileo wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives. YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself. Where did I say anything about the facts of the case? My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives. But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide. Its sad.
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

20th April 2009, 04:04 PM	#63
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Praktik Where did I say anything about the facts of the case? My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives. But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide. Its sad. You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide. Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.

20th April 2009, 04:07 PM	#64
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Galileo You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide. Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence....
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 04:19 PM	#65
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,275	Originally Posted by Galileo You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide. Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence. I'm not arguing the evidence of the suicide, that is correct. But my contribution was nonetheless valid, and you have yet to demonstrate why discussion of the motives of the film-makers is invalid. And if all evidence is to be approached from a mythic position of neutrality - then how do you justify the condemnation of conclusions based solely on the fact they originated - in one of three investigatons - by a "government bureaucrat"? If that isn't evidence, then what about the conclusions drawn by a band of right-wing fanatics?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

20th April 2009, 04:28 PM	#66
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,833	Originally Posted by Galileo You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide. Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence. You want a YouTube video of the suicide/murder/assassination/alien abduction, anal probing/staged suicide, don't you?
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

20th April 2009, 04:33 PM	#67
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by applecorped You want a YouTube video of the suicide/murder/assassination/alien abduction, anal probing/staged suicide, don't you? I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots.

20th April 2009, 04:35 PM	#68
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence.... not evidence. There were no prints on the gun. Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.

20th April 2009, 04:50 PM	#69
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Galileo not evidence. There were no prints on the gun. Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993. He used a .38 cal revolver. Last time I checked .38 cal ammo is not uncommon in the post-1913 world. Unless you are claiming that he somehow had working antique ammunition in his possession at the time? The chemical composition of gun power does not change depending on the type of gun that is used, especially when it uses a standard ammunition. So it is evidence. What is that evidence again? Oh yeah, gun powder residue on his hand and a wound that is consistent with self-infliction. BTW...he had a history of clinical depression.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 05:01 PM	#70
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,252	Originally Posted by Galileo not evidence. Your opinion, not shared by the vast majority of experts in the field. Quote: There were no prints on the gun. Its is rare to get prints. This has already been explained to you. Quote: Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993. Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,252	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

20th April 2009, 05:06 PM	#71
SmartyPants Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Kansas City Posts: 156	So let me get this straight: All deaths without an eyewitness, or a witness hearing gunshots, must automatically assumed to be murders? And by the way, Foster having clinical depression only helps prove the fact that he committed suicide. It is not, however, required. Motive helps in proving a case, but it does not actually PROVE the case as some many CTists seem to believe.

20th April 2009, 05:09 PM	#72
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,833	Originally Posted by Galileo I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots. So, if a tree falls in the forest.....................really?
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

20th April 2009, 05:16 PM	#73
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,252	Originally Posted by Galileo I'd rather have an eyewitness, or at least someone who heard gunshots. gunshots?
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,252	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

20th April 2009, 05:19 PM	#74
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days. I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range. so what is Gallileo trying to say here???? that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

20th April 2009, 05:21 PM	#75
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by Arus808 I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range. so what is Gallileo trying to say here???? that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun? The main reason I haven't bought a 1911 yet is because I can't find .45 ammo made in the early 20th century.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet