B. A. Copeland Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 I think we've got to seriously consider the power of the media in relation to the decline. In an ideally democratic society, the media would, I imagine, assist in keeping this subject relevant due to its very nature and significance in history. Of course I don't believe that the U.S has had a (generally) honest media for a very long time....and I believe that we see the opposite due to....well, I don't wish to get into how or why but I think there are tragic clues we find when digging into this case that the media, its sponsors/supporters, etc, do not want this case solved with integrity and honesty. I would even go so far as to opine that the U.S Congress itself does not want the case solved. If the JFK murder was a cancerous tumor found on the heart of the republic, there are no doctors that wish to operate and for those that are willing, they are shoved aside, threatened or somehow silenced...its sad, annoying and frustrating. Michael Swanson had an absolutely awesome thought on this very subject himself. He likened the case to the relevance of the Civil War (or WW1, cannot remember) of our day.....and how we should do what we can to prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, Denny Zartman said: You and I may find what we believe to be simple and obvious explanations for a lot of these details. Not for a lot of them, no. The universe of the obvious is small. Quote There's a reason I haven't participated in the Prayer Man threads. I don't do the Oswald Assassination. I don't buy the idea that the people who sheep-deeped Oswald and set up his murder had knowing connections to the people who ambushed Kennedy. Looks like separate, compartmentalized operations controlled from on high. Quote But the truth is that this case is complex because there are others who look at the same details and also find a simple explanation which just happen to be completely at odds with our own "simple" explanation. And they're intellectually dishonest scum so fk em...Just kidding!...The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Those who deny this are, in my book, disingenuous. Quote If Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, the explanation for why the authorities insisted that he did is not simple and straightforward. We can not agree that he did or did not go. If he did go, why? If he didn't go, why do they continue to insist that he did? If after more than half a century we can't answer the question "could Oswald drive?" that's not a simple case. A lot of the evidence has been destroyed or hidden or falsified, a lot of testimony changed, a lot of witnesses intimidated or even eliminated, and a lot of intentional disinformation has been spread. It's the unintentional misinformation spread by T3 denying "JFK experts" which most concerns me. Quote Probably more than we will ever really know. Saying that the murder of JFK isn't that complex given that we are relying upon a distorted, incomplete, and often contradictory record IMHO doesn't reflect the true nature of this case. What case? "The case for conspiracy"?...or are you contending there is a case against specific individuals in a conspiracy? The case for conspiracy is kindergarten-level simplicity. Quote We also possibly have a number of participants who were actively trying to hide their roles and pretending to be other people. Piecing together what really happened from that distorted, incomplete, and contradictory record isn't an easy task. If it were truly simple, I doubt we would still be battling over these details today. Sure we would. Enough people are around to deny the T3 back wound -- the most efficient proof of conspiracy -- so they can pursue all kinds of rabbit hole details and claim it highly relevant. Folks will always want to play the parlor game -- "Answer the question of conspiracy!" -- instead of treating it like an already proven fact. T3 ends the parlor game and lots of folks won't have it. Edited February 8, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 (edited) It's interesting Vince, JFK was the last of a string of 7 U.S. presidents to die in office roughly every 20 years in years ending with odd numbers, with no other dead Presidents between, and none since. 1841--William Henry Harrison who died a few months after becoming President having caught a bad cold at his inaugural ball. 1865- Lincoln's Assassination 1881-Garfield Assassination 1901-William Mac Kinley assassination 1923- William Harding's death of ptomaine poisoning 1945-Franlin Roosevelt's death just weeks before the end of WWll. 1963-JFK Assassination 1981- And of course an unsuccessful attempt on Ronald Reagan's life. Edited February 8, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 15 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Not for a lot of them, no. The universe of the obvious is small. I don't do the Oswald Assassination. I don't buy the idea that the people who sheep-deeped Oswald and set up his murder had knowing connections to the people who ambushed Kennedy. Looks like separate, compartmentalized operations controlled from on high. And they're intellectually dishonest scum so fk em...Just kidding!...The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Those who deny this are, in my book, disingenuous. It's the unintentional misinformation spread by T3 denying "JFK experts" which most concerns me. What case? "The case for conspiracy"?...or are you contending there is a case against specific individuals in a conspiracy? The case for conspiracy is kindergarten-level simplicity. Sure we would. Enough people are around to deny the T3 back wound -- the most efficient proof of conspiracy -- so they can pursue all kinds of rabbit hole details and claim it highly relevant. Folks will always want to play the parlor game -- "Answer the question of conspiracy!" -- instead of treating it like an already proven fact. T3 ends the parlor game and lots of folks won't have it. As Vince Salandria said, it’s time to stop analyzing proofs of conspiracy and concentrate on why he was killed. He said that 50 years ago. Only answering ‘why’ will lead to ‘who’. Cliff - your T3 mantra is usually accompanied by barbs thrown at other researchers who are less certain of your proofs, researchers who in most cases agree with you that the conspiracy is proven. To make my point more clearly, it’s boring to argue details proving conspiracy. Ask yourself if you, any of you, doubt conspiracy in JFK’s death. If you don’t, stop wasting time. I think the public wants to know why, and they want the guilty named. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 It's known 'who dun it' for anyone willing to read a book and do the research. yes, quit wasting your time arguing with WCR cover-up artist, John McAdams from Jesuit Marquette University. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 (edited) In your research, you might even make a discovery like I did with Arthur Bremer, and his assassination attempt on Presidential Candidate George Wallace, and Bremmer's relationship with Marquette University. Wallace himself thought it was a conspiracy, and wondered where Bremer got the money to drive around the country stalking him. Not too hard to figure out where Bremer got the money. I warn you though, you can't write any books on the subject of 'who dun it'. You can't speak on a TV/Radio station either, (but an obscure website like this one is OK.) Don't mess with the Nutwork. Edited February 8, 2019 by Robert Card spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said: As Vince Salandria said, it’s time to stop analyzing proofs of conspiracy and concentrate on why he was killed. He said that 50 years ago. Only answering ‘why’ will lead to ‘who’. Cliff - your T3 mantra is usually accompanied by barbs thrown at other researchers who are less certain of your proofs, researchers who in most cases agree with you that the conspiracy is proven. To make my point more clearly, it’s boring to argue details proving conspiracy. Ask yourself if you, any of you, doubt conspiracy in JFK’s death. If you don’t, stop wasting time. I think the public wants to know why, and they want the guilty named. Paul makes good points. Salandria was also driven by an urgency in the 60s-70s. It's not that no one was listening: there was immense institutional resistance to honest inquiry. Gaeton Fonzi was a Salandria acolyte and was in a position of some influence during the HSCA, and he saw for himself the limits of what could be done. At this point, to suggest that wide-ranging intellectual curiosity should be funnelled into one expression is counter-productive, to say the least. As far as "solving the case", Bill Kelly's recent work shared on JFK Countercoup is really honing in on something, and he wouldn't have got there if he was limited to discussing T3 and the jacket. This case, because of the institutional resistance, has been "crowd-sourced" and the vast range of topics and information has served as an asset and a detriment simultaneously, but ultimately will be acknowledged as an asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: As Vince Salandria said, it’s time to stop analyzing proofs of conspiracy and concentrate on why he was killed. He said that 50 years ago. Only answering ‘why’ will lead to ‘who’. Cliff - your T3 mantra is usually accompanied by barbs thrown at other researchers who are less certain of your proofs, researchers who in most cases agree with you that the conspiracy is proven. The proofs are not mine, Paul. I don't own any evidence. All I'm doing is pointing out obvious facts in the historical record. I get a lot of heat for this approach to the case from people for whom I have little respect. Proving conspiracy in the murder of JFK is easy -- I don't give anyone points for drawing that conclusion. If you're going to investigate a murder do it right or find another hobby. The right way to investigate a murder is first learn all you can by the physical evidence found with the body. The bullet holes in the clothes align with T3. That's too low to have been associated with the throat wound. This establishes the throat wound as an entrance. There was a wound in the back, no exit, no round found in the autopsy; a wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, no round found during the autopsy. The first question to ask in the JFK assassination is -- "What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?" According to the historical record the autopsy doctors speculated JFK was hit with a high tech round that wouldn't show up on x-ray or anywhere in the body. It's what's commonly called "a lead." In my book any legitimate investigation starts with this lead that's in the historical record. Otherwise, y'all a bunch of wild geese chasing red herrings down rabbit holes. Quote To make my point more clearly, it’s boring to argue details proving conspiracy. I couldn't agree more! The acoustics evidence? Boooooring! The Neutron Activation Analysis? BORING! The provenance of the Magic Bullet? Boring... Analyses of the head wound/s? So, so boring! For the Oswald Mock Trial CAPA gathered all that boring stuff and abused a jury of 12 for 2 days. The jury came back 6-5-1 for the prosecution of Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone assassin. Unbelievable incompetence! Quote Ask yourself if you, any of you, doubt conspiracy in JFK’s death. If you don’t, stop wasting time. I think the public wants to know why, and they want the guilty named. The historical record points a strong finger at people with access to high tech weaponry developed for the CIA in the MKNAOMI program. I armed a couple of millennials with the basic facts of the case and they instantly grasped that possibility. Most "JFK experts" will never acknowledge it. Edited February 8, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I agree Cliff. High tech weaponry points at the US military. I’ve been begging this community to focus on that for years. I’m no expert, not a researcher. I know how to read and collate. I know where to look. Steve Thomas put his finger on it - in the National Archives under Records of the Army Staff. Is this a place where one can request records by identifying record numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 It's only natural interest should decline over time. Attrition, as those of us who still live that remember it pass, it becomes history to future generations. But it will never die. JMO but it will remain a significant subject of interest well into the future. Fifty Five years later I believe it's still 60-70% believe, in spite of the 1967 CIA memo, it was a conspiracy. That's down from the 80-90% of the 90's after the film JFK, the ARRB and the controlled 50th. But after that 55 years 60-70% still don't believe the Government version of it. Why? Just the basics. Lone nut radar operator. 6 seconds, 3 shots, bolt action rifle, angle, Magic bullet. Zapruder - back and to the left. Ruby, strip joint owner, able to do Oswald in the DPD basement, no mob connections??? It will continue to draw interest from historians, and the public because of the books, film and discussion it has already generated. Maybe even here, if it is stored in the "cloud", some may still search for Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) The erosion of support for the conspiracy view is a result of the Critical Community's failure to press the most effective case for conspiracy. When young people go on-line to any of the JFKA newsgroups and forums, what do they see? A bunch of boomers bickering over bs. Edited April 13 by Cliff Varnell 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