W. Tracy Parnell

He "should" if he wants to. The difficulty may be finding a neutral moderator and format.

Anyone can read the blog piece and see that Fred was originally a WC critic who rejected some of the more extreme theories. As Fred points out, it is hard to understand exactly what Jim is trying to say here, Is he saying Fred was a "fake" critic that was planted by the CIA? Who knows? But clearly Fred was a responsible critic who eventually became a "lone nutter." Which is exactly what his writings show.

Here is a blog piece by Fred. Readers can decide for themselves. Fred Litwin, Conspiracy Theorist (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

It's David Kaiser.

Perhaps Jim already has me on ignore. I have previously stated that my review was never intended to be "criticism" of Fred's work. It was intended to promote what I feel is a good book that exposes Garrison's nonsensical investigative techniques.

You are right in this sense-the death of John is an incalculable loss to the LN community. As far as my retiring-you can hope.

He didn't because he can't. BTW, good piece just out by Fred on Garrison's nutty theories regarding Larry Crafard: Jim Garrison Names the Grassy Knoll Gunman! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

First, why do you persist on referring to him as Joe Zircon when he has explained that is a pseudonym? Second, I am not pretending that evidence does not exist that could lead someone to question a particular finding. I understand that it does and in a case where there are perhaps millions of pieces of information, that is to be expected. As far as what information we have, Hank has outlined some of that here. For the rest, you can go to David Von Pein's or John McAdams' site.

This "scholarly" forum should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.

I think that was the mother of all Gish gallops.

I agree. The Esquire article says that Hunt was "highly visible" at the Mayflower Hotel in DC.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Jonathan.

Thank you Cory and your comments are very welcome.

Yes, that's what d'Estaing says Ford said. There are other possibilities such as d'Estaing was not telling the truth for his own reasons or that Ford was telling d'Estaing what he wanted to hear. But in Jim's world when someone says something that he agrees with-it becomes a fact.

I am going to have to finish my work on Uscinski. I think it would be helpful. Conspiracies exist of course-Lincoln assassination, Watergate and many others. The JFK thing is just a conspiracy theory until proven. What you have to do is find a way to prove it to those that matter. See Greg Doudna's post in the "Question to Lone Nutters" thread-he explained it better than I did.

Greg, Your comments are most welcome and I find that is regularly the case. You make several excellent points and do it much better than I could have. The approach you outline is the correct one I believe. Best of luck with your article on Tippit.

That's exactly why I titled the article my final word.

You have missed the point. I don't HAVE to convince anyone of anything. I can go home right now and Wikipedia will still say what it does. You guys really should read Uscinski's book. The "Epistemological authorities" (as he calls them) like Wikipedia are who you need to convince, not each other which is all you are doing here.

That's the whole thing. First you have a theory of the assassination. Then you have to have a theory of the "establishment" cover-up to draw attention away from the fact that you have no unified theory. Develop a specific, provable theory that (for example) Jim D., Summers, Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Morley and several others agree on and there would be no way they could deny you. But looking at that list, right away I see Jim D. and Summers who disagree on Garrison. So, the problem is within the CT community itself, not some unseen media conspiracy or "deep state" power group holding you back.

Well, I think that may be what he was implying and I have heard such accusations since the nineties. But I can assure you that I have never received a nickel from any individual or government agency for anything that I have written or posted on a forum related to the JFK assassination. In fact, I have even considered publishing my book online so I can stay "pure" so to speak even though the small amount I would be likely to make (conspiracy books are the bigger sellers) would never make up for the expenses incurred. But that is yet to be determined.

IMO, it all would start with a unified theory that the prominent members of the CT community could get behind. Such a theory would explain who orchestrated the conspiracy and (specifically) how and why they did it. The theory would also have to (specifically) explain how all of the evidence against LHO was faked and who did it. If you had this, there would be no way that the media (who would be the first entity you should contact) could ignore you. For example, Morley, as a former journalist, gets press all the time. But he has no unified theory, just a bunch of suspicions (Joannides or Phillips or Angleton must have been guilty). Now, I have been saying this (which I do in all seriousness) for years and the CTs just laugh at me or ignore me. And most really don't want to do anything about it anyway. They just want to sit on forums like this one and communicate with others that share their belief. It is just a hobby. Believe me, if I thought there really was a conspiracy, I would be the first in line to try and do something. But a specific unified theory is the key and that must be first.

Just stubborn I guess.

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right. That was 1964. What is stopping anyone from taking the evidence that you guys think proves your case to the media today? In this day and age, there should be one important person you can convince.

Why is it a howler? are you disputing, for example, that Wikipedia says this? Let's take a look: Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a former U.S. Marine who assassinated United States president John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The majority of the media, historians, academia, scientists etc. say this. Even the HSCA, who theorists never tire of quoting regarding their "finding" of conspiracy, believed this. So, you folks need to find something big that will get them to change their minds. That is my point. Or you can stay here in your sandbox and assure each other that you have solved the case and everyone would know this if it wasn't for the worldwide media conspiracy that covers it up. If you really cared, you would be doing something to change the verdict of history with the people that matter which should be very easy to do with all the "overwhelming" evidence you have.

Joe, Certainly, if you consider that there are likely millions of pieces of evidence in this case and researchers have spent 50 plus years studying it, you are correct that some will never be satisfied. But I think all of the LN advocates combined have done a reasonable job of countering conspiracy claims. After all, they have convinced those that matter-academia, the media etc.