Cory Santos

Reading for those interested. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/frank-sinatra-believed-marilyn-monroe-murdered-former-manager-claims-book

A couple of things. First, let both sides debate. Bring their best arguments and then let them be reviewed. We do not have this here unfortunately because on one side some relevant evidence is still withheld until 2067. On the other side, some books are written based on gossip, fake documents and information that is better suited for the gutter. So Tracy being here to debate-I thought that was the purpose of this forum- is a good thing when all parties do it respectfully and non-Lance like. Second, Tracy I am not sure how you suggest academia supports the WC findings. I was an undergraduate in the 1990s studying history with a minor in criminal justice and then post under-graduate studies and then graduate school. I can assure you that most of my Ph.D professors, whom I discussed regularly this subject, believed at the minimum more then what the wc said happened with several outright calling it a conspiracy. Then, during law school, I wrote a paper on Jim Garrison under the supervision of a very distinguished law professor. In my opinion, unless you can show a Gallop study showing otherwise, academia does not universally support the wc but rather the findings of the house select committee. As for the media, again go back and compare the 1960’s made-for-government broadcasts and yes, the media backed the wc then. However post-Watergate you are wrong. Many notable programs and stations have provided critical and unsupportive views of the wc. Fox News and Tucker Carlson have pushed for the release of the JFK records and given RFK, Jr. ample time to discuss his views on his uncle and father. So, again what consensus are you referring to in the media-which as an entertainment lawyer I can assure you the term “media” today is a huge umbrella incorporating independent media on YouTube, etc. Lastly, what really matters is what the people think. On this we have studies. The vote clearly favors conspiracy over the sloppy WC work. I believe you have previously stated to the effect that no one will care in the future. I beg to differ. Truth matters in this country. People care about the truth which has come out about events in the 1800’s. They will care about the 1960’s which turned our country down a destructive path following the example of Rome and other great governments in history. People will care when they read how their grandparents or great grandparents went to Vietnam and died and they find out the real reasons. Young Cubans will care when they read how their brave great grandparents fought to restore freedom to their country and discover what really happened in the White House regarding the BOP. The Gulf of Tonkin, U.S.S. Liberty ... I could go on but it is unnecessary. I respectfully dissent from your statements but support your being here and giving your opinions. Whether that also makes me a paid government disinformation person like yourself-lol, I cannot believe how late my check is lol- I guess I leave that to the non-government paid disinformation agents here. ROTFL.

Once Posner was quoted in the piece, I walked away. You are correct Jim.

Cliff is your phone on?

Ron, what are you talking about? What is your point?

So, to be clear, government regulation of business when it comes to speech/content ok -in your view-on other media such as books, magazines, newspapers, film and tv. Government regulation of hiring/firing practices, insurance, pay rate all ok too in your view. But in your view social media is a special entity which enjoys immunity from government regulation? lol, ok. I’ll have seconds in the cafeteria line. One cannot have enough ambrosia.

I have to correct you Ron, regulated seatbelts which are up to code and proper applicable standards save lives. A rope is not a good seatbelt.

So Cliff, just to make sure I understand you, you would not want any government regulation over social media moderation. Is that correct? Yet are you perfectly fine with government regulation of other business actions, i.e. whom to hire/fire? The government currently regulates so many areas of private business. Thus, this seems odd because if you want private business to be regulated by the government in some areas but say they are free to do what they want in other areas, despite the fact that business actions Both affect, and have an effect on, freedoms, then you are are viewing the constitution as a cafeteria where one can pick and choose what one likes. Just my observation. So, should government be out of the boardroom or should government regulate it?

Cliff, what is social media? By its name one assumes media and therefore not necessarily press but simply a medium for people to contribute her/his opinions on a matter. Assuming it is more like the press -which lacks the social media public input but is more output by the entity- this “media“ can be regulated to some extent by the government, i.e. newspapers, television, radio, magazines etc. If it is not press, but more of a forum for discussion, it is more like a business and can be regulated by the government. It is odd that people are concerned with the government regulating -or nationalization as you call it- speech but fine with businesses regulating speech. Regulation of speech by any entity is still regulation.

deleted

Rabbits don’t create holes that deep Cliff. Avoiding them can be a good choice.

Well maybe Joe because Hill was protecting Jackie and she was in another room during the autopsy. So it makes sense for him to be in the building.

https://www.amazon.com/Grassy-Knoll-James-Files/dp/B08LSK6NQR

Correct. It is odd that some ague Dealey was actually a mini-Republican convention that day. I guess to these individuals their conspiracy is shaped by their political views while glossing over LBJ and associates.

Lots of reading. I will let you know after I get it read.

Wow Bart is no longer a member?

Your arguments are not scientific merely because you proclaim them to be. I have tried to discuss the issue with you but you resort, time and time again, to your “analysis” on anyone that disagrees with you. When you have proof Waldo was there feel free to answer my questions posed to you. Until then I yawn, regret my wasted time having to type these responses, and move to more intelligent pursuits.

Jim, have not seen you on here. You doing ok?

Thank you Paul.

The above “analysis” is why the media, academia, etc. frown on conspiracy theories. Reread the analysis. Basically, if you do not agree with a Harvard trained expert you 1-are weak minded 2- need your eyes checked, etc. I could share more examples but why? When someone resorts to name calling to win what should be a professional discussion, well it is not so professional. Many people here have stated it is not him but apparently are mocked both physically and cognitively. Well, sometimes the loudest person in the room is the most incorrect because factually that person lacks any basis. I cannot believe it but I wish Lance was here to have fun. Nevertheless, I would think that you would know it is ok to disagree with someone without needing to use psychobabble to analyze someone you have never examined. So, please provide proof he was in front of the TSBD that day. That fuzzy photo is merely your opinion. Give us a witness as you want for Tyler. Or keep the charade going if it makes you feel dandy. Cheers.

You will probably get photographic “evidence” from some members. Lol. At least your posts show you are trying to follow real evidence. Cheers Mervyn.

“The man’s bona fides are very hard to dismiss out of hand.” That is what they said about DeLorean. Joe, your above statement is applicable because you are hearing what you want to hear. Applied to JFK, for example, there are a lot of people with whom you should agree have bona fides but they support the Warren Commission and/or the view that LHO did it. Yet you would not accept their viewpoint simply based upon their bona fides. Did you consider this news story could be a hoax?

I think I have been very clear. Not sure why you are asking me what I meant. Stick to the evidence. These photo comparison arguments are subjective. You are going down a rabbit hole. Not sure how much more clear I can be. Mark’s excellent post and Cinque’s argument show people disagree on photos.

Mic drop by Mark.