Jeremy Bojczuk

Allen Lowe writes:

Quote

do you really think the plotters had no thoughts as to what would happen in the aftermath, no plans for handling conspiracy allegations?

Well, that depends on who the plotters were! And on what their ultimate intention was in killing JFK.

If we assume that the plotters wanted the assassination to look like the act of a lone gunman, they took a lot of risks by not controlling the photographic evidence. Certainly there was no guarantee that any spectators would capture images that provided good evidence of more than one assassin. But, with hundreds of spectators likely to be in the area, many dozens of whom could be expected to make an effort to bring their cameras with them, the plotters must have known that there was an appreciable chance that their 'lone gunman' plot would be exposed.

If, on the other hand, we assume that the plotters were happy for the assassination to look like a conspiracy, perhaps in order to place the blame on the Cuban or Soviet regimes, they went about things in the right way. Should any spectators happen to capture images that suggested a conspiracy, so much the better.

Perhaps the plotters were confident about how officialdom would react to any evidence of an external or domestic conspiracy: by suppressing such evidence and imposing a lone-gunman explanation for public consumption. In this case, the plotters wouldn't need to handle any conspiracy allegations themselves; officialdom, motivated by its own reasons, would sort out that problem for them.

If the intention was to make it look as though the Cuban or Soviet regimes were behind the assassination, the plotters may have done this for two very different reasons: to provoke a military attack, or to provoke an internal cover-up. The former would require the assassination to be officially interpreted as a conspiracy; the latter, as the act of a lone gunman. In the event, the threat of a military attack was the motivation for imposing the lone-gunman interpretation. Maybe the plotters intended this to happen; maybe they didn't.

Perhaps the plotters simply weren't concerned about whether the assassination was viewed after the event as a conspiracy or the act of a lone gunman, as long as JFK was eliminated and their gunmen got away undetected.

I don't know which, if any, of these scenarios is accurate. But I think it's a mistake to assume that the way things played out necessarily matched the intentions of the plotters. It's certainly a mistake to assume, as many people seem to do, that those who instigated the assassination also controlled the cover-up.

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

The lone-gunman explanation was merely a part of the coverup, not the plot.

Sandy and I are of one mind!

Many conspiracy theorists jump to the conclusion that everything that happened, both during and after the shooting, had been carefully planned in advance, and that those who instigated the assassination had the power to carry out those plans after the assassination.

But we know that the plotters, whoever they were, either didn't have the power to control the photographic record or simply were not concerned about what it might show (or both). If, as appears to be the case, more than one gunman was involved, there was always a chance that some bystander would capture images which demonstrated that more than one gunman was involved. The plotters, whoever they were, clearly were not bothered by the possibility that the shooting could be demonstrated to be a conspiracy. They may in fact have preferred the assassination to be seen as a conspiracy.

We also know that the lone-gunman explanation was put forward and promoted in the early stages by political apparatchiks for political reasons. That explanation was later promoted by the media for the same basic reason: to maintain public trust in established political institutions. There's no need to assume that insiders such as Nicholas Katzenbach or Earl Warren, or entities such as CBS or the New York Times which heavily promoted the Warren Report, had any connection at all to whoever instigated the assassination.

It really is time for people to look at the assassination story in a more nuanced way, by making a distinction between the plot and the cover-up. This may even help us to discover precisely who might have been behind the shooting.

Thanks for your reply, Roger! You ask some interesting questions.

Quote

Why do you suppose they weren't very concerned about what those films and photos might show?

If by 'they' you mean whoever instigated the assassination, the implication is that whatever the photographic record might show, that was fine by them. If it showed evidence of more than one gunman, they would have been happy for the shooting to be viewed as a conspiracy.

There were hundreds of people in Dealey Plaza, any number of whom could have captured any aspect of the shooting on film. Clearly the lone-gunman explanation was not baked into the plot.

If by 'they' you mean the law enforcement agencies who were responsible for investigating the crime, the implication is that they were not motivated by any preconceived interpretation of the assassination, at least in the early stages while dozens of members of the public with cameras were leaving Dealey Plaza and dispersing all over the country and abroad.

In those early stages, law enforcement treated the event like a normal crime: by interviewing the photographers who came to their attention, such as Zapruder and Moorman, and putting out a message for people to turn in their films and photos if possible.

Quote

They were going to shut up Oswald and create their own version of what happened.

The 'they' who wanted to shut up Oswald need not have been the same 'they' who wanted to enforce the lone-gunman explanation.

That explanation was decided upon by insiders in Washington, and can be interpreted plausibly as a straightforward political action by people for whom minimising public distrust of political institutions was more important than finding out who had shot the president.

The reason for shutting up Oswald might have been to prevent him spilling the beans about what he knew about the assassination, assuming that he knew anything. But we don't need to assume that. He may have been murdered simply to prevent the flimsy case against him being exposed during a trial. The latter would apply even if Oswald had known absolutely nothing about the assassination in advance.

Quote

They controlled the flow of information through the media. Given that, perhaps they decided running around immediately after the murder confiscating anything that might show what happened was too heavy handed and could ultimately backfire. The record shows that so far their approach has worked.

Again, the 'they' who controlled the media need not have been the same 'they' who instigated the assassination or the 'they' who could have confiscated the films and photos if they wanted to.

Widespread confiscation of films would indeed have looked heavy-handed. The important thing to remember is that it didn't actually happen.

Quote

Have you ever wondered why the cops went so hard after Frazier the day of the murder ... Could it be they had already seen an image on the steps that showed Frazier standing beside Oswald?

That sounds perfectly plausible. Or maybe Oswald mentioned that his buddy Wesley could vouch for his whereabouts: one more aspect of his alibi that didn't make it into the official reports.

Pat Speer writes:

Quote

I wish you'd had that at the ready a decade or so ago, when certain people were endlessly arguing that the photos were confiscated and faked via a CIA photo alteration lab set up in the parking lot next to the TSBD.

I recall those arguments, which I think were what prompted me to actually look at the evidence. It took me about half an hour, trawling through Trask's Pictures of the Pain, to learn that the authorities had no great interest in the photographic record and certainly didn't set out to confiscate the cameras and films.

Whoever instigated the assassination was clearly not concerned about what any home movies, news films, and still photographs might show. This fact alone is enough to debunk some of the more elaborate conspiracy theories.

It's conceivable that there may have been some ad hoc photo manipulation, although I'm not at all convinced that this happened. But if it did happen, it would have been done to support the lone-nut explanation for straightforward political reasons, and not necessarily by anyone who had a hand in the assassination.

Any theory that proposes all-powerful overlords micro-managing the events in Dealey Plaza, and then manipulating the physical evidence to the level of widespread photo alteration, needs to explain why those all-powerful overlords were happy to let dozens of photographers wander off to who-knows-where with their cameras and films.

Likewise, if undeniable evidence turns up which places Oswald on the steps when he should have been on the sixth floor, it won't just be the lone-nut explanation that gets destroyed. Any conspiracy theory that requires him to have been on the sixth floor will also fall apart. It's important to remember that Oswald could have been set up as a patsy before the assassination even if he was at liberty to go outside to watch the p. parade, or to eat his lunch in the domino room, during the shooting itself.

-----

James DiEugenio writes:

Quote

Bart Kamp's book is coming out in a couple of weeks.

That should be a thorough look at the whole issue of what was said about this during detention.

I hadn't heard about that, but I'm looking forward to reading it. I hope you'll be reviewing it! Bart has done a lot of good work on Oswald's interrogations.

-----

Tom Gram writes:

Quote

Alex Wilson, who knows a lot about WWII and European history, requested temporary posting status on the EF to debate Leslie. Can we start a petition? Mods, you know you want to see this happen. 

I'd sign that petition!

Alex is a serious student of the historical background which appears to be central to Albarelli's claims. I'm sure Leslie will be keen to correct Alex's belief that the book contains "errors, omissions, inventions and flat out falsehoods relating to WW2 era history and wider European history in general."

If Alex is prevented from joining the Ed Forum for whatever reason, the obvious next step would be for Leslie to join the ROKC forum and have the debate there instead.

-----

P.S. I don't know if I'm the only reader who has trouble following the "RO1-RO2-LS1" discussion. Handy hint: copy and paste the relevant part of the other person's comment, highlight it, then click the little quotation mark icon, and - hey presto! - it will appear within a blockquote box. You can then write your reply underneath, and everyone will be able to work out who's replying to whom!

It has been mentioned a couple of times that films were confiscated. Although many home movies and photographs passed through the hands of the authorities at some point, there was no concerted attempt to confiscate films, photographs or cameras from Dealey Plaza.

This is a claim that crops up every couple of years or so. I'll reproduce a reply I've used on previous occasions (see https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24498-david-lifton-spots-a-piece-of-scalp-in-the-moorman-photo/?do=findComment&comment=442261, for example):

There was only a half-hearted official request for people, if they would be so kind, and if it isn't too much trouble, to turn in their photos or films. A handful of photographers, such as Abraham Zapruder and Mary Moorman, came to the attention of the authorities immediately, but very little active effort was made to track down the rest of the photographers or to confiscate cameras or films.

In fact, almost all of the photographers and home movie-makers, including Zapruder, left Dealey Plaza without having their cameras or films seized. Here's a partial list I compiled earlier:

• Oscar Bothun didn't have his camera or film seized: "Shortly after the shooting Mr Bothun apparently went back to work. He seems not to have been stopped or questioned as a witness at the scene" (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain. p.157).
• Hugh Betzner didn't; he went out of his way to make himself and his photographs known to the police.
• Phil Willis didn't: "Remaining around the area for about an hour after witnessing the shooting, none of the family was questioned by law enforcement personnel" (Trask, p.179). Willis made his own way to the Kodak plant to get his film processed, and didn't have his camera seized there either.
• Orville Nix didn't; like Zapruder, he walked out of Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera. He returned later to take some more footage, and again left the scene without having his camera seized.
• Marie Muchmore didn't; she retained her camera and film until she sold the film to UPI three days after the assassination.
• Wilma Bond didn't; she wasn't even contacted by the authorities until February 1964.
• Jim and Tina Towner didn't; they stayed in Dealey Plaza for a while, then went home with their cameras.
• Robert Croft didn't; he left Dealey Plaza and went home to Denver with his camera.
• Mark Bell didn't; he walked across Dealey Plaza with his home movie camera and went back to work. There is no evidence that the authorities even knew of the existence of Bell's film until several years after the assassination.
• Robert Hughes didn't; he too left Dealey Plaza without having his home movie camera seized. The first thing the authorities knew about Hughes's film was when he voluntarily handed it to the FBI two days after the assassination.
• Charles Bronson didn't; he left Dealey Plaza with his still and home movie cameras, and returned the next day to take more footage and still photographs, and again left without having his cameras seized.
• James Altgens didn't; he waited for a short while in Dealey Plaza and then walked a few blocks to the local newspaper office to get his film developed.

As you can see, several of these people didn't come to the attention of the authorities until months or even years later. The authorities clearly weren't too bothered about what the photographs and home movies might show, apart from the obvious 'back and to the left' head snap that was presumably the main reason for keeping the Zapruder film largely away from public view for over a decade.

This implies that whoever was behind the assassination wasn't too bothered either. As long as the assassination happened and their gunmen got away undetected, why should they have cared about what the films and photos contained?

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

As I asked in a separate post, why didn't Oswald say immediately on arrest or at least in the early hours at DPD that he was standing outside, and that he could identify his coworkers who were standing nearby.

Oswald does appear to have provided his alibi in his first interview on the afternoon of the assassination.

The official record of Oswald's interviews is disgracefully incomplete. Accounts by some of those who interviewed Oswald can be found in Appendix XI (pp.598-636) of the Warren Report:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=621

Until the discovery of Hosty's notes in 2019, all we had was some vague accounts:

• "I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the president was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor" (Fritz's written account, made some time later: Warren Reoprt, p.600)
• "He said he was having lunch at about this time on the first floor" (Fritz's Warren Commission testimony: Hearings and Exhibits, vol.4, p.231)
• "OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building" (Hosty and Bookhout's reprt, 23 November: WR, p.613)
• "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees’ lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL SHELLEY" (Bookhout's report, 23 November: WR, p.619)

We now have Hosty's notes:

Quote

On 11/22 at 3:15 pm LHO was interviewed by Capt. W. Fritz JWB [James Bookhout] + JPH [James Hosty] ...

O stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. [Presidential] Parade

We also have accounts by Bookhout and the Secret Service agent Thomas Kelly of a later interview, in which Oswald claimed to have been in the domino room when he saw Jarman and Norman enter the building (WR, pp.622, 626).

Even from this highly incomplete record, we can be sure that Oswald claimed:

1. that he ate his lunch on the first floor in the domino room, where he saw Jarman and Norman enter the building, an event which we know happened at around 12:25;
2. that he then went to the front entrance to watch the motorcade;
3. and finally he spoke to Bill Shelley, who we know was outside, standing on the steps.

The question of exactly where Oswald claimed to have been when the shots were fired is unanswered. He may have claimed to have been in the domino room, or on the steps, or on his way from the domino room to the front entrance. Or he may not have mentioned exactly where he was during those few seconds. Presumably he wouldn't have thought that his exact location was important; what mattered was that he was not in any location that would have allowed him to shoot JFK and Connally.

There's a discussion of Oswald's alibi, and the way in which official accounts of it evolved, here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

If we assume that the lone-gunman explanation was an essential component of the plot, then it would of course be a serious problem if Oswald was filmed standing on the steps, or indeed was seen anywhere other than on the sixth floor.

But Oswald's presence elsewhere wouldn't be a problem at all for a plot that didn't require Oswald to be officially designated as a lone gunman. For a plot which, let's say, intended the assassination to be blamed on the Cuban or Soviet regimes, it would not matter where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. All that was needed was a rifle to be discovered that would link the crime to Oswald.

Oswald's history, as a defector to the Soviet Union and then as a public supporter of the Castro regime, would be sufficient to link him to those regimes. Oswald need not even have turned up for work that day; as long as he could be linked to the rifle, those regimes would be linked to the assassination.

For a 'blame it on the Cubans or Soviets' type of plot, an apparent lone gunman would in fact be less effective than an apparent conspiracy involving more than one person. In this scenario, it would be better for Oswald to be said to have supplied the rifle than to have used it himself.

As it turned out, the lone-gunman explanation was manufactured after the event for straightforward political reasons. There's no need to assume that it was part of any plot.

--

P.S. There's an explanation of the background to this thread here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2743-the-latest-pm-thread-at-the-ef

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

A response to Greg Parker's recent remarks regarding Albarelli's last investigation, "Coup in Dallas."

I'm not sure what Greg Parker's recent remarks are, and I'd be surprised if he made them here, what with not having been a member for years.

More importantly, I'm not sure what the "Problem with 'Prayer Man'" is. The Prayer Man question isn't just about "a blurry photo". The argument is that:

• certain frames of the Darnell and Wiegman films show someone standing on the TSBD steps immediately after the shots were fired;
• although there is not enough detail in the publicly available copies to allow the person on the steps to be identified with certainty, the person's physical appearance and clothing are consistent with those of Oswald;
• all the other people standing on or very near the steps can be identified in these films, to varying degrees of certainty, as TSBD employees;
• all the TSBD employees who claimed to have been standing on the steps can be identified, to varying degrees of certainty, and none of them is the Prayer Man figure;
• none of the TSBD employees on the steps mentioned that any outsiders were present there;
• it is unlikely that a random member of the public would have decided to push past a group of TSBD employees when better viewpoints would have been available along the side of the road;
• there is no strong evidence placing Oswald anywhere else at the time of the shooting;
• Oswald was on the first floor of the building, in the domino room, around five minutes earlier, when he saw Harold Norman and James Jarman enter the rear of the building;
• Oswald claimed in an interview that he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and then "went outside to watch the p. parade", in the words of James Hosty in a note that only came to light in 2019 (see http://www.prayer-man.com/the-james-hosty-notes/);
• Oswald's alibi was misrepresented in the official accounts of his interviews, and in the Warren Report.

Against this, there is the fact that none of the other TSBD employees on the steps mentioned seeing Oswald there, and that some of them denied having seen him at all that day.

Overall, there is good reason to suspect that the unidentified person on the steps is Oswald, although the current state of the evidence doesn't allow the question to be resolved with certainty.

It's important to note that the potential consequences of Oswald's confirmed presence on the steps are so great that the question really needs to be resolved, if possible.

Quote

I assume by now you [Greg] have a peer reviewed report produced by a qualified photo examiner or better, a team of experts — the equivalent of authentication of a document — to advance your hypothesis.

The problem is that a "peer reviewed report" cannot be made because the copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films that are in public circulation are insufficiently clear, being several generations removed from the originals.

Apparently the originals, or at least early copies, do exist. See Bart Kamp's account: http://www.prayer-man.com/the-search-for-the-wiegman-darnell-films/. It's possible that they may allow us to confirm or deny Oswald's presence on the steps at the time of the shooting. These films really ought to be treated as official JFK assassination records.

Andrej,

Greg Parker has an answer to your question:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2730-for-andrej-stancak-the-ed-forum

(No, this Lynn isn't Karen Carlin.)

Those markings on Ruth Paine's calendar may have a mundane explanation:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t112p25-ruth-paine-s-calendar#42052

James DiEugenio writes:

Quote

Especially curious about those who trash it who have not read it. ... So I would like to ask if Jonathan had read the whole book and if Jeremy has read the whole book?

No, I haven't read the whole book. I've read the first few dozen pages, and parts of the rest of it, to see what Armstrong has to say about particular topics.

I'm not sure how anyone can read the whole thing from beginning to end. It's an unreadable mess. It jumps from place to place for no obvious reason; it has 'notes' stuck between paragraphs of unrelated text; it has boldface, italics and underlining applied seemingly at random. It isn't so much a finished book as a set of rough notes.

How much of an allegedly non-fiction book does one need to read to get a fair impression of its relation to reality? In the case of Armstrong's 900-page tome, I'd say it's the first 14 pages. By page 14, Armstrong has put forward a major element of his theory as a proven fact while supplying virtually zero evidence to support it:

Quote

As early as page 14, it will be obvious to even a half-alert reader that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is the product not of solid evidence and argument but of wishful thinking. All but the most credulous conspiracy theorists, who surely make up Harvey and Lee’s target audience, would be wondering how many more evidence-free inventions were lurking in the remaining 900-odd pages.

(http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory)

As far as "trashing" goes, I concentrated on criticising the ideas, not the book, when (and because) those ideas were very heavily promoted on this forum. Very heavily indeed! Thank [insert name of preferred deity] that those days appear to be over. I've done the same to the late Mr Lifton's equally ludicrous ideas when he promoted them here. If anyone were to actively promote, say, the claim that Greer shot JFK, which is about as well-grounded as Armstrong's and Lifton's claims, I'd probably get to work on that, too, if I had time.

This sort of stuff (doppelgangers, body-snatchers, mobile photo-alteration vans in Dealey Plaza, etc) is harmful, because it is liable to make the rest of us look like fantasists. If you think a particular theory is not only faulty but actively harmful, you're justified in questioning it, surely?

Armstrong's theory is essentially the lone-nut theory coated with a thick, glutinous layer of paranoia, which is why most of those who "trash" it are also critics of the lone-nut theory. If casual readers see stuff like that promoted and not questioned, what are they going to think about those who don't question it?

-----

By the way, those of a delicate disposition may like to know that the humourous and satirical posts at ROKC have been moved from the 'Debunked' section to a separate area:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f6-humor-satire

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

So what do you suggest we do, Jeremy? Kick off from the forum any member who points something out that Jonathan Cohen thinks is nonsense? What about if you think so?  Or I, or Kathy, or Mark? Greg Parker?

I'm not sure why Sandy thinks promoters of nonsense should be expelled from the forum, or why the identification of nonsense should be the responsibility of one person.

The basic principle is that anyone who makes a positive claim has the responsibility of justifying that claim. That doesn't always happen.

In practice, of course, it doesn't matter much when someone makes an unsupported claim in an online forum. But in controversial cases such as the JFK assassination, when critics of the lone-nut theory are branded as 'conspiracy theorists', there is a particular need for people to justify any claims they make that might be considered far-fetched by reasonable members of the public.

Faked trees, faked photos, faked home movies, faked Oswalds, faked Rubys, faked presidential corpses: these types of claims, if unsupported by sufficient evidence, are likely to cause intelligent, open-minded members of the general public to believe the media's assertions that we're all a bunch of 'conspiracy theorists' (in the propaganda definition of the term).

In such cases, it would be the responsibility of the moderators to enforce standards of rational debate. The moderators should do more than limit their role to dealing with name-calling and the like.

All it should take, in most cases, would be a bit of gentle prodding. If someone makes a claim for which they don't appear to have provided sufficient evidence, or if someone claims certainty when their evidence doesn't appear to justify certainty, the moderators should point it out. Maybe the person making the claim will produce more evidence, or formulate their claim in a more plausible way, or acknowledge that their claim isn't quite as water-tight as they had imagined.

There's no need for arbitrary or draconian punishment. As long as far-fetched claims can be seen to be questioned by those with authority over the forum, casual visitors won't get the impression that the far-fetched stuff is any more widely accepted than it is.

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

Thanks, Jeremy. Beyond loyalty, there is rationality. I’ll presume you whole heartedly agree with any other criticisms of Greg and Alex.

I don't doubt that Chris would presume something like that, but he'd be mistaken.

W. Niederhut writes:

Quote

As for Jeremy B. triumphantly posting a definition of "ad hominem" from external sources, he could have found precisely the same definition in one of my original posts here earlier this year.

That's good to know. The definition I quoted was aimed not at you but at certain members who like to bleat about logical fallacies while demonstrating that they wouldn't recognise one if it came up to them wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "Hello! I'm a logical fallacy!" printed on it.

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

If this case is to be solved and there is to be a correcting of history, then you need a sizeable proportion of the public to support that and to pressure government.

Exactly! I'm glad we agree on that.

In particular, we need the support of that section of the general public which is equipped and motivated to question what they're told by the media about the assassination.

Unfortunately, there are aspects of the online assassination debate that will surely alienate such people, by corroborating what the media tells them.

They are told that those who question the official account of the JFK assassination are 'conspiracy theorists', and that 'conspiracy theorists' are borderline-paranoid fantasists who make far-fetched claims supported by insufficient evidence.

Sure enough, any member of the public who is curious about the JFK assassination will find no shortage of far-fetched, poorly supported claims in online forums such as this one, where any amount of nonsense may be spouted as long as it's spouted politely.

All the photographs taken in Dealey Plaza are fakes. Oswald was two people, one of whom had a 13-inch head. Oswald had a girlfriend in New Orleans who desperately needs whatever money you are able to send her. The trees on the grassy knoll were fakes constructed from papier-mâché. All the home movies from Dealey Plaza are fakes. Jack Ruby was two people. Oswald's mother was two people. The street lights and road signs in Dealey Plaza contain listening devices disguised as rain sensors. The photos and news films that show one of the Jack Rubys shooting one of the Oswalds are fakes. President Kennedy's body was snatched away from Air Force One and replaced with that of Officer Tippit, who was the gunman on the grassy knoll, hidden by all those fake trees. And so on.

What is the general public going to think when it comes across stuff like this? They are going to equate the JFK assassination with faked moon landings and lizard people. They are going to believe what the media tells them about the assassination. That's why idiotic, far-fetched nonsense needs to be countered, even when it is spouted politely. One place where this questioning happens consistently is the 'Debunked' section of the ROKC forum.

Quote

That section alienates people and fulfils stereotypes. I think what’s required Is some objectivity.

In fact, that section actively contradicts the media's stereotype of 'conspiracy theorists'. It would surely not alienate the section of the general public that we need to attract.

I can understand that Chris and others might take it personally when they are subjected to someone else's idea of humour. But if he delves beyond those comments, he will find plenty of the sort of criticism and analysis that he and the general public would appreciate.

On 5/11/2023 at 7:33 PM, Pat Speer said:

My understanding is that he did screw up his line. He meant to say "That's one small step for A man" but instead said "That's one small step for man."

Yes, that was my understanding too! One more piece of evidence that it wasn't actually all done on a movie set in Arizona or wherever (just in case anyone here really thinks it was faked - I wouldn't be surprised if some of our more gullible members aren't 100% convinced about that).

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

I've just read Greg's latest distortion ... he is in total denial and delusion about 'ad hominem'. If he thinks Alex mischaracterising some of the posters here as anti-semitic or readers or subscribers to Mein Campf or worse is not a personal attack, he is out of his mind.

Chris seems to have misunderstood the comment he is replying to, which I assume is this one, posted some hours before Chris's reply:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2700p25-the-only-thing-to-fear-about-inevitability-is-the-inevitable-itself-or-a-portrait-of-the-hollow-men-in-motion#42016

'Ad hominem' does not mean simply making an unkind or sarcastic personal comment about someone. It means countering someone's argument by attacking them personally. The countering-someone's-argument part is the essential element. That's what turns a personal comment into an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Greg even dug up an excellent discussion of this much-misused term. I hope he won't mind if I quote it here, for the edification of those who are keen to use the term without understanding what it means:

Quote

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem (boldface added by Greg, for good reason)

Chris Bristow writes:

Quote

I bet they put a 10-second delay on the audio of Aldrin and Armstrong's descent to the surface.

"Neil, darling, could we take it again from the top of the ladder? Just once more, OK? Ready? Action!"

"I'm just about to step off the lem now ... This is one small step ... oh @*!#~*@, what was the line again?"

"Cut!"

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

For a guy to put so much effort into his writing ...

But Sir Alex doesn't put that much effort into his writing. He doesn't spend hours each day in front of his computer, unlike some of the more prolific contributors to this forum.

There's another difference, too: he has a sense of humour. And a third difference: he treats the JFK assassination as a serious historical event, not as an excuse to promote nutty ideas of one type or another.

No doubt he will be pleased to learn that he has acquired an audience over here, although he probably knew that already.

For those casual readers who aren't aware of what the fuss is all about, here is the thread in question:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2700p25-the-only-thing-to-fear-about-inevitability-is-the-inevitable-itself-or-a-portrait-of-the-hollow-men-in-motion#42003

James DiEugenio writes:

Quote

They got a really hirstute guy who looked like Kubrick in his old age.

he said he actually directed the moon landings.

So they faked the guy who faked the moon landings? This conspiracy is bigger than I imagined! Wake up, sheeple!

11 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I believe ibid means the same source as the one just previously cited.

That's correct. It's an abbreviation of ibīdem, the Latin word for 'at the same place'. It saves the writer the bother of having to cite the full source.

Michael might also come across a couple of other mysterious but labour-saving Latin abbreviations:

op. cit. is short for opus citatum (literally, 'the work cited'). This is normally used in conjunction with an author's name, to refer to the most recently mentioned book or article (or whatever) by that author.

loc. cit. is short for loco citato (literally, 'the place cited'). This too is used in conjunction with an author's name, in this case to refer to the same page in the most recently mentioned work by that author.

Here endeth today's lesson.

Joe Bauer writes:

Quote

Maybe he just put out contrarily controversial view points in his books to sell more of them?

I'd be surprised if Bugliosi or his publishers ever expected Reclaiming History to sell enough copies to recover the huge advance Bugliosi was apparently awarded.

The book's main purpose was surely the same as that of the officially promoted books that came before it.

The main purpose of the Warren Report was to solidify the claim that Oswald did it all by himself, so that journalists and other opinion-formers would have a holy book to which they could refer without having to look too deeply themselves into the facts of the assassination.

The HSCA investigation was slightly different, having been forced into existence to placate public pressure for a genuine investigation. But the HSCA Report was put to the same use as the Warren Report, once the earlier report's lack of credibility with the public had undermined its status as a source of infallible doctrine.

Posner's Case Closed was commissioned and promoted for the same reason as Reclaiming History, in this case specifically to counteract Oliver Stone's JFK. Again, journalists and establishment-minded academics were provided with something they could cite as authoritative without having to know very much themselves about the facts of the assassination.

Once Case Closed became widely known to be an unreliable source, Reclaiming History was commissioned. It's a very long book, so it must be comprehensive, mustn't it? The book came from a mainstream publisher, so it must be reliable. Comprehensive and reliable: what more could a journalist or historian require from a holy book? From their point of view, it had to be the final word on the assassination. They could cite it without having to do more than glance at it, if that.

Even the absurd length of the book served a purpose. How many journalists are going to wade through 2,500 pages of fiddly details on a subject they probably don't care much about?

Bugliosi's descriptions of lone-nut critics as kooks and crackpots appear to have served an ideological purpose too: the kooks and crackpots who unfortunately do infest the case were made to represent lone-nut critics in general.

There's no reason to suppose that Reclaiming History was intended to be a commercial success. It was pure propaganda. In fact, the fewer copies it would sell, the more effective it would be as propaganda, since fewer people would be able to examine the claims it made. It went out of print pretty quickly, as I recall.

Over the years, the plebs were given a diet of TV specials supporting the lone-nut case, while the opinion-formers were given a series of books, culminating in Reclaiming History.

No doubt JFK would have approved of freedom of speech. But that isn't what l'affaire Koch is about.

The freedom of speech principle would only apply if Matthew Koch had been booted because one or more of the moderators disagreed with his opinions. That doesn't appear to be the reason he was booted.

It looks as though he was booted for being an incorrigible, obnoxious [insert a pejorative of your choice]. If that's the case, the question of freedom of speech doesn't arise here. Whether the decision-makers approved or disapproved of Koch's opinions is of no relevance.

If the forum's rules allow the moderators to discipline a member for unreasonable behaviour that harms the functioning or the reputation of the forum, and if they can demonstrate that Koch's behaviour fell into that category, then Koch and his handful of supporters have nothing to complain about.

Surely there's no disagreement that Koch was indeed an incorrigible, obnoxious [fill in the blank]. He was so obnoxious, for so long, that there's little chance he would have been able to change his spots if allowed to remain.

If this attempt to reinstate him succeeds, we all know what's likely to happen, don't we? He would push the boundaries, knowing that because the moderators caved in once, they would find it difficult to avoid caving in again. And then he'd push the boundaries a bit further, or someone else would.

If that happens, the moderators who reinstated him will be partly responsible.

***

I didn't read all of Koch's posts, but I got the impression that he had little interest in the JFK assassination. He appeared to use this forum largely to spread political talking points that had nothing to do with the assassination. That by itself is something that should be discouraged. Of course, conversations will often drift off-topic, but that isn't the same thing as repeatedly derailing threads in order to spout opinions about things that have no relevance to the subject of the forum, to wit: the JFK assassination.

Again, the question of freedom of speech does not apply. If you want to promote political ideas in online forums, you have the freedom to do so on forums dedicated to that subject. There must be plenty of such forums around. If you're prevented from doing so on forums dedicated to model railways, or gardening, or Chinese cooking, or the JFK assassination, that isn't a violation of your freedom of speech.

The title of this thread makes reference to JFK's own principles. As it happens, we have a JFK-related illustration to hand. General Edwin Walker was reprimanded by the Kennedy administration for abusing his position with the US Army in West Germany by spreading political ideas to his troops.

The principle of freedom of speech allowed Walker to express his own opinions, but did not allow him to express those opinions wherever or whenever he wanted. Doing so wasn't part of his job, and it wasn't the troops' job to have propaganda forced onto them. Likewise, readers of this forum shouldn't be fed propaganda that has nothing to do with the subject of this forum, whether they agree with that propaganda or not.

As it happens, the reactionary political opinions that Koch spread on this forum are closer to the opinions of Walker than of Kennedy. I don't think JFK would have approved of Matthew Koch.

John Cotter writes:

Quote

It’s perfectly clear that you wanted the “56 years” thread shut down or otherwise disappeared. Don’t be telling porkies.

That's the third time John has made that untrue claim. If it's "perfectly clear", perhaps John could explain how my original post on that thread, or my subsequent posts on this thread, support the notion that I wanted the thread shut down.

Alternatively, he should apologise.

Again, I have never even suggested that the thread be "shut down or otherwise disappeared". Again, my point was that right-wing talking points with no connection to the JFK assassination should be aired elsewhere than on a JFK assassination forum.

Stop doing it here. Do it somewhere else. That's a reasonable point, isn't it?

This should be obvious to anyone who is in favour of getting the JFK assassination properly investigated. As Tom Gram points out, "the general public currently labels any argument even remotely connected to the modern right as a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory, regardless of its merits."

'Conspiracy theory', as a propaganda term, began life by referring to non-political, purely idiotic ideas such as faked moon landings and a flat earth. Now it seems to be acquiring a new meaning: paranoid far right-wing ideas.

I'm sure the powers that be would like the JFK assassination to be associated in the public mind with those who think the last presidential election was stolen, or that vaccines are a plot by the far-left Illuminati led by Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton and George Soros from their HQ in the back room of a Washington pizza joint.

John Cotter writes:

Quote

Is it any wonder you and your fellow idealogues [sic] want the “56 years” thread deleted?

That's the second time you've claimed, wrongly, that I wanted the '56 Years' thread deleted. I didn't want the thread to be deleted, and never said so.

The point I made was that several threads were being used to spread ill-informed talking points that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. If Trump fans, anti-vaxxers, and the rest want to spout the sort of views that even most right-wingers find extreme, there must be plenty of more suitable locations than a forum dedicated to the JFK assassination. Do it somewhere else.

In his ROKC thread, Alex Wilson makes a good point:

Quote

The co opting of assassination research,  first by the coalescent troof movement post 9/11, and the influx of all manner of fringe zanies,  touting all manner of far out [naughty word], and finally by the alt right manosphere hate merchants, ... has been nothing less than calamitous.

He continues:

Quote

I suspect the upcoming 60th anniversary will be transformed,  or at least certain individuals will try their damndest to transform it into a grotesque tabloid feeding frenzy/ bastard zombie reboot of the QAnon circus.

I don't know if there's a deliberate attempt by the far-right to claim ownership of the JFK assassination for their cause. If there is, let's hope they don't succeed.

To get the JFK assassination properly investigated and resolved, the support of the general public is essential. It's bad enough that the public is encouraged by the media to equate critics of the lone-nut theory with moon-landings deniers and the like. With the 60th anniversary coming up, the last thing we need is to be lumped together with the far-right crowd.

Since the 1220-page '56 Years' thread will shortly be joining the choir invisible, here again is the link I gave:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2700-the-only-thing-to-fear-about-inevitability-is-the-inevitable-itself-or-a-portrait-of-the-hollow-men-in-motion

As Chris points out, the 'Debunked' section of that forum is well worth a read. Most or all of the far-out JFK-related theories that are sometimes treated seriously over here have been taken apart over there.

Incidentally, when I used the idiom 'right-wing nut-jobs' on the '56 Years' thread, I did so partly to see whether anyone would come forward and self-identify with that description. And, sure enough ...

Jonathan Cohen writes:

Quote

There is no "other" Zapruder film… 

To be precise, there is no good reason to believe those who have claimed to have seen some 'other' Zapruder film.

Just look at the implications of the claims. If these people really did see what they claimed to have seen, there exists a proto-Zapruder film that provides definitive proof that more than one gunman killed JFK. Understandably, this film is top secret. Yet copies of this film existed in several parts of the world, and were made available over several years to all sorts of people. One account even has the film being shown publicly, in a cinema in New York, if I recall correctly.

It's preposterous. It's the JFK assassination's equivalent of alien abduction stories. So a distant civilisation somehow found a way to travel thousands of light years, you say? Hmm. And they sent some little green men to abduct one or two humans and perform experiments on them? OK. And they did this hundreds of times, to hundreds of different humans? I see. Then the little green men flew away again, after carving out some pretty patterns in farmers' wheat fields? Hmm. If you say so.

Anyone who believes in the existence of some 'other' Zapruder film needs to:

• either produce good corroboration for the claims that have been made,
• or develop some critical thinking skills.

There isn't much sign of the latter on this forum, so we'll have to settle for the former. What corroboration does anyone have for these claims? Why exactly should we believe any claims about this so-called 'other' Zapruder film (or alien abduction stories, come to that)?