Why do researchers abandon the fight?

[John Simkin]

In his book, The Last Investigation, Gaeton Fonzi describes a meeting with Vincent Salandria. Immediately after the publication of the Warren Commission Report, Salandria wrote a powerful critique of it for The Legal Intelligencer. This article had a deep impact on Fonzi. However, although Fonzi continued to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Salandria seemed to lose interest in the case.

When Fonzi met Salandria he asked him why he lost his passion to discover who was behind the assassination of JFK. Salandria replied:

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

I believe this statement contains a profound truth – the people behind the assassination wanted the American public to believe there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy: As Salandria points out: “The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message."

Salandria implies that he eventually gave up the struggle because he realized he was powerless. It also raises the issue of why other important JFK researchers eventually fell silent or changed their mind that it was a conspiracy: Mark Lane, Edward Jay Epstein, Robert J. Groden, Henry Hurt, Joachim Joesten, Michael Kurtz, Gary Mack, Jim Marrs, Richard H. Popkin, Stephen Rivele, Dick Russell, David E. Scheim, Richard E. Sprague, Josiah Thompson, William Turner, Noel Twyman, etc. I know some of these people are dead, but they went quiet long before that happened. Even Gaeton Fonzi appears to be reluctant to talk about the case now.

Did they give up out of frustration? Did they sell out? Were they scared off the case? Or did they realize that the people in control of America would never allow the true story to be told?

[John Ritchson]

In his book, The Last Investigation, Gaeton Fonzi describes a meeting with Vincent Salandria. Immediately after the publication of the Warren Commission Report, Salandria wrote a powerful critique of it for The Legal Intelligencer. This article had a deep impact on Fonzi. However, although Fonzi continued to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Salandria seemed to lose interest in the case.

When Fonzi met Salandria he asked him why he lost his passion to discover who was behind the assassination of JFK. Salandria replied:

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

I believe this statement contains a profound truth – the people behind the assassination wanted the American public to believe there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy: As Salandria points out: “The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message."

Salandria implies that he eventually gave up the struggle because he realized he was powerless. It also raises the issue of why other important JFK researchers eventually fell silent or changed their mind that it was a conspiracy: Mark Lane, Edward Jay Epstein, Robert J. Groden, Henry Hurt, Joachim Joesten, Michael Kurtz, Gary Mack, Jim Marrs, Richard H. Popkin, Stephen Rivele, Dick Russell, David E. Scheim, Richard E. Sprague, Josiah Thompson, William Turner, Noel Twyman, etc. I know some of these people are dead, but they went quiet long before that happened. Even Gaeton Fonzi appears to be reluctant to talk about the case now.

Did they give up out of frustration? Did they sell out? Were they scared off the case? Or did they realize that the people in control of America would never allow the true story to be told?

John: One month before I was scheduled to address a major JFK Assassination Research Confrence in Dalles I was set up by the sic Authorities in a phoney drug-bust and spent 4 years in prison. Does that tell you anything about how the power structure here in the PAX AMERICANA will go after anyone who trys to get the info out to the people? But I have a quote that I think most relevent to this issue.

************************************************************

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out

how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might

have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is

actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and

dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes

short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the

great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who,

if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who,

if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that

his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who

know neither victory nor defeat."

************************************************************

  Best Regards:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 23, 2004 by John Ritchson

[Greg Parker]

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.

Seems to me the only thing Salandria has spent too much time microanalyzing is why the critics failed in the only objectives that matter: correcting the historical record, bringing those responsible to justice, and ensuring compensation to Oswald's family, if appropriate.

We can't just shout out "Conspiracy!", not give any evidence for it, then when challenged, reply, "Well, it's obvious!"

In the end, Salandria sounds like someone who has convinced themselves of something in order to justify quitting.

Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.

They chose a less than subtle way, with less than subtle "evidence" to indeed, get a message across. But that message was "Castro was behind this. We must retaliate with prejudice." It didn't matter if the story held AFTER Cuba was invaded, or not. Look at Iraq. The motive simply got "updated" once the original story collapsed. No WMD? No problem, what we really wanted to do was just give the Iraqi people the warm and cuddly gift of democracy.

The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.

I assume the cover story Salandria indended to indicate was the LN scenario? If so, that was NOT the original story. The fact that the original communist conspiracy story had to be hurriedly changed to a Lone Nut story, with the consequent need to alter/lose/destroy/make additions to the evidence is why it looks so flimsy in hindsight.

As I've opined before, the need to change scenarios arose - not just because Oswald survived capture - but because he was not taken out of the country and killed. Had that happened, the lone passesnger who boarded a Cubana flight from MC to Havana would have been named as Oswald [From Kurtz's book: The CIA also received information that on 22 November, a Cubana Airlines flight from Mexico City to Havana was delayed for five hours until a passenger arrived in a private aircraft. The individual boarded the Cubana flight, and it left for Havana shortly before 11:00 p.m.] Additionally, the Hidell/Oswald cards would have been found where they were originally meant to be found: at the Tippit murder scene.

[Terry Mauro]

************************************************************

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out

how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might

have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is

actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and

dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up

short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the

great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who,

if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who,

if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that

his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who

know neither victory nor defeat."

************************************************************

Those are very stirring words to live by, John, and could also be attributed to the ones of dead, albeit, brave heroes. But, virtuous and honorable, none the less.

A more simply phased declaration that I have adopted in recent years could be

found equally applicable, in this case:

"You can stand me up at the gates of Hell, but I won't back down!"

Edited September 25, 2004 by Terry Mauro

[Pat Speer]

"You can stand me up at the gates of Hell, but I won't back down!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Little known fact: Tom Petty was one of the guiding forces behind HSCA investigation. (a joke.)

I believe things are much simpler than most are willing to believe. I don't believe there was any master plan. I think a few individuals covered up and deliberately made a big mess, and now it's incredibly difficult to unravel, that's all. As a consequence, I sincerely doubt the mass of lone-nut theorists and Warren supporters within and outside the Government are knowingly part of any conspiracy. They just get all defensive when their faith in their country right or wrong is challenged and think of the challengers as communists and scavengers. We're seeing it now. Just look at the outcry against Dan Rather, who was lied to by a source, big deal. My aunt in Iowa just forwarded me a dead serious e-mail sent to her by some well-meaning idiot claiming that Kerry is a communist! What's worse, she believes it! I love America to my bones but the periodic outcries here of fear and stupidity can be deafening.

[John Simkin]

Since posting this I have had emails from people informing me that Gaeton Fonzi, Mark Lane, Jim Marrs, Dick Russell and Noel Twyman are still very interested in the case but for a variety of different reasons have decided to play a more passive role in the investigation. In some cases, age and health, have played a role in this decision.

However, I think that Vincent Salandria is making an important point that is worth considering:

“The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message.”

When a powerful group decide to remove a political leader from power, there is a variety of different ways to do it. For example, a right-wing group within MI5 were determined to remove Harold Wilson from office. The main method they used was to use MI5 media assets to circulate smear stories about him. This was a factor in eventually convincing him to resign as prime minister.

The removal of JFK from office was much more dramatic. I think it is no coincidence that they made such a mess up of fitting up Lee Harvey Oswald for the crime. I don’t believe for a moment that these people are so incompetent. If they just wanted JFK dead they would have used similar methods that were used against Hugh Gaitskill, the leader of the Labour Party who also died in 1963. Gaitskill died of a mystery disease. Later it was identified as lupus disseminata. This is a disease that is unknown in temperate climates and that there was no evidence that Gaitskell had been anywhere recently where he could have contracted the disease.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUgaitskell.htm

No, as Salandria points out, the people behind his death, wanted the American public to know he had been killed by a conspiracy. More importantly, it was a conspiracy they could do nothing about. This is a difficult concept to grasp and went against everything the American people believed in. The American consciousness has coped with this problem by believing two things. (1) There was a conspiracy to kill JFK. (2) That this conspiracy was not political. In this way they can continue to believe that they are living in a democratic society where the people decide who is going to be president. The same factors were at work when George Bush stole the presidential election in 2000. Although the facts were plain to see, the vast majority of the America refused to believe this was possible. To do so was to believe that America is not a fully functioning democracy.

[JL Allen]

Deleted.

Edited October 2, 2004 by JL Allen