JFK Assassination Researchers Are Fractured, Unproductive

[Douglas Caddy]

 

JFK Assassination Researchers Are Fractured, Unproductive

 

https://americanfreepress.net/jfk-assassination-researchers-are-fractured-unproductive/?fbclid=IwAR2O2KI4hD68mvavtR2UXj_DygId74Ucl4dAndsZ9vexBIbhJiII2GV97lk

[Michael Clark]

The University of American Assassination Studies..

Just, please, don’t open the campus in Dallas.

[Anthony Thorne]

Looks like Don got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. 

[Ron Bulman]

If it wasn't for the forum I wouldn't know who Don or John Barbour are.  I've found his posts on here interesting and informative, same for the links to Johns work comments.  Actually I thought Barbour's video/film had been recognized at a conference a year or two ago.  I realize there are disagreements and bickering among researchers but isn't that to be expected to some extent in the search for the Truth given the effort expended by many?  Overall I think the work of researchers tends to compliment each other, building and growing over time. 

I planned on buying this book of his but have never gotten around to it yet.

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American/dp/B071LH86VK/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=don+jeffries&qid=1575688818&s=books&sr=1-2

[Anthony Thorne]

Don’s book was well received, and his comments on DPF were friendly and useful. But if he really wants to point out a research community that is fractured and unproductive, he should mention the 9/11 truth movement. It’s aggressively fractured, and has been spinning its wheels for several years.

In contrast, the JFK research field seems to have picked up and is getting somewhere.

Don’s article seems to be an exercise in venting his spleen rather than a considered assessment of where things really are right now. 

 

[Guest]

Jeffries is wasting everyone's time with this. It was fractured 50 odd years ago already. Nothing new here, move on.

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

Jeffries is wasting everyone's time with this. It was fractured 50 odd years ago already. Nothing new here, move on.

Actually, it’s important to point out and admonish against the poison that gets vented when something like Oliver Stone’s cordiality toward JVB takes place.

The negativity and the house-breaking clamor that carried-on after that was embarrassing and destructive.

[Denny Zartman]

I agree with Donald Jeffries's identification of ego as part of what has played into JFK research for decades. I don't think that's a flaw unique to this subject, though. I believe ego plays a role in every field and many parts of everyday life.

It seems few JFK researchers make any money at all, or have any sort of regular staff to assist them. Some researchers are actually losing money in the long run. The hard reality is that most of us aren't doing this professionally. It seems that the only sort of organization is mostly going to be volunteer work and loosely coordinated research activity. Once a particular individual starts attempting to coordinate all of these independent, unpaid researchers into an organized and productive research team, problems seem to inherently arise as egos begin to play a part.

I always try to attempt to qualify my statements. I believe I can never be 100% sure about anything, so I try to use caution and avoid talking in absolutes whenever possible. I know I've often failed at that, but I try my best. I've had some spirited debates with advocates of the lone assassin theory over the years. While these debates have often been intellectually stimulating in that they test my knowledge and comprehension of the facts, I find that occasionally anger and frustration makes me start taking sides on certain aspects of the case. While there is nothing wrong with defending what one believes to be true and can be proven with evidence, for me personally, I'm always concerned with the possibility that my ego will become more focused on winning the argument than truly considering (and be willing to re-consider) every aspect of all facts large and small.

Here is Donald's 2013 consensus statement, which he says few researchers would endorse:

Quote

“The Warren Commission, FBI, and Dallas police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.”

In essence I don't disagree and I doubt many JFK researchers would, but personally I would avoid language like "conclusively" or say that the previous investigations were not "real". Those investigations, biased as they were, did exist. I would not characterize the JFK assassination as the most significant political assassination of the 20th century either, even if I believed it to be so. The reason being is that a casual reader might say historians have pinpointed the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as a prime factor in touching off World War I and could therefore be legitimately considered an assassination of equal significance at least. It also seems unnecessary to me to assign less significance to the other major assassinations of the 20th century. The assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X were certainly political and significant, and none of us knows how history would have been changed had RFK become President. I wouldn't want someone brand new to JFK research disagreeing with the consensus statement from jump street. In my opinion that's a bad way to start. I would also not "date" the consensus statement with the "on the verge of the 50th anniversary" language, but that is a stylistic preference.

As we can see, already my own ego and personal preferences are influencing my reaction to Donald's consensus statement. It appears that the negative feedback Donald received has affected his ego too. I understand. It's hard to craft a statement hoping for a consensus from your peers and then feel the pressure to revise it by committee. It would likely feel to him as a simple rejection of the spirit of the statement as well as an example of how fractured and disorganized the research community is.

Finally, I sort of question the need for this statement at all. I believe most CT JFK researchers already agree that the official investigations did not do their jobs. Of course we would be interested in a new investigation, but the last thing in the world anyone needs is another sham government inquiry. They've kept this secret and obfuscated for over half a century. Why would anyone expect government investigators to come clean now when the intent was to let it fade into history all along?

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

 

I would not characterize the JFK assassination as the most significant political assassination of the 20th century either, even if I believed it to be so.

 

If the history read that there was a bloody coup in 1963, I would agree with you. But that act, a crypto-coup, sanctioned by silence and lies, augmented by the worldwide political and social ramifications of that lie and that coup, makes it the most significant political event, ever, IMO.

it’s the ongoing cover-up that makes it so extraordinarily significant.

[Guest]

And

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Actually, it’s important to point out and admonish against the poison that gets vented when something like Oliver Stone’s cordiality toward JVB takes place.

The negativity and the house-breaking clamor that carried-on after that was embarrassing and destructive.

Jeffries should actually highlight in an evidentiary manner where the fractures lie and how it could be solved. Now that would have been an interesting read but way too much work for Donnie....highly respected researcher pfah.

And the Baker matter needed to be pointed out as she acts like she has the credibility and is making $ when ten years ago already she was pointed out with vast amounts of evidence that she was full of it. And yet there are a handful who totaly disregard this evidence and follow and defend her to the hilt.

I need a bigger bucket...............

[Douglas Caddy]

Don Jeffries is a prolific author and has another upcoming book that I look forward to reading and reviewing titled,  Bullyocracy: How the Social Hierarchy Enables Bullies to Rule Schools, Work Places, and Society at Large.

He also has his own podcast and interviews persons who have something worthwhile to say.

In short he is a whirlwind of energy and never stops fighting  for liberty.

Thank goodness we have Don and persons like him in our community.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[Denny Zartman]

8 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

If the history read that there was a bloody coup in 1963, I would agree with you. But that act, a crypto-coup, sanctioned by silence and lies, augmented by the worldwide political and social ramifications of that lie and that coup, makes it the most significant political event, ever, IMO.

it’s the ongoing cover-up that makes it so extraordinarily significant.

I apologize for not clarifying that I was not attempting to minimize the significance or importance of the JFK assassination myself. That wasn't my intention.

[Don Jeffries]

Thanks to Douglas Caddy for his consistent support. Bart Kamp- if you actually read the article, you will see that I talk specifically about how the bickering in the research community goes back to the beginning, before my own start volunteering with Mark Lane's group in the mid-1970s. You are proving my point, with your juvenile name-calling on Facebook. 

Many good people, like Harold Weisberg and Lane, have been drawn into these pointless personality battles. The important thing, and the main focus of the research community, should be to consistently point out the impossible nature of the official story. 

 

[Guest]

Nice of you to come out of the woodwork Jeffries. What is happening on FB has no bearing here, but since you pointed it out, it was wholly justified. Juvenile (your opinion) or not. Shape up dude. 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Bart Kamp
Spelling

[Ron Bulman]

I understand the fractured part, over 50 years, Weisberg -Lane.  Egos prevent collaboration.  Disagreements even among those pursuing the same goal are to be expected.  But I don't agree that this is all unproductive.  

The overall knowledge on the subject has increased over the years as a result of many who may disagree.  But the research of many, who disagree, builds on the work of those they disagree with and those who went before.  Does that make sense?   I'm no researcher, but aren't we all looking for the Truth?

Full screen is best.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=just+give+me+some+truth+by+john+lennon&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&refig=cd4a183282a14360a30695053ba91900&sp=5&qs=SC&pq=jus+give+me+some+truth&sk=PRES1SC4&sc=5-22&cvid=cd4a183282a14360a30695053ba91900

Edited December 8, 2019 by Ron Bulman