W. Tracy Parnell

I don't see the point. You can just choose to not respond-same thing.

To answer Jim’s question, let’s take a trip back to the 1993 Chicago Symposium which fits the 30-year criteria. Hoch commented on his experience at that gathering in his newsletter, Echoes of Conspiracy Vol. 15 #1. Hoch first commented on the diversity of the WC critics. He also praised a “new group” Jim D’s own CTKA and mentioned their newsletter Probe which he said contained a “surprising amount of news.” Hoch also mentioned AARC, John Judge, and the Lopez Report. Hoch discussed Peter Dale Scott’s work on Mexico City. He also mentions Scott’s review of Case Closed and offered his own extensive and detailed criticisms of the book. “The book’s biggest distortion,” he wrote, “is implicitly placing the blame for the controversy on the critics rather than the evidence.” Hoch also called Posner’s treatment of Hartogs, “indefensible.” Additionally, Hoch Reviewed Scott’s Deep Politics and said he, “may be the only the only researcher who can pursue this type of analysis and come even close to persuasiveness.” Hoch made his own presentation at the symposium. In his remarks, Hoch noted that he was “not very active” as a researcher at that time but his mission was to “help other researchers.” In that spirt, Hoch offered some excellent advice to his fellow scholars. Hoch’s first category of advice was regarding documents. “Keep an eye out for the innocent explanation; then test it,” Hoch advised. As an example, Hoch pointed to the case of Igor Vaganov who he noted was “involved in shady activities in Dallas that probably had nothing to do with the assassination.” Hoch concluded, “most of the apparent evidence will turn out not to be true, even if it is not obviously false.” Under the heading of physical evidence, Hoch advised, “The single bullet theory is not a joke. Despite its well-known flaws, the Warren Commission/House Committee reconstruction may be in better shape than any other single detailed reconstruction. At least, it has to be taken seriously.” Hoch also cautioned the attendees on potential pitfalls. “Watch out for allegations which look too good to throw out, for example because they seem to make the connection between Kennedy's enemies and the assassination — that is, to provide the closure everyone hopes to find. For example, some people latched on to the FBI document mentioning George Bush of the CIA without considering if the George Bush would be referred to in that fashion, and whether the contact described was that important or sinister anyhow.” Sort of like Jim D. attaching major significance to a unverified statement by an individual that claims to have seen a document connecting Oswald and Ruby. Perhaps Jim missed that particular presentation by Hoch. These are just a few of the highlights of Hoch’s presentation. If you would like to read more, the original newsletter may be found here: Item 01.pdf (hood.edu) It is clear that Hoch’s “value to the critical community” was his advice to be skeptical not only of the WC but of unsupported or poorly supported claims of conspiracy. I think that often unheeded advice was priceless.

Great Steve. Fred's blog has probably dozens of instances of questionable reporting by DiEugenio as you know.

That is true to a point. But DiEugenio uses this unproven allegation to bolster his discussion of another unproven allegation-that of Rose Cheramie. That is the point Steve is making-that DiEugenio’s arguments in many cases rely on these types of unsubstantiated witness claims.

You idea of what a "conservative" source consists of may be as ambiguous as your concept of the "New York Establishment."

He didn't post any links just listed sources. Two of the three listed are already mentioned by Steve. He is not denying there is an allegation just wondering where the proof is. Evidently, Jim's "proof" is his talks with Gary Schoener. I don't call that proof but you may disagree.

I'm not denying anything. I'm saying that I nor anyone else knows what someone would have done.

If you have more, keep them coming Steve.

And Jim is still trying to deny that no one knows what JFK would have done. All we can do is speculate. But McAdams wrote a good piece that sums up one side of the argument. Myself, I am always skeptical when someone says they can see into the future. As far as I know, Jim has not made a fortune in the stock market or gambling casinos.

To start off, here is one that has already been mentioned: Did Vernon Gerdes See Oswald with Ferrie and Banister? (onthetrailofdelusion.com) An examination of the type of witnesses Jim D. find credible: Did David Ferrie Speak to Clay Shaw on the Telephone from Guy Banister's Office? (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Did LHO use Jack Ruby as a reference? Did Lee Harvey Oswald Use Jack Ruby As a Job Reference? (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Were Garrison's witnesses harrassed? Were Garrison's Witnesses Surveilled, Harassed, Attacked and Intimidated? (onthetrailofdelusion.com) That's just a small sampling.

Just like there is no evidence he was a conspiracy theorist? Defending "Conspiracy Freak" ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com) My understanding is that while working on Bay Street he made only a modest amount of money. He only worked on Wall Street for a few months before being laid off in the 1987 crash. My understanding is he never worked in the financial district in England. Also, he lost money in the music business. From listening to the speech, it is evident that he supports a two-state solution. He says that he supports all Palestinians who want to live in peaceful co-existence with Israel. That seems to be a very reasonable position.

No need for insults. All I want to know is who the "New York Establishment" is in your world.

Here is a simple fact. Since no one can see into the future, we'll never know what JFK would have done in regard to Vietnam. There is a great deal of evidence that he was indeed a standard cold warrior: John Kennedy and the Cold War (mu.edu)

I'm still waiting Steve. BTW, I would love to know who he thinks the "New York Establishment" is. Does that consist of Cuomo and de Blasio or someone else?

Defending "Conspiracy Freak" ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

I think it was a combination of things that happened at roughly the same time.

He posted the evidence, you just don't accept it for whatever reason.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. As I have already pointed out, there are plenty of theorists who believe that Oswald killed JFK but conspired with others in doing so. That was his belief at the time.

Right. I should have said the only evidence is eyewitness accounts. I have just corrected myself. Which is something you will not see Jim D. do on this forum. Correct, and Fred, who supposedly is shilling for the WC, notes this omission in his book (p. 105) and calls it "unfortunate."

Wrong. On page 149 he writes about two articles by Paul Hoch. Those pieces led to a review of the HSCA hearings and exhibits. That is the point at which he changed his mind. This is all in the book along with a brief chronological history of the CT movement and his reaction to it.

Here is a better question. Where is Mr. McBride's (or anyone else's) proof that I am paid for what I do by anyone?

So, there is a good book title. Why don't you go ahead and write one? Or is it easier to just sit on forums and pontificate as 95 percent of "serious researchers" (those who claim to want to "solve" the case) do?

So, what is his motive then? What conspiracy theory are you guys pushing now? It was correctly mentioned that Fred didn't "do it" for money. As for "no one" could become a lone nutter, several were already mentioned-Myers, Russo and Mack although the latter did not consider himself a lone nutter. Myers and Russo have obviously spent years on the case and their credentials are impeccable. Therefore the attempt is made to diminish them and their conversion by saying they "sold out." Nonsense, I say and whatever monies they made were earned because they had a product (their knowledge) that had value. But the attempt to diminish them has to be made because the concept that anyone could look at the evidence and change their mind after serious study is too dangerous to the CT mindset.

it's not accurate in your opinion. The only evidence of a hole in the back of the head is the statements of the Dallas doctors. And there are other explanations for the movement of JFK on the z-film. Fred went from a reasonable conspiracy believer to a lone nutter. That is a fact. Your skepticism is noted as is your apparent belief (without proof) that he was some sort of CIA plant or whatever conspiracy you are trying to imply.

Good suggestions John, we'll see what happens.