Jeremy Bojczuk

Bernie is correct. Josephs' semi-literate, incoherent comments show that he doesn't have the ability to think things through in a rational manner. When he's criticised, his first reaction is not to consider that he might be wrong, but to throw angry personal insults around, just like a three-year-old, as we see here. Show him an anomaly in the evidence and he'll automatically attach a conspiratorial explanation to it, no matter how far-fetched. To the angry, frustrated and inadequate tin-foil hat man, everything is a conspiracy, and everyone who says otherwise is seen as attacking him personally.

All of this may or may not meet the clinical definition of paranoia. It's certainly irrational, and it wouldn't surprise me if a mental breakdown is coming. As Bernie points out, Josephs really should get professional help before his mental state gets any worse.

The wider problem with Josephs and people like him is their effect on the public's impression of the JFK debate. Most people would not think it unreasonable in principle to suggest that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, because plenty of political figures have been killed as the result of conspiracies, and it doesn't require a huge and improbable conspiracy to kill a president. But if the claim is that the conspirators not only killed President Kennedy but also faked the Zapruder film for no good reason, faked the Altgens 6 photograph for no good reason, faked the wounds on JFK's body for no good reason, and duplicated Lee Harvey Oswald and his mother over several years for no good reason, the general public would conclude, not unreasonably, that anyone who questions the lone-nut theory is deranged. The tin-foil hat types, such as David Josephs, are exactly what the authorities want the general public to associate with the JFK assassination.