Douglas Caddy Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 October 14-16, 2016 This years theme: Oswald was a patsy just like he said ... Pending speakers list: RA Kris Millegan Judyth Vary Baker Ed Haslam Michael Hoffman Peter Levenda SK Bain Ed Tatro Gordon Ferrie William Matson Law Hugh Clark James Jenkins Dennis David St. John Hunt Daniel Hopsicker Russ Baker George Noory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Stop the madness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 I love William Law- he's perhaps the most underrated and underappreciated JFK assassination researcher. Some other good people, too, but Law alone makes it a worthwhile conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) Don: I have to agree with Pat. One good guy does not make a conference. What is really unfortunate about this is that Noory is going to be there. From Coast to Coast. My God, what does Peter Levenda know about Oswald in New Orleans? Who are SK Bain, Gordon Ferrie and Hugh Clark? (I assume the second is some kind of a relation of David Ferrie.) Edited June 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) It's not that I don't like any of the people, or respect any of their research. I do. It's that the format---framing the conference around Oswald--along with the presence of some who can only be considered "on the fringe", guarantees that this conference will be seen as a crazy "buff" conference by the press. And that's not even to mention that those attending such a conference in hopes it will provide a good overview of the Kennedy case will be sadly misled, and misinformed. The "circus" element of the JFK case has helped prevent its serious examination, in my opinion. I've spent the last month or more going through the Dallas FBI files on the Weisberg site. My God! No wonder the FBI did as little as possible when talking to actual witnesses and pursuing real leads. Their time was swallowed up by certifiably crazy people claiming they thought their husband did it, or not so crazy people claiming they heard someone on a bus say they thought Oswald was innocent or some such thing. There were also a number of people claiming the truth came to them in a dream--who apparently thought the FBI would follow up on their dreams. But the most surprising were the complaints from actual witnesses--Jean Hill is in there a number of times--who called the FBI after having some over-enthusiastic conspiracy theorist show up on their doorstep, and try to talk to them. What's that expression? "We have met the enemy and it is us!" . Edited June 10, 2016 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Pat, that's an excuse even I've never heard before; that we really can't blame the FBI for not pursuing leads, since they were distracted by "conspiracy theorists" and actual crazies. In every high profile crime, the authorities are accustomed to "crazies" confessing, or fingering their relatives. They really should be trained to recognize that for what it is. I don't think that had anything to do with them altering the testimony of witnesses, for instance. Hoover and the FBI orchestrated the cover up. Their performance was inexcusable. I could certainly question some of the upcoming speakers at the Lancer conference. Mark Shaw? A long time establishment journalist, who recently wrote the book, The Poison Patriarch: How the Betrayals of Joseph P. Kennedy Caused the Assassination of JFK? Jim DiEugenio ought to love that one. And Carmine Savastano? Judging by his past posts on this forum, I fail to see his relevance as a speaker. Edited June 11, 2016 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Thanks, Don. I should have been more precise with my comments. The original investigation by the FBI was indeed a travesty. Subsequent to the first few months, however, the vast majority of their "leads" were obvious nonsense, or nearly obvious nonsense. They also received numerous complaints from witnesses about researchers. This was the part that took me by surprise. I knew that Jean Hill had a thing for cops, for example, but I had no idea she held the FBI in high regard, to the extent even that she would call them up and tell them whenever a researcher or writer tried to talk to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) Don, as speaker chair for the Lancer conference I think its only fair to respond to you. Mark and Carmine are both researchers, just because you might not agree with their conclusions is no reason to dismiss them without even hearing what they have to say. Its also fair to say that not all our presenters agree with each other - that's called balanced. If they all believed the same thing it would be an evangelical gathering or political event, not a research conference. Of course whether or not someone chooses to attend the conference and hear them is a personal decision. As it happens I personally disagree with the views of some of our presenters, at least in certain areas. But in almost all cases I find there is something I can learn from their research and their data. But first of course I have to listen to them. And heck, even Jim and I disagree on occasion....all you have to do is read his reviews of my books to see that....grin. -- opinion registered, that's enough from me, Larry Edited June 11, 2016 by Larry Hancock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Larry, My point was that there could be something for people to quibble about in regards to the Lancer Conference as well, or most conferences that I can remember. I have no problem with the speakers at any conference. I was responding to criticism of the New Orleans conference, based upon some of the speakers. I suspect most of this is Judyth-based, of course. Or more specifically, I was trying to note that it featured William Law, whom I consider one of the most underappreciated of all researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Well spoken Don, and certainly I'm a big fan of William. He's presented at the Lancer conference a number of times and his work is ground breaking. I do think its fair to share - as William has remarked to me personally - that many of the speakers involved at the New Orleans conference and with Judyth in Dallas for that matter are Trine Day authors. Of some of the Lancer speakers - like myself - have been published by Lancer. Nothing particularly surprising about that. Obviously I agree you you a hundred percent on William's work, he and I stay in touch and I'm eagerly following some of the things he's working on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Can we get back to my question? Who are SK Bain, Hugh Clark and Gordon Ferrie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Would make sense, William Law has been working most recently with the casket party members... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now