Out of curiosity

[Evan Burton]

Out of curiosity... has anyone undergone a major shift in their opinions regarding the JFK assassination? From being a 'lone nutter' to belief in a conspiracy? From a belief in a conspiracy to a 'lone nutter'? Or perhaps a major shift in how you thought it was done (I don't know details so you'll have to decide what is a major shift)?

If so, what convinced you?

By past performance, I'm guessing this will be futile but.... this is your personal view. If someone says "I changed my opinion because of A" and you think A is completly bogus, please do NOT voice your view that A is bogus... just let people voice what shaped their opinions.

Thank you.

[Ken Pierce]

I've never wavered in my belief of conspiracy, so, I can't personally respond to this topic; but, I would be interested in seeing Vince Palamara respond, as if I remember correctly, he switched from CT to LN then back to CT.

[David G. Healy]

Out of curiosity... has anyone undergone a major shift in their opinions regarding the JFK assassination? From being a 'lone nutter' to belief in a conspiracy? From a belief in a conspiracy to a 'lone nutter'? Or perhaps a major shift in how you thought it was done (I don't know details so you'll have to decide what is a major shift)?

If so, what convinced you?

By past performance, I'm guessing this will be futile but.... this is your personal view. If someone says "I changed my opinion because of A" and you think A is completly bogus, please do NOT voice your view that A is bogus... just let people voice what shaped their opinions.

Thank you.

query Pat? or email Gary Mack...

[Ron Ecker]

I ignorantly and sheepishly accepted the Warren Commission conclusion for years. Then I read Lifton's "Best Evidence" in the 1970s, the first book I bothered to read about the case, and it was obvious to me that something was rotten in Denmark. I followed that with Jim Marrs' "Crossfire," and as I continued my reading there was no turning back. Conspiracy is so obvious that I have little tolerance for lone nutters who have been exposed to the evidence. I was a lone nutter, and my only excuse is that I was completely ignorant of the evidence in the case.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

In 2008 I had no opinion on the JFK assassination. In spring of that year, after about 15 minutes of reading a Lyndon Johnson thread on the JFK assassination, I concluded that LBJ did it and I have never waivered one iota since.

It took me a while to figure out CIA and military intelligence murdered JFK. But having LBJ and Dallas, TX oil executives in the plot was a no brainer.

I went to Princeton University and graduated with a degree in history from what may be the #1 undergraduate history department in America both then (1983-1987) and now.

It is so sad to reflect back on the utter rot I was taught (or rather not taught) about the JFK assassination at such a prestigious university. In fact, I can't even remember how the subject was treated, it was so cursory.

The American academic and media elites are in a denial equivalent to Holocaust deniers when it comes to the JFK assassination.

These people disgust me; it is beyond feeling sorry for these willfully ignorant people.

I have no doubt "LBJ Did It" and it has been that way for 5 and 1/2 years.

[Mark Johansson]

The laws of physics do not allow me to believe the lone nut theory. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that there were more than one person involved.

[Pat Speer]

I had no opinion as a kid, but came to suspect a conspiracy in my teens. In my late 30's I wavered a bit, and for a short time suspected Oswald acted alone. The more I learned, the more I realized that the official conclusions of both the Warren Commission and HSCA were nonsense.

If I made a major shift on the evidence it would be this. I started a full-time study of the evidence in 2003. For the first year or two I accepted the word of some conspiracy theorists that there was much fraud in the medical evidence. I rapidly, but not all that rapidly considering how much material I was sifting through, came to realize that was nonsense, and that the autopsy photos, x-rays, and assassination films are clear-cut evidence that more than one shooter was firing upon Kennedy.

I have no doubt that this will, in time, become the consensus opinion of most researchers.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Pat Speer

[John Crites]

No Doubt when I first saw Chip Selby's documentary "Reasonable Doubt" - very convincing of the government lie.

Began to read up on the subject, including the Warren Report and did some ballistic tests of my own.

[Don Jeffries]

Even as a 7 year old, when Oswald was shot, I instantly thought (and shared this with every adult I came in contact with), that Jack Ruby must have been involved somehow, and clearly wanted to silence Oswald.

As I've noted on this forum many times before, I don't understand the prevalence of conspiracy to lone nutter transformations. To echo Ron, the only excuse for accepting the official fairy tale is ignorance of the subject matter.

Or as Penn Jones said, "The only way to believe the Warren Report is not to read it."

[Vince Palamara]

To my eternal regret, for most of 2007, I became a begrudging lone nutter. I got the bug: the Vince Bugliosi bug. I was burned out on the case and, since my research holds up whether Oswald acted alone or not (hello: the Secret Service failed), I have always had a very open mind. I will never forget how Jack White posted "VInce is a mole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and other silliness. The only person who seems to have held a grudge from that time (although he has softened a little lately) is Charlie Drago.

What I REALLY regret is my blurb for Bugliosi's paperback...ouch! That is why I left the reviews for both versions of Bugliosi's paperback on Amazon. The Doug Horne book reviews on Amazon were also my penance LOL.

Even at my lowest, I STILL believed that there WERE multiple conspiracies (plural) to kill JFK...just that Oswald beat them to the punch. THAT "solved" it for me: "AH HA!!!!!! THAT is it---there is all this evidence of plotting and people who hated JFK...but Oswald did it"

To make an analogy: a GROUP of bank robbers entered into a conspiracy--a plot---to rob the First National Bank of Posner...but John Jones robbed it before they got there. Now, WASN'T THERE STILL A CONSPIRACY TO ROB THE BANK? Yes...but someone beat them to it.

My logic in 2007 until Horne's books provided the figurative slap in the face

(DVP thinks I am a traitor now LMAO)

Edited December 18, 2013 by Vince Palamara

[Vince Palamara]

Pat---I noticed the Fetzer-led "the Z film is fake!!" nonsense from the late 190's- early millennium is dying out...probably because Fetzer's credibility is going downhill...the Sandyhook-is-fake stuff is soooo obscene...I think some people went off the deep end (Livingstone, too--"all the autopsy evidence is prima facie forged!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I never understood the silliness with the Z-film-is-altered stuff: the film shows JFK rocket backwards and provides grist for the mill for debunking the SBT. I liked Jack White, but his "analysis" of what he thought he saw in the film was getting demented...thus killing HIS credibility on the backyard photos, etc

[Vince Palamara]

I also have a theory why all the amateur photo "analysis" and attempting to find "forgery" was so en vogue for a time...it is fun to some people AND it gives the person instant reaction:

"Jack White discovered that the people on the Stemmons Freeway side of the Z film are fakes! 'Pick Up Man" is painted in!!!!'

Like the Greer-shot-JFK silliness, there was/ seems to be something 'compelling' (to some people) about this kind of---ahem--"research"...maybe because ANYONE can do it? I mean, I can go "analyze" the Nix film and make a bold pronouncement: "'Twig Man' is the shooter!!!! He may have been painted in, too!!!!!'

It will get a reaction...

(it is much more difficult to do real research: contacting principal people and doing primary research...hmmm- should I contact actual principal people and look at the actual raw materials and documents...or micro-analyze "Gravel-and-Dirt Man" again? Oh, the choices...)

Edited December 18, 2013 by Vince Palamara

[Paul Brancato]

My own theory about the wacky conspiracy nuts is that they are, witting or not, part of the disinformation campaign. I can't say for sure which nut is actually an agent and which a fool, I just know that there are some of each, and the earnest nuts feed off the intelligence plants, and the media picks up on their collective garbage and strews it around hoping to make all the real researchers look bad. You know how when there is a protest movement, such as prior to the first Iraq War, the national media shows pics of a small portion of the crown of demonstrators in SF, intending to smear the entire movement with shots of freaks in our streets. Some of those freaks are agents, but most are just along for the ride.

Like Mr. Jeffries I knew from the moment Ruby shot Oswald that something was terribly wrong, and I have never wavered.

[Vince Palamara]

well said, Paul. I was born 6/25/66 so that is my excuse LOL

Seriously, all the Fetzer nonsense about Sandyhook (and, sorry- the 9/11 stuff [at least the extreme crapola]) makes us look very bad, as does the-Z-film-is-a-fake: try selling THAT one to the average Joe, let alone the media...makes us look like UFO and fake-Moon-landing people

[Vince Palamara]

very interesting, Dave...you rotten CIA guy, you!!!! JUST KIDDING )

Seriously, I agree with a fair amount of what you have to say. I also like that, from what I have seen, you seem to have never come out all nasty towards pro-conspiracy people; very cool. I applaud you. As someone who changed his mind (THEN changed it back again), I certainly understand and respect your feelings.

So...I take it you don't believe that Pick Up Man was the shooter? )