The Future of the JFK Forum

[Douglas Caddy]

The topic here is "The Future of the JFK Forum." It was started by founder John Simkin. Posts to date have dealt with the future of this forum, so no member should feel refrained about expressing an opinion about it.

[Paul Trejo]

The topic here is "The Future of the JFK Forum." It was started by founder John Simkin. Posts to date have dealt with the future of this forum, so no member should feel refrained about expressing an opinion about it.

I agree, Douglas. So, here are some ideas that I believe are truly futuristic in JFK research:

1. That Lee Harvey Oswald, while decidedly not the "lone assassin" of JFK, was nevertheless profoundly aware of who the JFK conspirators were, and was counting on them to 'come forward to give him legal assistance.'

2. That the US government, which pursued the "lone assassin" theory to blame Lee Harvey Oswald (while knowing precisely who was being protected by this "lone assassin" theory) nevertheless was not a party to the JFK killing, but acted to prevent a US Civil War (at a peak of the Cold War which could have ignited World War 3). In other words, the US government acted exactly as they said, for National Security reasons.

3. Thus, organized private citizens with US military expertise should be the proper suspects in future JFK investigation.

These three nuances have been neglected in the previous 50 years of JFK research (to the best of my knowledge). IMHO the reason that the JFK assassination remains unresolved is because these three nuances have been overlooked.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[J. Raymond Carroll]

1. That Lee Harvey Oswald, was profoundly aware of who the JFK conspirators were, and was counting on them to 'come forward to give him legal assistance.'

"profoundly aware" sez Mister Mindreader.

"I've been charged with shooting a- a policeman.

I know nothing more than that"

Lee Oswald told reporters, and I defy you to provide credible evidence

that he was lying.

"I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance"

was aimed primarily at the American Civil Liberties Union, as we know from other evidence

not to some conspiratorial "friends" as Mr. Trejo's imagination claims.

Strange bedfellows: Vincent Bugliosi argues in his book that one reason he knew there was no conspiracy

was because Oz would have to know who framed him.

Hint: Read the Harry Bosch novels, e.g. Trunk Murder. When you frame a man for murder make sure he has no idea

who is framing him.

[Len Colby]

Ordinarily I'd tell someone like that to try getting in the ring with Ashton Gray and his very own Brides of Dracula, Dawn Meredith and Terry Mauro. Talk about getting flayed alive by berserker harpies. That's good times right there now.

Or try taking on Sid Walker, webmaster extraordinaire, in his insidiously civil presentation of the evidence that indicates that Hitler and his Superfriends had it right after all. If you manage to really anger him and you also have a dial-up internet connection (as I did) you might find yourself getting 2 AM "phone calls" that knock you offline on a routine basis.

LOL hilarious! Well said Daniel.

[Len Colby]

John Simkin is a man of strong convictions, a character trait for which he is justly admired. For him now to reverse his decisions regarding Jim D. and Tom S. would show indecisiveness, something for which he is not known.

If Jim D. and Tom S. were allowed back in, they would take the decision to do so as an open invitation to carry on as before only this time their abusive actions would increase exponentially because they would have good reason to believe that if they were kicked off again they would later be invited back. It would become a never ending drama/trauma for forum members.

Being stubborn is good when you're right, it's a problem when you are wrong.Though I disliked Tom and had some dust ups with Jim I have yet to see any posts by them that were so much worse than those made by several others that they justified putting them on moderation, let alone booting them. The problem for me is that they were kicked out without warning.

If they were allowed back they could be put on moderation or warned that any future such post would subject them to moderation, suspension or expulsion.

[Paul Trejo]

Being stubborn is good when you're right, it's a problem when you are wrong.Though I disliked Tom and had some dust ups with Jim I have yet to see any posts by them that were so much worse than those made by several others that they justified putting them on moderation, let alone booting them. The problem for me is that they were kicked out without warning.

If they were allowed back they could be put on moderation or warned that any future such post would subject them to moderation, suspension or expulsion.

Len, perhaps you suspect that John Simkin had no words with Tom or Jim before his decision. I, on the other hand, suspect that John had plenty of words with them both; and I suspect that the decision to drop them was to some degree their own.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

1. That Lee Harvey Oswald, was profoundly aware of who the JFK conspirators were, and was counting on them to 'come forward to give him legal assistance.'

"profoundly aware" sez Mister Mindreader.

"I've been charged with shooting a- a policeman. I know nothing more than that," Lee Oswald told reporters, and I defy you to provide credible evidence that he was lying.

"I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance" was aimed primarily at the American Civil Liberties Union, as we know from other evidence not to some conspiratorial "friends" as Mr. Trejo's imagination claims.

Strange bedfellows: Vincent Bugliosi argues in his book that one reason he knew there was no conspiracy was because Oz would have to know who framed him....

Raymond, you say you "know" that Oswald was addressing the ACLU with his plea for legal assistance, but really that is only your surmise of the evidence. You can't read his mind (any more than I can).

By the way, I do realize that my proposition that Oswald knew his framers (though too late) is based on my own surmise of the evidence. I don't claim to read his mind, but I do connect the dots differently than you do.

IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald had no idea that Guy Banister & Company was sheep-dipping him to appear to be a Communist, and more specifically, an officer of the FPCC (a true friend and ally of Fidel Castro). Banister & Company had Lee Harvey Oswald on film in the streets with FPCC handbills, in jail, in an FBI report, in the newspapers, on a radio program and on a television show. This was uptown sheep-dipping. Very sophisticated. Yet Oswald was unaware at that time that he was being framed.

So -- Bugliosi was mistaken -- Lee Harvey Oswald did know his framers -- the problem is that Oswald realized too late that he had been framed. After he realized that his "partners" were not going to rescue him, he then blurted out for the whole world to hear: "I'm just a Patsy! "

Oswald finally realized it -- and by realizing that fact, he knew exactly who his framers were. But he didn't break faith with them. He didn't turn them in to the reporters or the police. Lee Harvey Oswald was always hopeful (and that's how he got framed in the first place).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited June 16, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[J. Raymond Carroll]

After he realized that his "partners" were not going to rescue him, he then blurted out for the whole world to hear: "I'm just a Patsy! "

Why not just go with the evidence instead.

His exact words were:

They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a Patsy."

Jim Garrison and his acolytes always omit the first part and simply twist the plain meaning of the words

to support their wacky theory of the case.

[Paul Trejo]

After he realized that his "partners" were not going to rescue him, he then blurted out for the whole world to hear: "I'm just a Patsy! "

Why not just go with the evidence instead.

His exact words were: They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a Patsy."

Jim Garrison and his acolytes always omit the first part and simply twist the plain meaning of the words to support their wacky theory of the case.

Raymond, I believe that Oswald said, "I'm just a Patsy" at least twice. The second time, he didn't preface it with the USSR remark. Am I mistaken about this? I might be recollecting pictures from dramatic reproductions.

Still, you raise a good point, Raymond. Why did Oswald preface his "patsy" remark immediately after a "Soviet Union" remark?

One possible response is that the newspaper reporters themselves surprised Oswald with that reference.

In his first interview, Oswald said [and I paraphrase]:

--------------------- BEGIN Exchange -------------------

LHO: "...I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance."

REPORTER: Did you kill the president?"

LHO: No, I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me, yet. The first I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.

REPORTER: You have been in Russia?

LHO: Sir?

REPORTER: What did you do in Russia?

LHO: <walks away>

Notice that Oswald refused to dignify that question. Now, given that as orienting Oswald for the first time regarding his arrest and imprisonment, we can make better sense of the following exchange later in the hallway, heading back to his interrogation room:

REPORTER: Did you kill the president?

LHO: No! They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!

----------------------- END Exchange ----------------

Now, I think I got that right. This could suggest that Oswald's "Soviet Union" remark was conditioned by the newspaper reporters themselves.

If so, then any connection to the next remark, "I'm Just a Patsy," might be looser than we might first suspect.

If so, then it could suggest that Oswald knew his framers. In that case, it suggests a dialectical paradox that the previous 50 years of JFK research has sorely neglected: that Lee Harvey Oswald was both innocent of shooting JFK, and nevertheless part of the conspiracy to kill JFK.

If (and only if) that is correct, then here is where the future of JFK research begins.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edited and extended>

Edited June 16, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, when I juxtapose your ending that '"It's good to shed a little blood now and then." with Daniels last post ending " we are living in a world where very young children can be blown away like they are nothing, from Syria to Connecticut.".

It appears quite disturbing. I think it would be helpful to clarify this.

Gosh, the massacre of schoolchildren at Newtown, which is only 60 miles from where I live,

was the last thing on my mind when I posted that comment about Clemenza.

I was referring to the banishment of Messrs Scully & Di Eugenio.

Also Luca Brasi (then Al Neri) were enforcers. Clemenza is normally known as a capo(regime).

How could I forget? I must be getting old.

Edited June 16, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If so, then it could suggest that Oswald knew his framers. In that case, it suggests a dialectical paradox that the previous 50 years of JFK research has sorely neglected: that Lee Harvey Oswald was both innocent of shooting JFK, and nevertheless part of the conspiracy to kill JFK.

If (and only if) that is correct, then here is where the future of JFK research begins.

A lot of IF's there.

I would suggest that the theory that Lee Oswald was innocent of shooting JFK but part of the conspiracy is the oldest, tiredest cliche in JFK research. As nearly everyone knows, that was Jim Garrison's theory, and you will find the same theory in Crossfire, by Jim Marrs, and numerous conspiracy books.

I submit that that theory has JFK left research in the wilderness since the mid-sixties, as researchers have been scrambling(in vain) to find evidence implicating Lee Oswald in the plot.

[Evan Burton]

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Robert,

I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.

John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.

For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?

If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.

If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.

[Paul Trejo]

If so, then it could suggest that Oswald knew his framers. In that case, it suggests a dialectical paradox that the previous 50 years of JFK research has sorely neglected: that Lee Harvey Oswald was both innocent of shooting JFK, and nevertheless part of the conspiracy to kill JFK.

If (and only if) that is correct, then here is where the future of JFK research begins.

A lot of IF's there.

I would suggest that the theory that Lee Oswald was innocent of shooting JFK but part of the conspiracy is the oldest, tiredest cliche in JFK research. As nearly everyone knows, that was Jim Garrison's theory, and you will find the same theory in Crossfire, by Jim Marrs, and numerous conspiracy books.

I submit that that theory has JFK left research in the wilderness since the mid-sixties, as researchers have been scrambling(in vain) to find evidence implicating Lee Oswald in the plot.

Exactly right about all the IFs, Raymond. I no way do I propose that this is all easy or wrapped up.

Interesting that you'd bring up Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs in the notion that Oswald was innocent of the crime but involved in the conspiracy -- they are two of my favorite writers on the topic.

Yet just because a theory is old does not mean it is incorrect. Perhaps it has not really had a full development. Perhaps a new look is in order.

Harry Dean also proposes something (a little) like that when he suggests that Oswald was chummy with Loran Hall and Larry Howard, and met Guy Gabaldon in Mexico City within the context of his DACA organization. (Harry also confesses that his crew played a role in framing Oswald.)

Gerry Patrick Hemming also proposes something (a little) like that when he claimed to A.J. Weberman that he offered Oswald double the price of this rifle if he would bring it to the TSBD building on 22 November 1963.

The likelihood that Oswald knew is framers is high, IMHO. Further, the only reason that Oswald was in New Orleans at all -- by any reasonable estimation -- was so that Guy Banister & Company could frame him perfectly as an FPCC officer. The error that Oswald was a legitimate officer of the FPCC is still repeated to this very day (even though the Warren Commission itself recognized that it was a fake FPCC chapter).

Not enough attention is given this argument -- that Oswald is both innocent (in a way) and guilty (in a way) at the same time. It seems to be difficult for modern writers to grasp nuances like that -- they want Oswald to be totally guilty or totally innocent, with no nuances.

This error underscores another problem -- I also claim that the US government is both guilty of the cover-up (in a way) and innocent of the cover-up (in a way) because they have a damn good explanation -- National Security in the face of a probable Civil War. Again, the nuance is difficult for some writers to balance.

Feelings run high among those who have devoted years -- decades -- to the resolution of the JFK case. Adding that to the complexity of the dialectical balancing act of Reality only adds to the frustration. This is the price we pay to become involved.

Some people cannot handle the ambiguity, and they lose their tempers, either in posts of bullying, like Tom Scully, or with insults of a more comic variety. But it is the subject matter that is the source of the amibiguity.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 16, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Robert,

I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.

John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.

For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?

If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.

If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.

Evan, I agree completely. It is one thing to claim that a writer has made a mistake, and it is something entirely different to publicly accuse that person of being a xxxx.

Where I work, an executive will commonly use the phrase, "I lied," when correcting himself or herself about something trivial, i.e. a scheduling time. It is now common usage; people conflate a mistake with a "lie". Yet a lie means a "deliberate deception" with an intention to mislead. It is quite different from a mistake.

People who attack mistakes and try to pass them off as "lies" really waste everybody's time here. They have nothing substantial to contribute -- and this was my personal complaint about Tom Scully. Hours of wasted time with little constructive dialogue.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Not enough attention is given this argument -- that Oswald is both innocent (in a way) and guilty (in a way) at the same time.

Sorry, Paul, that sounds like double-think to me.

This antiquated and disproved theory is just a variation on the official story. Old wine in new bottles.

The Warren Commission could not find a motive for Lee, and neither could Garrison.

Have you had any better luck in finding a motive?

Edited June 16, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll