Jeremy Bojczuk

Tracy Parnell writes: He could at least make an effort, couldn't he? As I pointed out elsewhere, problems are bound to arise when someone who actively promotes divisive beliefs acquires the powers of a moderator. Whether or not Sandy is justified in repeatedly suspending those who disagree with the far-fetched beliefs he actively promotes, his actions will generate suspicion. Those who disagree with his far-fetched beliefs, whether they are existing members or potential members, will suspect that they won't be treated fairly. Sooner or later, dissenting voices will vanish and the forum will become an echo-chamber for far-fetched beliefs. I'm sure Sandy wouldn't want that to happen. P.S. Apologies for posting so many comments at one time, but Sandy sent me to the sin bin for a couple of days. I assume, from his absence, that Jonathan too has again been temporarily banished by our immoderate moderator: https://jacks.forumotion.com/t22-the-ballad-of-the-immoderate-moderator

On page 4, Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy's statement that "So she knew that the Tippits she was trying to contact were indeed related to J.D. Tippit in Dallas" is incorrect. The caller clearly did not know this to be a fact, and Sandy tells us why: "in all likelihood [she] discovered from reading a local news article ..." The caller appears to have learned of the existence of the Westport Tippits by reading that newspaper article. But she did not learn from the newspaper that those Tippits were relatives of the Dallas policeman, because the newspaper did not make that claim. According to the FBI's account, the newspaper article "STATED THAT WE MAY BE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF THE DALLAS POLICEMAN" (capitals in the original). The newspaper stated that they "may be" distant relatives, not that they were distant relatives. If that was all the information the caller possessed, there's no reason to assume that the caller knew anything for a fact beyond that the Westport Tippits existed. Tracy's article, which Jonathan posted, was correct. John Armstrong was mistaken when he claimed that the caller "knew" that the Westport Tippits were related to the Dallas policeman. As Tracy points out, Armstrong was presumably trying to give the evidence more weight than it deserved. Although, as Tracy also points out, Armstrong's mistake is a trivial one, Armstrong's small but devoted band of followers here have turned this into a more serious matter: First, Jim Hargrove wrote that "You [Jonathan] obviously don’t care that you quote demonstrably false statements by Tracy Parnell." Then Sandy Larsen jumped in, accusing Jonathan of posting a "knowingly false" claim which Jim "has proven to be false." Two forum members, Jim and Sandy, have made unsubstantiated claims against two other forum members, Jonathan and Tracy. Not only has Jim not proven Tracy's claim to be false, but the claim itself was not "demonstrably false" or "knowingly false". Tracy's claim was correct, and Jonathan was justified in posting it. I haven't checked the forum's rules, but I'd be surprised if members are allowed to accuse other members of making and quoting "demonstrably false statements" when no such statements were made. If Jonathan's current absence is because he has been suspended (or worse) as a result of Jim and Sandy's inaccurate accusations, something really needs to be done, if only to prevent something similar happening in the future. Who moderates the moderators?

Lesley continues: As I explained on page 4, there was only one arrest in the Texas Theatre. George Applin was assumed, erroneously, to have been arrested when he was in fact escorted out of the rear of the building in order to give a statement to the police: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30101-rob-reiner-talks-about-two-oswalds/?do=findComment&comment=526979 More worryingly, Lesley also writes: Is Leslie seriously suggesting that Greg Parker, or anyone connected to him, was behind such threats? She would need to produce some pretty strong evidence to justify that claim. I hope she will either produce that evidence or make it very clear indeed that she isn't accusing anyone ("Aussies ... these fellows ... Greg") of such behaviour.

Leslie Sharp writes: Jim Hargrove agrees: This supposed problem with the Prayer Man idea has been debunked on this forum several times already. Here we go again: Just because Oswald was accused after the assassination of being a lone nut, this does not imply that the lone-nut story was built into any assassination conspiracy from the start. The lone-nut story was a political response to the rumours of Soviet or Cuban involvement in the assassination, which emerged once Oswald's supposed sympathies with those regimes became known. The Soviet and Cuban regimes were linked to Oswald through his defection and his supposedly pro-Castro activity. Oswald in turn was linked to the assassination through his apparent ownership of the sixth-floor rifle. Whether or not Oswald himself fired the rifle was immaterial. The most plausible reason for framing Oswald before the assassination was to implicate the Cuban or Soviet regimes in the assassination. Oswald didn't need to be a lone nut; in fact, Cuban or Soviet involvement would have been more plausible if their guy in the book depository had accomplices. A local communist conspiracy would have been more effective at implicating those regimes than a lone nut with communist sympathies. The more communist assassins there were in Dealey Plaza, the better. During the assassination, Oswald could have been anywhere inside the building, or anywhere outside the building. He could have phoned in sick that morning. Oswald and Frazier could have been involved in a car crash on their way to work, and been in hospital while the assassination was taking place. Oswald could have flown to Washington and been singing The Star-Spangled Banner on the lawn of the White House during the assassination. Oswald would still have been implicated in the assassination, simply through his apparent ownership of the rifle. It's a mistake to assume that everything that happened was planned in advance.

What exactly is "knowingly false" about the passage in Tracy's article that's quoted by Jonathan? The quotation makes this claim: The item which Tracy says is incorrect is John Armstrong's statement that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." The quotation marks here imply that these words were written by Armstrong. Is that the "knowingly false" claim which Jim and Sandy find objectionable? Are Jim and Sandy claiming that Armstrong did not write those words? (This is a genuine question. Tracy is quoting from a presentation by Armstrong which I don't have access to.) I don't see anything in the FBI's account of the telephone call which contradicts Tracy's claim about Armstrong's statement. The FBI document states that the caller "asked if Mr Tippit was ... related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas." It does not state or imply that the caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit" as Armstrong appears to have claimed. Tracy's point seems to be that: Armstrong claimed the woman knew that Mr Tippit of Westport, Connecticut, was related to Officer J.D. Tippit. But the FBI document shows that the woman did not know this. The woman "asked if Mr Tippit was ... related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas." She didn't state it to be a fact; she asked whether or not it was a fact. If John Armstrong did in fact write the words attributed to him by Tracy Parnell, then Jonathan Cohen did not violate the forum rule which prohibits the posting of "knowingly false" statements, because Tracy's conclusion ("Unfortunately, it is incorrect") is justified: Armstrong's claim was indeed incorrect. Now, Jim Hargrove has made a claim of his own: "you [Jonathan] quote demonstrably false statements by Tracy Parnell". But the statement of Tracy's which Jim brings up as an example of a "demonstrably false" statement appears not to be "demonstrably false" at all, but demonstrably accurate (unless Tracy misquoted Armstrong's text which I don't have access to). Who exactly is breaking the forum's rules here? And who needs to apologise to whom?

The Texas Theater misunderstanding was resolved here and on the ROKC forum a few years ago. See, for example: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2051-time-to-kill-another-myth-there-was-no-second-oswald-arrested-at-the-theater http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 There was only one Oswald in the Texas Theater. This wasn't even a case of a plausible short-term impersonation, let alone an implausible scheme involving a pair of imaginary long-term doppelgängers. The person whom Burroughs erroneously claimed (three decades after the event, having failed to mention it to Jim Marrs) he saw being arrested was George Jefferson Applin, Jr, who had not been arrested but was being escorted by the police to one of their cars parked at the rear of the building. From there, Applin was taken to the police station, where he gave a statement. The police then drove him back to the Texas Theater. Applin, a 21-year-old white man, was the person whom Bernard Haire saw at the rear of the building. Haire assumed that Applin was being arrested, and jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the young white man he saw was the young white man who was accused of shooting JFK. This incident illustrates the main problem with Douglass's book. He takes all sorts of dubious evidence at face value and weaves an unlikely narrative out of it. People read his book, take it at face value (it's got endnotes in it, with references and stuff, so it must be true!), and the myth continues that a second Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater. Whenever faced with an inherently implausible claim involving lizard people, imaginary doppelgängers, or little green men, readers should use their critical faculties and get into the habit of checking primary sources, e.g.: George Applin's affidavit: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338846/ Applin's Warren Commission testimony: Hearings, vol.7, pp.14-17 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=24) The ROKC thread I mentioned is worth reading in full. One remark by Greg Parker stands out:

Jim Hargrove writes: And I replied to that post, pointing out that the three examples Jim provided do not support his far-fetched double-doppelgänger fantasy: Konon Molodiy was one person who took on a false identity in his thirties. Antonio and Patricio DeLaGuardia were a pair of identical twins. Michael Ross was one person who took on false identities as an adult. None of Jim's three examples contained any of the far-fetched features which are essential elements of his double-doppelgänger fantasy: Two unrelated children recruited by an intelligence agency in the hope that when they had grown up, a decade or more later, they would be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for one another. Two unrelated women recruited into the scheme who also were virtually identical; one of the women being the mother of one of the children, while the other woman was unrelated to any of the other three participants. Would Jim please provide even one real-life example of that precise arrangement, or a near equivalent? As I also pointed out, not only are there no known examples of such doppelgänger boys with doppelgänger mothers, but there does not appear to be any direct evidence that such a scheme has been set up, by any intelligence agency, anywhere in the world, ever: There are no internal memos proposing such a scheme. There are no internal memos giving official approval to implement such a scheme. There are no internal memos discussing candidates for the roles of doppelgänger boys or doppelgänger mothers. There are no progress reports about how closely the growing boys continued to resemble each other (or, much more likely, increasingly failed to resemble each other). There are no financial accounts to do with any such scheme, which would have involved the employment of support staff over more than a decade. There are no official employment records for any of the hypothetical support staff. There are no reports from whistle-blowers about any such scheme. There aren't even any internal memos refusing the setting-up of such a scheme ("You want us to recruit two unrelated boys with two unrelated mothers, in the hope that they'll turn out to be virtually identical a decade later? What have you been smoking? And one of the boys must be a native speaker of Russian, but then you're going to let him forget most of his Russian so that he has to learn the language all over again? What's the point of setting up the scheme, then? Get outta here!"). There appears to be no direct evidence at all. Does Jim (or Sandy, or any other believer) have any direct documentary evidence which the rest of us don't know about? Internal memos, progress reports, pay slips, that sort of thing?

Jim Hargrove writes: In other words, Newman and Scott don't subscribe to the central features of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, the claim that the CIA set up a scheme in which: Two unrelated boys were recruited at a young age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other. The mother of one of the boys and an unrelated woman, were also recruited, and that the two women were so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other. One of the Oswald doppelgängers was recruited specifically for his knowledge of Russian, only for him to be allowed to forget so much of his Russian that he had to learn the language again, thereby defeating the whole point of recruiting him in the first place. One of the Oswald doppelgängers and one of the mother doppelgängers disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after the murder of the real, one-and-only Oswald by Jack Ruby, with no explanation of where they went or how their disappearance came about. This claim is preposterous, and is supported by no direct evidence. There appear to be no memos, progress reports, financial records, or any other documentation referring to such a scheme. I'd be extremely surprised (and disappointed) if Newman or Scott take this preposterous claim seriously. Do Newman and Scott really believe that Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term double-doppelgänger scheme that began when Oswald was a boy? If they don't, Jim really should stop citing them as supporters of he 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. As Jonathan points out, the central claims of he 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense are believed by almost no-one who treats the JFK assassination as a serious historical event. That's because it is just the lone-nut narrative dressed up in a tin-foil hat.

Bill Brown writes: Of course! And I have no reason to suppose that Sandy's actions against Miles, Jonathan and Pat were motivated by his disagreements with those members. Caesar's wife comes to mind. A moderator must not only act fairly; he or she must be seen to act fairly. A moderator who actively promotes far-fetched beliefs will inevitably generate suspicion whenever he uses his moderator's powers against those who disagree with him. If people suspect, rightly or wrongly, that they won't get a fair deal on this forum, they are unlikely to hang around or even join in the first place. Hence the paucity here of lone-nutters and non-paranoid conspiracy theorists. I'm aware of several ex-members who questioned one or more far-fetched theories and were either banned or left of their own accord as a result. It's good that Sandy devotes time to the administration of this forum. The Watercoolers feature, which I assume Sandy had a hand in creating, was an effective way of defusing partisan political disagreements that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. But the power to suspend or ban members should not be in the hands of people who actively promote far-fetched or otherwise divisive beliefs, because at some point those people will act against members who disagree with them, and suspicion will be generated. Personally, I think the panel of moderators should be entirely (or, at worst, largely) comprised of people who do not actively promote such beliefs. Whether enough suitable members can be found is another matter.

All three of Jim's "clear examples of long-term impersonations used in spycraft" fail to answer the question I asked. None of the cases he mentions provide direct evidence for an H&L-type scenario: Konon Molodiy (aka Gordon Lonsdale) was not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as boys and raised in separate households under the guidance of a national intelligence organisation. Nor, as far as we know, was his mother a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. Molodiy was one person who took on a false identity in his thirties. Antonio and Patricio DeLaGuardia were a pair of identical twins, not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as boys and raised in separate households by a national intelligence orgainsation. Their mother was not, as far as we know, a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. Michael Ross was one person who took on false identities as an adult. He was not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as boys and raised in separate households by a national intelligence orgainsation. His mother too appears not to have been a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. The last time I brought up this point, perhaps two or three years ago, Jim offered these examples and that of Mata Hari. Needless to say, Mata Hari was not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as girls and raised in separate households by a national intelligence orgainsation; nor was her mother a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. At least Jim didn't bother to mention Mata Hari this time. We're making progress, slowly. This illustrates the point I was making. There appears to be no direct evidence in the historical record, anywhere in the world, of a scheme with the essential characteristics of the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelgänger scheme: Two unrelated children recruited by an intelligence organisation in the hope that when they grew up they would be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for one another. Two unrelated women recruited into the scheme who also were virtually identical; one of the women being the mother of one of the children, while the other woman was unrelated to any of the other three participants. (Not to mention the other nonsensical aspects of H&L mythology, such as recruiting one of the boys specifically for his native ability to speak a foreign language, only for the scheme's administrators to allow him to forget so much of the language that he had to learn it all over again, thereby defeating the whole purpose of the scheme. But we'll ignore those aspects for now.) As far as we can tell, no such scheme has ever happened in real life, and there is no direct evidence that it happened in this case. It is not unreasonable to expect direct evidence to exist, if the schemes existed. If one intelligence agency thought a scheme like this was obviously practical enough to be worth implementing, other intelligence agencies would surely have considered implementing such a scheme too. Each agency might well have done so more than once. Because the chance was slim that any given pair of unrelated boys would turn out to look virtually identical a decade later, each agency would have had to set up several such schemes in the hope that one of them might produce the goods. Numerous documents would have been generated, many of which we could expect to have been released to the public over the last few decades. But no documents exist which specifically refer to the implementation of such a scheme: There are no memos discussing setting up such a scheme. There are no memos giving the go-ahead for such a scheme. There are no memos identifying candidates for the role of doppelgänger boy and doppelgänger mother. There are no progress reports on each scheme ("13th birthday: Boys identical! 14th birthday: Boys still identical! 15th birthday: Gosh darn it! Let's close this one down and see if scheme number 27 turns out OK"). That's what I meant when I pointed out that any reasonable person would consider the H&L double-doppelgänger scheme to be far-fetched (or worse). Schemes like this simply don't happen in real life.

Jim Hargrove writes: Among those preposterous claims were: The moon landings were faked Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term double-doppelgänger scheme No planes hit the World Trade Center 'Crackpot' is an appropriate word for anyone who publicly promoted such nonsense. As for White's lack of ability as a photographic analyst, this was illustrated during his HSCA testimony. See Proceedings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. 2, pp. 338-344: https://www.clavius.org/white-test.html

Jim Hargrove writes: Calling Jack White a crackpot isn't an insult. As I pointed out, he believed not only that the moon landings didn't actually happen but also that no planes hit the World Trade Center. Anyone who believes either of these things, let alone both of them, qualifies as a crackpot by most people's definition of the term. And he also helped to think up the double-doppelgänger nonsense, a scenario which is just as far-fetched as those other two scenarios. Why would a reasonable member of the public consider the H&L double-doppelgänger scenario to be far-fetched? Because it is something that simply doesn't happen in real life. There are plenty of real-life examples of people being impersonated, but there don't appear to be any real-life examples of two unrelated boys being chosen at any early age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to be virtually identical, as well as two unrelated women also being chosen, and that years later the two unrelated boys and the two unrelated women would indeed turn out to be virtually identical (let alone all the other preposterous elements of the theory). Two pairs of doppelgängers, maintained by the CIA for more than a decade, and each pair of doppelgängers just happening to turn out virtually identical! How many examples are there of intelligence organisations even proposing to set up such a scheme, let alone giving it the green light, let alone actually putting it into practice and carrying it on for more than a decade? We have access these days to records from many intelligence organisations, on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Where are the memos discussing long-term double-doppelgänger schemes? Where are the documents identifying possible doppelgänger boys and possible doppelgänger mothers? Where are any of the numerous other documents that such a scheme would have generated? There's no direct evidence that any such scheme has ever happened anywhere in the world, is there?

Pamela Brown writes: There's good evidence that in the run-up to the assassination, Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, and perhaps also in Dallas. People sometimes get impersonated; it doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. There's nothing far-fetched about the idea. But this is completely different from the proposition that Oswald was a pair of doppelgängers, part of a CIA scheme set up when they were boys and carried on for a decade or more. Not only is this idea preposterous on its face, since there is no evidence that such a scheme has ever happened in real life, but there is no direct evidence to support the claim that it happened in this case: no CIA memos, no statements from whistle-blowers, no records identifying the Oswald boy doppelgänger or the Oswald mother doppelgänger. It is an invention by a crackpot who thought the moon landings didn't happen. And more importantly, it was the body of the same person who had undergone a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six: that's how the pathologists knew that it was Oswald's body. But according to H&L mythology, the person who was buried in Fort Worth was not the same person who underwent the mastoidectomy operation at the age of six. According to the mythology, it was an Oswald doppelgänger who was buried in Fort Worth. You can find out more about this aspect of the mythology here: http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory This is just about the most conclusive proof you could expect to find that the H&L mythology is an invention. The only way to resurrect the mythology is (a) to propose that the Oswald doppelgänger too had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, and (b) to provide evidence that this operation actually happened. Of course, no such evidence has been provided: no hospital records, no statements from medical personnel, nothing. The H&L mythology is an invention.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, is it really a good idea to entrust the running of the forum to someone who actively promotes ideas that a reasonable person would consider to be far-fetched? Members who have disagreed with some of Sandy's far-fetched views have already had their posts accidentally removed (Miles Massicotte), or been suspended (Jonathan Cohen), or been threatened with suspension (Pat Speer). No doubt such events are coincidental, but it's the sort of thing that might tempt serious researchers to stay away, or even to abandon study of the assassination altogether (the example of Lee Farley comes to mind). At some point, this forum may contain little other than propagandists trying to sell whack-job theories to gullible newbies. To be honest, it's not far from that state at the moment. Ideally, moderators should be people who do not promote controversial ideas. Any volunteers?

Sandy Larsen writes: I suppose that's the closest Sandy will get to admitting that a reasonable member of the public would consider his pet theories to be far-fetched (or worse). Sandy ought to be concerned about this. By promoting ideas which are far-fetched, he is playing a small part in harming the chances of getting the JFK assassination resolved. If the general public associates criticism of the lone-nut dogma with the sort of far-fetched stuff Sandy promotes, the case is unlikely to get resolved. The point of this thread is that Sandy would prefer people not to point out that far-fetched theories are far-fetched, because he personally believes in those far-fetched theories. Of course we should be able to describe far-fetched (or crackpot, or whack-job) theories as far-fetched (or crackpot, or whack-job) theories. If someone puts forward a theory which a reasonable member of the public would consider laughable and no better than Jack 'I thought up the Harvey and Lee nonsense' White's theories that the moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center, of course we should be able to point that out, even if Sandy himself agrees with that laughable theory. All Sandy has explained numerous times is that people define 'far-fetched' in different ways. I have pointed out that if there is no agreed definition of 'far-fetched', the term is meaningless. I've put forward a definition which I think most of us would agree on. I'd still be interested to find out why Sandy promotes theories which he knows would be considered far-fetched (or worse) by reasonable members of the public. Or, if he doesn't want to admit that his pet theories are far-fetched (or worse), where would he draw the line, and how would he justify that definition?

Keven Hofeling writes: The point I was making was in reply to your comment that "There is no visible indication of skull and brain fragments being 'blasted out' of the back of JFK's head at Z-313 of the Zapruder film as there should be, based upon witness testimony." I explained that the length of time the shutter was closed could have allowed any horizontal debris to fly out of sight between frames 312 and 313. I assume you accept that this is a plausible explanation for that apparent anomaly. I'm not sure what the roses have to do with anything. The roses were in sunlight; the back of JFK's head was in shadow.

Sandy Larsen writes: Indeed they can. But that's the problem. When people use different definitions of a term, that term becomes meaningless. We need an agreed definition of the term 'far-fetched'. If Sandy doesn't like his pet theories being described as far-fetched, he needs to tell us what he means by 'far-fetched'. I've explained what I mean by 'far-fetched', and how it applies to certain claims about the JFK assassination. A reasonable, intelligent member of the public with no preconceived ideas about the assassination would describe certain claims as far-fetched and other claims as not far-fetched. For example: An eye-witness made a mistake when recalling an event : not far-fetched. Someone made a mistake when filling in a form : not far-fetched. A witness was coerced into changing his or her testimony : not far-fetched. An item of evidence was planted at a crime scene : not far-fetched. Oswald was impersonated in the weeks before the assassination : not far-fetched. Oswald was one of two unrelated boys recruited by the CIA at an early age, along with his mother and an unrelated woman who played the role of mother to the other boy : far-fetched. The two Oswald boys were almost identical in appearance, despite being unrelated to each other, except that one of them had a 13-inch head : far-fetched. The two Oswald mothers were almost identical in appearance, despite being unrelated to each other, apart from their eyebrows : far-fetched. One of the Oswald doppelgängers was recruited specifically for his knowledge of Russian, only for him to be allowed to forget so much of his Russian that he had to learn the language again, thereby defeating the whole point of recruiting him in the first place : off-the-scale far-fetched. One of the Oswald doppelgängers and one of the mother doppelgängers disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after the murder of the real, one-and-only Oswald by Jack Ruby, with no explanation of where they went or how their disappearance came about : far-fetched. One of the Oswald doppelgängers, the doppelgänger who disappeared without trace, was given a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, only for the other doppelgänger's body, decades later, to show conclusive evidence of having undergone the mastoidectomy operation : you-can't-be-serious far-fetched. One of the adult Oswald doppelgängers magically changed his height, being 5' 11" tall on one occasion and 5' 6" tall on another occasion : how-can-anyone-believe-this-nonsense far-fetched. The reasonable member of the public would describe these claims as far-fetched because such things would not fit with his or her experience of how the world works. People often recall events inaccurately, or make mistakes in written documents. More rarely, people get impersonated for one reason or another. But people do not grow or shrink by 5 inches within a short period of time, or acquire damage to their bones from operations they didn't undergo, or have 13-inch heads, etc. As far as the reasonable member of the public is concerned, these sorts of things simply do not happen in real life. Sandy would agree with this definition of 'far-fetched', wouldn't he? If not, why not?

Keven Hofeling writes: It's quite conceivable that debris flying horizontally backwards was not captured by any of the home movie cameras. Zapruder's camera took roughly 18 exposures per second. Each exposure cycle took approximately 0.055 of a second. During each exposure cycle, the shutter opened and closed. Each time the shutter opened, it stayed open for approximately 1/40 or 0.025 of a second.* Each time the shutter closed, it stayed closed for approximately 1/18 (= 2.2/40) minus 1/40 second, or 1.2/40 of a second, or 0.03 of a second. In other words, the shutter was closed for almost as long as it was open. If the debris was moving fast enough, it would have passed out of sight during the time the shutter was closed between frames 312 and 313. How fast would the debris have been moving? Who knows, but any horizontal debris would certainly have been moving much faster than the vertical debris. A bullet travelling at 2000 feet per second would have travelled around 60 feet during the time the shutter was closed. No doubt the horizontal debris would not have been moving as fast as the bullet which caused it, but it only had to move a few feet in order to have evaded capture by a home movie camera. There's no reason to assume that Zapruder's camera must have captured the debris. We can forgive newbies for not performing basic research before repeating canards like this, but even the following relatively poor-quality edition of the Zapruder film shows debris hanging in the air for several frames in addition to frame 313: Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg -- * For technical details such as the camera's shutter speed, see http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm. I could copy and paste the whole thing here, but I think it's better to just give a link.

Before this thread degenerates into yet another H&L copy-and-paste spamathon, could I ask Sandy whether he agrees with my definition of 'far-fetched'? We should judge what's far-fetched and what isn't far-fetched according to what a reasonable, intelligent member of the public would think, shouldn't we? A member of the public who has no preconceived ideas about the assassination, and who measures claims by comparing them with his or her idea of how the world works. Sandy raised the question of far-fetched claims when he created this thread, so he must have an opinion about how we should define the term. If Sandy thinks that our hypothetical member of the public's judgement isn't the correct yardstick, what alternative would he propose?

Sandy Larsen writes: I don't "advocate for shutting down ... claims", if you mean demanding that such claims not be discussed. I advocate for people who make far-fetched claims being obliged to provide sufficient evidence to justify those claims. The examples I've mentioned (presidential body-snatching squads, mass alteration of films and photos, long-term doppelgänger projects, etc) are inherently far-fetched and have been supported up to now by insufficient evidence. Those claims remain far-fetched and unworthy of belief, even when they are repeated over and over again. Especially when they are repeated over and over again. I think it's reasonable to point out this fact, and the fact that such far-fetched claims risk making rational critics of the lone-nut dogma look like idiots by association, which isn't a good thing for anyone who wants to get the case resolved. The original point I made here and in the other thread concerned a definition of 'far-fetched'. Would Sandy agree with me that we should adopt the viewpoint of a reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no preconceived ideas about the assassination? If not, how would Sandy define the term?

Sandy Larsen writes: I explained clearly on another thread what I think the standard should be for a claim to be considered far-fetched: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30064-moderators/?do=findComment&comment=526064 We should adopt the viewpoint of a reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no preconceived ideas about the JFK assassination. Does Sandy (or anyone else) see a problem with this definition? If so, what exactly is the problem? And what alternative definition of 'far-fetched' would be appropriate? Once we have agreed a definition of the term 'far-fetched', we will be justified in referring to certain claims about the JFK assassination as 'far-fetched' (or 'crackpot' or 'whack-job', as appropriate). Using the definition I've given, a number of claims are far-fetched, because they do not reflect a reasonable person's view of how the world works. Far-fetched claims are not necessarily wrong, but they do require a higher level of proof than claims which are not far-fetched. The more far-fetched the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be. Far-fetched claims which rely on trivial discrepancies in the written or photographic record, for which plausible everyday explanations are usually available, do not meet the standard. Surely Sandy would agree with that.

Michael Griffiths writes: If that is aimed at me, Michael seriously misunderstands my point of view on these matters! Here's my critique of the single-bullet theory: http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination And here's my critique of Vincent Guinn's use of neutron activation analysis: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-neutron-activation-analysis Exactly! The sort of manipulation of evidence that we see in cases of wrongful convictions would not be considered far-fetched by a reasonable member of the public. But the crackpot theories go much further than everyday examples of manipulated evidence. There are good reasons to believe that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and perhaps also in Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination. A reasonable member of the public would surely not consider that sort of impersonation to be far-fetched. I'm not aware of any documented imposter projects which involved the following far-fetched elements: two unrelated boys being recruited at an early age, along with the mother of one of them plus an unrelated woman who played the role of mother to the other boy; each of the boys being almost identical in appearance, despite being unrelated to each other, except that one of them had a 13-inch head; each of the mothers being almost identical in appearance, despite being unrelated to each other, apart from their eyebrows; one boy being recruited specifically for his knowledge of Russian, only for him to be allowed to forget so much of his Russian that he had to learn the language again, thereby defeating the whole point of recruiting him in the first place; one of the boy doppelgängers and one of the mother doppelgängers disappearing from the face of the earth immediately after the murder of the real, one-and-only Oswald by Jack Ruby, with no explanation of where they went or how their disappearance came about; one of the boys, the doppelgänger who disappeared without trace, being given a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, only for the other doppelgänger's body, decades later, to show conclusive evidence of having undergone the mastoidectomy operation; one of the adult Oswald doppelgängers magically changing his height, being 5' 11" tall at one point (when it suited the needs of the theory) and 5' 6" tall at another point (when it suited the needs of the theory); and plenty more such nonsense (see https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-debunked for other examples). I'd be very surprised if the average member of the public would be aware of any documented examples of any of these things happening in real life. It isn't simply a matter of impersonation, it's the sheer implausibility of the details which would make this particular theory seem ridiculously far-fetched to any reasonable outsider. If you trawl through some of the old threads on this forum, from the era of James 'Sandy Hook' Fetzer and Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White, you'll find references to one or more photo-alteration vans parked either in the railway yard or on Houston Street, I forget which. It's ridiculous, but it was a necessary consequence of the need to explain some hypothetical and pointless alterations to the Altgens 6 photograph, which was distributed all over the world in its current (and allegedly altered) form only half an hour after the assassination. A couple of years ago or so, someone on this forum suggested that the background of Mary Moorman's well-known Polaroid photo was altered within an hour or two of the assassination. Apparently the background originally showed the book depository, but it was altered to show the grassy knoll. That photo, too, was widely distributed on the afternoon of the assassination. Whether the same photo-alteration van was used in this instance is a matter for debate. Polaroids used a different process than Altgens's 35mm film, so maybe there were two vans. No reasonable member of the public would take seriously the notion that They (whichever group of all-powerful conspirators They were) would station a van, kitted out as a photographic darkroom, near the scene of a presidential assassination, on the off-chance that some photographs might urgently need to be altered. In how many assassinations of prominent political figures (or indeed anyone else) has that sort of thing happened? Such a notion would seem preposterous to anyone with a fully functional reality filter. But fully functional reality filters can be in short supply around here. Maybe we do, but the point I was making is that the interception of a president's body from under the noses of everyone on Air Force One, and surgery secretly being performed on that body, are not the sort of things a reasonable member of the public would be familiar with. Now let's add that the purpose of the alteration was to make all of the wounds consistent with shots from the sixth floor, only for the supposedly altered wounds to be blatantly inconsistent with shots from the sixth floor. To a reasonable member of the public, every element of the body-snatching scenario would seem far-fetched. As for the notion that gunmen were hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, I hope I don't need to explain to anyone what the average member of the public would think about that! Incidentally, there's a list of wacky JFK assassination theories at Tony Krome's new forum: https://jacks.forumotion.com/f2-debunked

Paul Rigby suggests that my "real function is to attempt to police a debate in the service of the perpetrators". There we have it, ladies and gentlemen: anyone who questions the far-fetched stuff must be working on behalf of "the perpetrators"! If anyone is helping "the perpetrators", it's the promoters of theories which reasonable members of the public would describe as far-fetched or worse. Presidential body-snatchers, long-term doppelgänger projects, gunmen hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, photo-alteration vans in Dealey Plaza: this stuff does not feature in a reasonable person's account of how the world works. It really doesn't! Reasonable people would not recognise such things as part of the world in which they live. They would regard them as far-fetched, maybe even as fantasies invented by crackpots. "Why don't you believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission?" "Well, you see, they kidnapped President Kennedy's body and surgically altered it, and of course Oswald was actually two people, and so was his mother, and most of the photos and home movies were altered, and ... Wait, where are you going? Why are you laughing and shaking your head?" Theories which propose this sort of nonsense as solutions to the JFK assassination will discourage reasonable people from taking an interest in the subject, and will allow the media to claim that if you question the lone-nut dogma, you must be a crackpot. If the general public comes to believe that everyone who questions the lone-nut dogma is a crackpot, is that more likely to harm or help "the perpetrators"? Because it influences people's attitudes, of course. In particular, it influences the attitudes of reasonable people who are not familiar with the facts of the JFK assassination, and encourages those people not to take the case seriously. If the case is ever going to get resolved, it requires the support of the general public. Do believers in far-fetched theories actually want the case to be resolved? I suspect it isn't a high priority for them. Incidentally, I'm wondering whether we should introduce a scale for describing off-the-wall theories, since 'far-fetched' is rather mild for some of them. Perhaps we could start with 'far-fetched', then go to 'crackpot', and end with 'whack-job'. Where on the scale would the presidential body-snatchers theory go? Is it more far-fetched than the long-term doppelgängers theory, or less far-fetched? Is the long-term doppelgängers theory even less credible than the photo-alteration-van-in-Dealey-Plaza theory? How does the photo-alteration-van theory compare with the body-snatchers theory? What about the papier-mâché trees theory? Where should that one go on the scale? And I'm sure we can fit some little green men in there somewhere. There's plenty of scope for constructive discussion!

Pamela Brown writes: Indeed we should! But we should also try to put ourselves in the shoes of reasonable members of the public, and be aware that certain ideas and theories really do seem far-fetched (to put it mildly) to people outside the Ed Forum echo-chamber.

Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy then names four people who do "present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory". A lot depends on what we mean by 'far-fetched', of course. This came up in another current thread, and I've just given my opinion of how we ought to judge what's 'far-fetched' and what isn't, here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30064-moderators/?do=findComment&comment=526064 Of the four people Sandy mentions, Robert Charles-Dunne rarely posts these days, as far as I'm aware, and when he did post he was one of the most level-headed and respectful of commenters. Robert most certainly presented "substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory". Another of Sandy's "shamers" is Michael Walton, who is no longer a member (unless he has recently been welcomed back) since he was banned due to pressure from promoters of the same far-fetched theory. Greg Parker is another former member, banned for a similar reason. What exactly is Sandy's objection? As Jonathan points out, a theory which the majority of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists consider to be far-fetched, but which Sandy himself has supported, has been taken to pieces numerous times on this forum and elsewhere. This particular theory has been buried under an avalanche of "substantial evidence". Would Sandy prefer that this far-fetched theory, or far-fetched theories in general, were given immunity from criticism? Far-fetched and thoroughly debunked theories really ought to be criticised, because they are harmful to rational criticism of the lone-nut dogma. The media is always keen to equate rational critics with moon-landings deniers and the like, and it's the far-fetched theories which enable them to do so.