Isn’t it obvious what happened? A lone man in Tainan, shot the two of them, angry at society, later confessed to wife, wrote note, committed suicide. End of story. The Almight KMT will never accept this until Hell freezes over, of course, but there it is.
cola -
No. And thus, the continuing controversy.
Really? I mean it is NOT obvious to the KMT, but for the same reason that Jesus is not recognized as the messiah by non-Christians, it is a solid belief system that cannot be swayed. Brainwashing.
But the reality is that is is obvious the guy in Tainan did it. Right?
It is obvious to you, right?
Forget the brainwashed blues, they are brainwashed, like religious converts and they can NEVER see reality. I accept that. Dummies, but that’s their reality. But WE know the reality of it. So why bother anymore?
Who are these other experts? Are they in your film?
The opposition only hired 2 experts to speak on record about the evidence they could see.
The green camp of course bashed them labeling them as hacks and people who of course don’t measure up to Dr. Henry Lee.
They spoke at the 319 seminar in Oct. 2004.
A former police investigator guy was hired from Hong Kong. But his conclusions and suggestions were not on a forensic level and more on common sense and the direction the investigation should take.
The 2 experts that spoke in the 319 seminar are in my film.
I was referring to other renowned experts in forensic science and ballistics or whatever around the world when I say a lot of them all say the same thing. I know this because my friend has shown them the pictures.
I’m glad that you’re at least asking me questions as opposed to sticking with the same line of thinking.
It’s interesting how some people think the Pan Blues are brainwashed, but I must say that from a research point of view regarding this 319 case, the election fraud, and other issues related to it, that my conclusion is that a segment of the society is in fact brainwashed.
Not the Pan Blues, but approximate 30-40% of the Pan Green supporters really believe the shooting incident took place. Another 1/3 lie about it, and the other 1/3 openly admit that Chen is guilty but they don’t care.
The most common characteristic of the pan green supporters is that they don’t care.
In the middle of the road people, there are various opinions also. On the blue side, most people think it’s staged.
https://thechinadesk.tripod.com/taiwans_stolen_election_part_iv.htm
Here’s Bevin Chu’s ranting and ravings about the 319 incident.
By the way, I have spoken directly with dead man’s friends and family. Every time someone says that he did the shooting and killed himself later, this is from my point of view, trampling on the grave of a most likely murdered father of 4 children who was perfectly sane, was not a gun shooting expert, and was not worried the least bit about the 319 incident before he stepped out of his house on 3.28.2004 never to return home again.
While you are not offending me personally, I would like to challenge people here to try to comprehend what they are saying about a man and his family that according to my interviewing, has most likely been framed and murdered.
That family was basically coerced into giving some form of a confession. Ya, like military interrogation style where they don’t let you sleep.
You won’t read that the police did that in the Taipei Times.
This isn’t a world where the 228/White Terror KMT is forever the bad guy. There are other bad guys out there also.
The fascinating thing is that the same crowd that claims that Chen Shui-bian coordinated stage acting, police departments, forensic evidence, etc, nevertheless will claim out of the other side of their mouths that the DPP is totally incompetent.
Vorkosigan
and are they going to be in your film?
The source refutation is called a police investigation. The “material” that Betelnut is providing consists of hearsay evidence, pointlessly stupid rhetorical questions like:
…and so on. Anyone with the IQ of melted jello could construct one million scenarios about how people sweeping a street might miss ejected shell casings. HINT: What does “cha bu dou le” mean when applied to a situation involving manual labor?
None of Betel’s assertions are backed by evidence – the holes are different sizes (no shit – if you think about angles and entrance wounds, you’ll soon discover why. Clue for the audience: a soft bullet begins to mushroom when it strikes an object – such as a jacket…). Instead, they are mumbling whining like ‘the blood types didn’t match’ (no evidence provided) – “the holes are different sizes” (no evidence provided). etc.
I can’t believe anyone could take this nonsense seriously.
I think I’ll just carry this one around in my pocket to use whenever I hear some conspiracy nut tell me this shit.
Vorkosigan
I’ve been watching this thread unfold for a while now, trying to work out if I can contribute anything useful. And I think I’ve finally got it. Forgive me, but I’m a stickler for methodology. When constructing an argument or performing novel research that you want other people to listen to and accept (often at the expense of their prior convictions), you need to walk through 3 steps. You have failed badly in at least two of these:
(1) First, any good researcher must begin by constructing a puzzle which in and of itself screams out to be answered (i.e. it has merit above and beyond anyones personal agenda or interests). A puzzle is the juxtaposition of two or more facts that we do not EXPECT to see together. Two dwarves have a child that is NBA material (i.e. tall); Lien Chan and James Soong kiss and make-up after several years of hating each other (early 2003); quarks appear to be in two places at the same time when you fire them at a partially reflective mirror. BNut, you have almost convinced me that you have a puzzle to explain here, but it needs to be clearer and more precise. In one simple sentence, what is the puzzle you are trying to explain? If you can’t render it into one sentence, then perhaps you don’t have a puzzle after all.
(2) The second step in the process is to line-up the alternative explanations of the research puzzle spelt-out in step one. There must be more than one explanation, or otherwise you’d have a truism on your hands. There must also be more than two to rule-out the old ‘if you’re wrong then I must be right’ kind of argument (which your various posts prove you not immune from doing). BNut, you currently have only 1.5 theories on your research agenda - the ‘government line,’ which you are determined to debunk, and a hazy kind of alternative ‘CSB dun it’ conspiracy theory. You need to (1) flesh-put the conspiracy theory, so others can test it, and (2) provide at least one more alternative explanation so that the debate on evidence doesn’t get stuck in a misleading binary dialogue (which just happens to square-up with Taiwan’s blue-green divide - funny that).
(3) And the final step in the methodological equation is to review the evidence pursuant to the research puzzle in a simple and logical manner. Why simple and logical? Other people should be able to retrace your steps and come to more or less the same conclusions that you did. I have read nothing you have written in this thread BNut that convinces me you are keen to let others follow your footsteps. On the contrary, we have have been exposed to inuendo, half truths, speculation and a selective rendering of the facts that is almost impossible to substantiate or, more importantly, reproduce. What you seem to want is for us to accept your reading of the facts based on your superior knowledge of the topic. Only a fool would do this.
The above steps are a set of fundamental routines that all good researchers apply to force some OBJECTIVITY into their endeavor. I have yet to see your documentary BNut, but from what I’ve seen here, I strongly suspect you have done nothing of the sort. You had an answer, and you set out to prove it right (or, more to the point, that the alternative rending of the facts by CSB & Co. is wrong - indeed, it’s still not clear just what you think).
I teach social science research method to grad students. If you were pulling this stuff in my class you’d be looking at less than 50% for this semester.
He’d also need Annette Lu on board wouldn’t he? Part of your theory here insists that not only did a totally unethical man become president of Taiwan, but an equally unethical woman became VP. Not impossible, I’ll admit, but how could Chen trust her that much?
As for the second sentence quoted above, you’re definitely venturing into slander.
The bullets shown in the Lee report photos were not deformed at all except for a big chunk sheared of the base of the copper one. I think maybe the fact that they were quite slow moving as bullets go contributed to their not being very banged up. But who knows? I thought Dr. Lee would.
I am interested Betelnut, in any other experts who will publicly debate Dr. Lee’s conclusion that the story offered by the Taiwan police, although conceivably concocted, is plausible and reasonable.
There must be hundreds, if not thousands of forensic experts out there who have looked at the photos and seen the bullet holes closer together than the length of the wound. Can you find some Web links?
I checked your last one
https://thechinadesk.tripod.com/taiwans_stolen_election_part_iv.htm
and I must say that it certainly is a rant, as you had warned. It pretty much sticks to personal attacks and accusations not much deeper than the slogans that rumbled out of the blue camp for months after the election.
In fact, it is so funny at times that I’m gonna quote some of it right here:
In most European-inspired (whether Napoleonic or English) legal systems, proving criminal guilt is a pretty high standard. I don’t think the opposition has reached that standard with regards to the existence of a CSB-led conspiracy… but I also sure as heck don’t think anyone has reached the standard to prove what you describe above.
A lone man in Tainan, who was reportedly athletic and an experienced scuba diver… commits suicide by drowning? A lone man, who reportedly wrote 3 suicide letters… all of which were conveniently burnt upon his death and can not be produced nor confirmed? The only evidence at hand is his wife, who claims she read the version that supports the theory he committed the crime… His sons continue to assert his total innocence, even after the suicide.
A presidential candidate who explicitly chose not to wear a bulletproof vest that morning? A bizarre sequence of events in relation to the hospital chosen for treatment, the timeline for treatment, and the timeline for release of information?
And as far as Henry Lee’s investigative report, which is apparently the gold standard on such things… at the press conference where the results were announced, he explicitly said that many of his results were speculative, because there were just too many unknown factors for conclusive forensic analysis. He couldn’t confirm the location of the bullet casings; he couldn’t evaluate gunpowder residues on the bullet casings; he isn’t even sure if there are one or two guns… (he only knows both bullets found came from the same ‘gun-tube’ with similar tool marks, but doesn’t rule out the possibility the same tube was made in to two separate pistols). Henry Lee couldn’t even tell us whether there was one or two shooters… what’s your basis for claiming that the issue is “obviously” resolved?
I think there’s only conclusion from Lee’s investigation that most rational men can accept: the shooting wasn’t “faked”, in the sense that there wasn’t a trained DPP shooter lined up on that street, who managed a grazing wound on CSB’s moving stomach.
As far as a final analysis of what went down, I’ll be the first to admit I have absolutely no idea what actually happened. And those who claim certainty on this issue (one way or the other) are probably armed not with more facts than I, but simply more capacity for wishful thinking.
Hopefully something similar to “cha bu duo le”. I’m not picky on typos, but consider me the helpful pinyin fairy.
See…you did find something of use to take away with you from this discussion.
This is an ongoing event of interest to the current and possible future political history of the island. What the outcome will be and what that outcome will produce is an unknown factor at this point. Taiwan is in a process of change and its direction is still in question. This is just one factor of influence in that direction of change.
I like having front row seats…until the shooting starts… 
Sorry TC, but in my humble opinion, BNut’s line of reasoning is not “intelligently presented” at all, but strategically presented. It’s a polemic designed to sell a message (and indeed a documentary). If he was at all interested in a debate, he’d have followed the standard rules of research inquiry. Some of us learn this stuff by attending a class, some of us pick it up naturally out of an innate desire to be objective (cf my last post). BNut has failed the first line of assessment - i.e. that there are rules of engagement that must be adhered to, and can, crucially, lead to the conclusion that you (the inquirer) are wrong. While the tone of scorn that has been dumped on BNut to date is perhaps not polite in terms of forumosa being a social gathering, it is completely understandable as to the less than savory way he/she has presented their case. The entire thread has been set up as a means for BNut to sell a product, not to discuss an issue that remains important for many people here.
People believe what they are predisposed to believe and Bnut’s docudrama will be very interesting to watch. More power to him for getting it made, and contributing his two cents, but at the end of the day, it is all going to be in vain, but the facts speak louder than hearsay.
Give it up.
@guangtou -
Point taken and understood.
As is obvious, I have an interest in in as many facets of this incident as are possible to view.
BetelNut is presenting a facet that, IMO, is worthy of consideration.
And, as I have repeated - If someone has researched, sourced and credible information that is contrary to what BetelNut is presenting - Lets see it.
Agree or not - lets judge what he presents - not nessacerily how he presents it - let that guide the discussion.
Why? Any fool with a digi-cam can make a doco, and a fool with cash-backing can make a doco that is slick and marketable. That doesn’t make it right. If BNut’s doco is indeed slick and marketable, then all it will serve to do is spread misinformation to a wider (English speaking)audience. If he/she wants a job in advertising, go for it. Leave journalism and social research for those of us that don’t have all the answers up-front.
We’ll be debating this till the cows come home.
The truth is evident to anyone who wants to see it. Those who do not want to see it, will continue to believe what they believe.
Roll out the doco. It should be entertaining if nothing else. Freedom speech and doco, yes!
So, while missing clarification on a few details, we add a few more missinge details to make a story. Brilliant Einstein!
A sharp shooter pots a grazing wound on a moving Chen . . . You’ve fired a rifle or gun before I take it CCtang? Dang but you must be good!
Umm, would that be like seeing DPP shar shooters where nthing has yet suggested there were any?
Rather typical of the point Guangtou was asserting above in my opinion.
Sigh!!
HG
Uh, what?
There was substantial argument in the early months after the incident, on both sides, whether the shooting/wounding was arranged. My interpretation of your comments is that you weren’t aware of this.
One of the few firm conclusions that came out of Lee’s forensic research, if I recall correctly, is that this scenario could be eliminated, as I repeated above.
(I should point out I haven’t even read the Lee research report… a condition which I suspect is shared by most posters not named Betelnut on this forum. I’m only familiar with the the ubiquitious press reports that followed its publication.)
Sorry if I misrepresented you CCT, too many double negatives perhaps . . I’m still struggling to work it out.
HG