Are JFK researchers "weird people"?

[John Simkin]

People who spend anytime researching the JFK assassination are often dismissed as mentally unstable. Only this morning Mike Tribe wrote on another part of the Forum: “There's a lot of really weird people out there, as a casual glance at some of the "conspiracy theory" threads on this forum will show.”

I would like people like Mike Tribe and Paul Troglia to consider the following:

George Bush is assassinated while touring Boston. Eyewitnesses claim that bullets were being fired from in front and behind of him. One man is arrested soon afterwards. Let us call him John Smith. It turns out that Smith worked in one of the nearby buildings. He fled the scene but left behind a rifle he had purchased by mail order a few weeks previously.

Smith is interviewed by the Boston Police Department and the FBI. However, no records are kept from these interviews. It emerges that several years previously Smith went to live in Syria. Before he left he issued a statement that he intended to provide his hosts with classified information. However, Smith did not like Syria and eventually asks if he can come back to live in the United States.

Smith is not charged with passing on classified information to the Syrians. However, he is monitored by the FBI.

A few days after the assassination Smith is himself killed while in police custody by a man called George Brown. He says he did this because he did not want to Bush family to experience the pain of Smith’s trial. The government accept this argument and it publishes a report that says that Smith was a lone gunman and was not working for any other country. In fact, it was the act of a mentally disturbed individual. The government also announces it will not be releasing the FBI/CIA files on Smith.

What would the public response be to these events? Would they believe the government? Would those who refused to believe this story be classed as “really weird people”. If not, why not?

The point I am making is what happened in 1963 that convinced the world that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK? There is only one answer to this question. The way the media reacted to the assassination of JFK. Every mainstream media outlet pushed the lone gunman theory. In America the critics of this view only came from a few left-wing newspapers and magazines (it was of course different in Europe). Despite this propaganda campaign, public opinion polls showed that the majority of the people do not believe that JFK had been killed by a lone gunman. These figures increased as new information emerged that made it even more likely that there had been a political conspiracy to kill JFK.

Therefore, what went wrong? Why did this overwhelming public opinion not force the government to reveal those FBI/CIA documents? The answer is very clear. The media adopted a new strategy. Instead of concentrating of defending the official Oswald story, it turned its attention on the critics. A subtle media campaign was employed to portray those critics of being mentally unbalanced. As Mike Tribe says: “really weird people”.

This has enabled the American public to hold two conflicting views of the assassination. That is was indeed a conspiracy but the people who have been arguing that this is the case, are mentally unbalanced.

How has this been done? How has the media been able to act in such a coordinated way? There is only one answer to this. Operation Mockingbird.

[Tim Gratz]

John, in 1966 Life magazine was the first major media to ask for a re-opening of the case.

[John Simkin]

John, in 1966 Life magazine was the first major media to ask for a re-opening of the case.

And what story were they pushing? "Plan B" the Mafia did it.

Who published Life? Henry Luce.

Who was the journalist working on this new investigation? Dick Billings.

Who were Luce and Billings? Two key figures in Operation Mockingbord.

Luce is the same man who funded illegal operations against Castro. Billings even got to go on one of them (Operation Tilt).

[John Ritchson]

John, in 1966 Life magazine was the first major media to ask for a re-opening of the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what story were they pushing? "Plan B" the Mafia did it.

Who published Life? Henry Luce.

Who was the journalist working on this new investigation? Dick Billings.

Who were Luce and Billings? Two key figures in Operation Mockingbord.

Luce is the same man who funded illegal operations against Castro. Billings even got to go on one of them (Operation Tilt).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings John:

I may be totally incorrect here as so much water has gone over the proverbial dam but wasn't Luce a Bonesman and cohort of Prescot Bush, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations [CFR], a Tri-Lateralist, and a Bilderburger, and if so arn't these the people who represent the world power structure, and actually control the Military Industrial Complex, and are the sort of people with the power and capability to assassinate a sitting head of state and effect a 40+ year coverup?

Respectfully:

[Guest]

Surely the answer the question in the header of this thread 'Are JFK researchers "weird people"?' must be 'some are and some aren't'.

I have witnessed a real mixture here of some dispassionate and interesting historical research but also an amount of what borders on compulsive obsessive behaviour.... the inability of some (now no longer with us) to cope with contary opinion also suggests a degree of paranoia.

[Tim Gratz]

John, in another post you quoted Richard Sprague as saying the PCG manipulated the "Castro Did It" theory.

Now you are stating that Luce's publication (was Luce a member of Sprague's "PCG", by the way? and how does the "PCG" differ from the "MICC" by the way?) was pushing a "Mafia Did It" theory.

Perhaps the PCG ought to get its act together!

There are those, of course, who believe that Garrison pushed his scenario of LBJ/CIA, etc. to deflect attention from the Mafia since, reportedly, he was friendly with Carlos.

As I recall the Life magazine in question, it was not at that time pushing any particular theory; merely calling for a new investigation, with the chips to fall where they may. Do you have information to the contrary? I am recalling a magazine issue almost forty years ago. Do you have a copy of it?

Edited January 28, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

If the real subject of this thread is really: "Are JFK researchers weird" perhaps JFK researchers are not the best people to answer the question!

Just a thought!

[John Simkin]

If the real subject of this thread is really: "Are JFK researchers weird" perhaps JFK researchers are not the best people to answer the question!

Just a thought!

They are the right people to explain why they are seen as being "weird". That is the intention of my posting.

[George Bollschweiler]

"Are JFK researchers weird"

To answer this we first have to find out what "normal" is !

[Dawn Meredith]

John, in 1966 Life magazine was the first major media to ask for a re-opening of the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

________________________

Oh please Tim. You know way too much about Life mag to believe they seriously wanted a real investigation.

Are you for real? I don't mean this as an insult, but your level of knowledge and the things you post are often so in contradiction.????

Dawn

ps Yes, Operation Mocking bird JOhn, you have nailed it. The press knows today that the critiics are highly educated very stable people. But they publish to the contrary. The press is run by the CIA. Period. And by CIA I mean more generic, as we really don't know which branch of the invisible government controls what, especially these days.

[Greg Wagner]

The media's potrayal of people like us is simply a tactic in line with their other propaganda regarding this case: LHO did it. The WC got it right. Make any attempts (or people) to suggest otherwise look foolish or out of touch with reality.

However, with regard to my interest in this case (and probably other things), you wouldn't have to look far to get someone to tell you I'm weird. Heck, most of my friends would say that about me.

I might be weird, but I also think I'm right.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Mike Tribe]

I personally have little interest in the JFK assassination. I'm sure it's interesting to those who contribute to the various strings. However, I do find threads with titles which state that the originator intends to ignore contributions by someone else just a little eccentric, along with suggestions that no one has ever been to the moon, etc, etc. I nowhere suggested either that all people interested in researching the various aspects of JFK's life and death, or that J. Simkin is particular was weird, merely that if any of my rather unsophisticated 9th Grade students were to come across some of the less credible claims on the internet, they would be less well prepared than I would like to assess the trustworthiness of their source.

Am I not right to be concerned, or do all of you believe everything written in each of the "conspiracy theory" threads is based upon solid and incontestable research? Couldn't some of it fairly be characterized as "weird"?

[Greg Wagner]

I personally have little interest in the JFK assassination. I'm sure it's interesting to those who contribute to the various strings. However, I do find threads with titles which state that the originator intends to ignore contributions by someone else just a little eccentric, along with suggestions that no one has ever been to the moon, etc, etc. I nowhere suggested either that all people interested in researching the various aspects of JFK's life and death, or that J. Simkin is particular was weird, merely that if any of my rather unsophisticated 9th Grade students were to come across some of the less credible claims on the internet, they would be less well prepared than I would like to assess the trustworthiness of their source.

Am I not right to be concerned, or do all of you believe everything written in each of the "conspiracy theory" threads is based upon solid and incontestable research? Couldn't some of it fairly be characterized as "weird"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Mike-

Absolutely! There is "weird" and misguided info everywhere in this case- on both sides. If I were teaching 9th graders, I'd try to teach them logic and critical thinking skills. Encourage them to gather information from various sources (on whatever topic), evaluate using these skills- using their brain- and make their own choices about what they believe. There are agendas and misinformation on both sides of almost any important issue. Discourage them from being sheep.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[John Simkin]

I may be totally incorrect here as so much water has gone over the proverbial dam but wasn't Luce a Bonesman and cohort of Prescot Bush, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations [CFR], a Tri-Lateralist, and a Bilderburger, and if so arn't these the people who represent the world power structure, and actually control the Military Industrial Complex, and are the sort of people with the power and capability to assassinate a sitting head of state and effect a 40+ year coverup?

I have tried to answer your point about Luce here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3054

[Nic Martin]

I suppose, I'm not exactly what anyone thinks of as a normal American teenager.

Anyone that rebels against the status quo is seen as "weird," nowadays, though. If you take time to think about things ( especially forty year old murder cases ), you're "weird." You're not supposed to question things, I don't think, you're just supposed to be happy with things as you're handed. Having a thirst for knowledge is about as "weird" as anything.

I'm certainly not certifiably insane, but definitely eccentric. I don't like the idea of NOT knowing anything about something. I want to know a little about a lot, and some people try to make me ashamed about this, but I'm not.

I'm one of those people, who has to learn something for themselves, who can't take what anyone says as gospel. If you tell me something's too hard, I have to try it. If you tell me something's too hot, I have to try it. I cannot take anyone's word for it. This case is much the same way. I cannot take anyone's story about it.

When I was about, thirteen, I think, I ordered a copy of "Helter Skelter," and I read it in about a day. And a few years ago, I was looking into the OJ Simpson case again, and worked out in my head exactly why the bodies were where they were, et cetera ( random trivia about me: The first thing I ever read all the way through was the Houston Chronicle article about the OJ case right after it happened ).

This, supposedly, makes me "weird." I'm not "normal." But, if normal is ruining your life to have kids at 17 ( no kids. ever. ), and killing your braincells to be cool, then I'll pass on normal and take "weird" any day.