W. Tracy Parnell

1 hour ago, John Kowalski said:

Tracy:

He has written two books about JFK so he should be sure about his convictions, so don't you think that Fred should debate Jim?

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

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Note in that blog post that he criticizes the critics by saying there is no evidence for a front shot.

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. 

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks John.

I wish Fred had been there.

BTW, he is still trying to prove he actually was a Commission critic at one time.  This is now, what about three years after his book came out?

Keep on trying Fred.

Here is a blog piece by Fred. Readers can decide for themselves.

Fred Litwin, Conspiracy Theorist (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

historian Dennis Kaiser

It's David Kaiser.

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is all one needs to know about the quality of Parnell's "criticism". Which is not criticism.  Its cheerleading.

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. 

15 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

The current demise of AAJ and .John, the only thing left is whining on Nutter's part... louder and more dramatic the better... Time to retire Tracy?

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.

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Maybe you have "reading comprehension" problems like me, Tracy. DiEugenio says he did address this, and I can't read. Here it is, and obviously no answer. It's obviously a mistake to say that Gerdes saw Oswald, as interviewed by Garrison's investigator. But I guess I will be put on "ignore" because DiEugenio apparently says he did address this......but where?

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)

41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What information is forthcoming from people like you and Joe Zircon who pretend inconvenient evidence doesn't exist?

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.

45 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

You should take your WCR disinformation to a less scholarly forum.

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.

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Jonathan, Doug Horne wrote this in 2012.

I think that was the mother of all Gish gallops.

53 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

but the weight seems to go against Curington

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

46 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Tracy, and others:

I'm curious if there are any late-to-the-party witnesses such as Wynne Johnson who really pass muster once their stories are subjected to scrutiny? 

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

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

I respectfully dissent from your statements but support your being here and giving your opinions.

Thank you Cory and your comments are very welcome.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And let us not deny this because Jerry Ford admitted it to Giscard d'Estaing years later when he was president.

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.

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Are there any conspiracy theories that you believe in? Or does the state have to declassify and rubber stamp them, making them official history for you to be on board? Be careful how you answer that.

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.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I agree with much of what Tracy Parnell says.

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.

8 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

ya been on this nutter gig for around 30 years now, that I know of.

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.

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why it's a howler.  The Establishment is not called the establishment for nothing.

If you don't know how power works in this country then how can one ever understand the JFK case? 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-and-the-unforgivable-how-the-historians-version-of-the-jfk-assassination-dishonors-the-historical-record-part-1

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.

11 minutes ago, Norman T. Field said:

Or else they are being paid to do so?

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.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

That's an interesting comment. Providing you had the evidence that proved there was a conspiracy, how exactly would you go about changing the verdict of history, with the people that matter? I'd be interested in a step by step. Thanks 

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.

17 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

what is it about conspiracy theorists beliefs that makes you want to post on a forum where no one really cares about what you believe?

Just stubborn I guess.

21 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Sorry Mr Parnell but academia and the media just fell in line with the official version and both sides knew on which side their respective bread was buttered.

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.

16 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Lol, I think we can close the thread with this beauty. I mean really, in 2021 this is a howler.

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.