Reasonable Minds Do Differ!

[Tim Gratz]

From a review of "Reclaiming History":

"[bugliosi's] stubbornness forces him to repeat over and over that 'no reasonable person' could possibly look at the evidence he’s assembled and fail to come to his same conclusions. If anyone can look at the evidence and still consider conspiracy a valid idea, well, then they must be a wacko. Now, months after the completion of his opus and presumably freed from the dark tunnels of its servitude, he must see that this isn’t the case. For good or ill, a great many 'reasonable people' have looked at his evidence over the years and made up their minds differently as to what it all means. As the assassination’s ultimate historian, it might have behooved Bugliosi to examine this phenomenon, rather than reflexively mock it."

From an essay written by our own Charles Drago:

"Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

Do you notice any parallelisms between the position of Bugliosi and that of Charles?

Interestingly, Charles proves Bugliosi wrong: Charles has looked at the evidence and considers conspiracy not only a valid but even a compelling idea, and Charles is no wacko. Conversely, Bugliosi also disproves Charles' argument: clearly Bugliosi is not cognitively impaired. Nor is Professor McAdams, for that matter.

It is a heck of a lot easier to demonstrate that rational minds differ on the question whether there was a conspiracy than it is to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy. Is it not intellectual arrogance to assert that no rational person can disagree with your position on the conspiracy question? Understand that I believe most rational people after examining the evidence will conclude a conspiracy was either likely or highly likely but it cannot be disputed that there are intelligent people who examine the evidence and reach a contrary position.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Jack White]

I disagree with your premise. Drago IS a reasonable mind.

Bugliosi and McAdams are NOT reasonable minds; they are

either OUT OF THEIR MINDS or PAID MINIONS OF THE COVERUP.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

Well that is where we differ, Jack.

You cannot believe that Bugliosi and McAdams are literally insane. That is a lunatic proposition. Just as is Bugliosi's proposition that anyone who disagrees with his position is "wacko".

There are intelligent minds who either will not or cannot see a conspiracy just as there are intelligent minds who are sure there is one. Given the statistics, I would suspect the number of intelligent people who see a conspiracy greatly exceed the number of intelligent people who believe the conclusions of the WC. Interestingly, the differentation does not SEEM to follow ideological lines. Bugliosi is a dedicated atheist and based on his writings about the 2000 election etc I believe his politics are left-of-center.

[Jack White]

Well that is where we differ, Jack.

You cannot believe that Bugliosi and McAdams are literally insane. That is a lunatic proposition. Just as is Bugliosi's proposition that anyone who disagrees with his position is "wacko".

There are intelligent minds who either will not or cannot see a conspiracy just as there are intelligent minds who are sure there is one. Given the statistics, I would suspect the number of intelligent people who see a conspiracy greatly exceed the number of intelligent people who believe the conclusions of the WC. Interestingly, the differentation does not SEEM to follow ideological lines. Bugliosi is a dedicated atheist and based on his writings about the 2000 election etc I believe his politics are left-of-center.

You missed my point entirely, but I was being purposely obtuse.

Both ARE intelligent men and therefore MUST be minions of the coverup!

NO intelligent man who EXAMINES THE REAL EVIDENCE can possibly believe

the official story, unless they are part of the coverup. To discard the evidence

and believe an obvious lie does NOT DEMONSTRATE INTELLIGENCE. This is

not a MATTER OF OPINION. Dr. Mantik demonstrates scientifically that the

xrays were forgeries...NOT a matter of opinion. Dr. Costella demonstrates

scientifically that the Zfilm is altered...NOT a matter of opinion. I can give

hundreds more examples. Facts trump opinion to ANY INTELLIGENT PERSON.

Jack

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

But Jack even people who posit a conspiracy differ re the alleged alteration of the Zapruder film, as you know.

Therefore the "facts" you assert as "incontravertible" are in fact contraverted even by those who agee with you (us) on the ultimate conclusion that there was a conspiracy.

Neither Bugliosi nor McAdams are "minions" of the conspiracy. Since you admit that each are intelligent, you must come to my conclusion that as hard as it is for us to accept it, rational minds can interpret the evidence differently than we do.

I think it would be more productive to attempt to analyze how and why they do. For instance, they can believe that the "confessions" by Martino, Morales, etc. may mean less than they first appear to do so. In one sense that is not a difficult position for people such as Bugliosi to take since I believe there have been "confessions" in the case that are indeed lies.

[Tim Gratz]

In order to disagree with my premise, I think one would have to assert that any intelligent and rational person who argues that there was no conspiracy does not really BELIEVE what he or she is saying (that is, he or she is lying and does not really hold the opinions he or she is asserting) and that the opinions being set forth are done so to protect the conspirators (for whatever reason).

That seems to be what Jack meant when he called Bugliosi and McAdams "minions of the conspiracy".

The proposition must be that no intelligent person HONESTLY disbelieves a conspiracy.

That, IMO, is utter nonsense.

For whatever reason, reasonable minds do differ about the existence of a conspiracy.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

It is a heck of a lot easier to demonstrate that rational minds differ on the question whether there was a conspiracy than it is to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy. Is it not intellectual arrogance to assert that no rational person can disagree with your position on the conspiracy question? Understand that I believe most rational people after examining the evidence will conclude a conspiracy was either likely or highly likely but it cannot be disputed that there are intelligent people who examine the evidence and reach a contrary position.

The problem is that logic is influenced by emotion. Some people can keep this emotion under control. Some people, including yourself, Bugliosi and McAdams cannot and therefore are not always logical when arguing their case. Although I would not go as far as Charles Drago, I usually find his posts logical.

As you appear to have more time available now, maybe you could apply your logical reasoning to this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10526

[Tim Gratz]

Well, John, I disagree with you that I am not always as logical as Dr. Spock, but otherwise what you are saying may be close to the truth. I think pre-disposition might be a better way to put it than "emotion". People who don't want to find a conspiracy will view the evidence differently than those who do.

Let's consider the "low back wound". I think it might be difficult to accept a low back wound and a single shooter. Therefore, I believe, people such as Bugliosi and McAdams, who for whatever reason do not want to find a conspiracy, will ignore evidence supporting a low back wound.

An interesting question for VB might be: "Would your position on whether there was more than one shooter differ if you knew the wound in the back was located at [etc etc]?" It seems to me VB cannot in good faith argue that all reasonable people must accept his position because his position is inevitably based upon interpretation of the medical evidence some of which seems to be conflicting. I think if VB was honest he'd have to admit that if he accepted an alternative interpretation of the evidence his over-all conclusion that there was only one shooter would have to change.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

As you appear to have more time available now, maybe you could apply your logical reasoning to this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10526

--------------------

Glad to oblige!

[Tim Gratz]

Of course on this very Forum I have, occasionally, been subject to the same type of intellectual arrogance I am trying to condemn through this thread.

For some, a person is a "disinformation agent" or perhaps even a "minion of the conspiracy" even if he believes in a conspiracy but does not agree with the right conspiracy!

Based on the medical evidence, it is far easier to conclude there was a conspiracy than it is to determine who were the parties to the conspiracy.

But again the arrogance behind such sentiments as "only my position is correct and any rational person understands that" is exhibited very strongly by Bugliosi and others of his ilk as well as by some on our side of the conspiracy question. (By the way, I do not see that kind of arrogance from Professor McAdams.)

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Of course on this very Forum I have, occasionally, been subject to the same type of intellectual arrogance I am trying to condemn through this thread.

For some, a person is a "disinformation agent" or perhaps even a "minion of the conspiracy" even if he believes in a conspiracy but does not agree with the right conspiracy!

Based on the medical evidence, it is far easier to conclude there was a conspiracy than it is to determine who were the parties to the conspiracy.

But again the arrogance behind such sentiments as "only my position is correct and any rational person understands that" is exhibited very strongly by Bugliosi and others of his ilk as well as by some on our side of the conspiracy question. (By the way, I do not see that kind of arrogance from Professor McAdams.)

1. In the application of logic, one must study ALL of the applicable facts.

2. Any "logic" which is a result of an inept study of the facts is of it's own nature an inept and incomplete approach to logical resolution.

3. A complete study of the WC by anyone thoroughtly skilled in the application of logic, should always result in the determination that the WC is not

a logical answer to the facts of the assassination.

And, when one finds such items as the altered evidence; the hiding of information relative to the third shot; the problems with the WC's vehicle speeds; etc; etc;, then logic also dictates that the WC was an intentional misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination.

Thereafter, one frequently leaves the world of "logic" and enters into the world of mythological creatures; multiple assassins; and body snatchers.

All of which are completely illogical and which have absollutely no basis or foundation in factual evidence.

So, the "logical" truth and fact that the WC is an intentional mis-representation of the facts (aka lie), is not prima facie evidence for the many and often ridiculous theories as to the reason for this lie.

It is merely evidence that the WC, for whatever reason, is a lie.

Thereafter, the "Logical" approach must be again applied to determine the exact reason(s) for this lie on the part of the WC.

In that regards, Bugliosi can easily and logically shoot down virtually any of the so-called "conspiracy theories" which continue to be expounded and which are without any basis or foundation in factual evidence.

Thus, even though one may be able to demonstrate the "logic" of the WC's misrepresentations, the illogical nature of the claims of multiple assassins, body snatchers; and GIANT conspiracies which encompass half of the known world, easily negate any logical and factual gains made in demonstration that the WC is not a true presentation of the facts of the assassination.

Tereafter, excuses for the WC are easily done by merely making excuses for the "mistakes", errors; lack of information available, etc; etc; in which one can give the WC the "out" for having made these mistakes of judgement.

Unfortunately! Altered Survey Data and intentional hiding of this alteration IS NOT an error in judgement.

1. Anyone who approaches this issue with an open mind, can not walk away from it and not be fully assured that the WC IS NOT the truth and facts, and is in fact an intentional misrepresentation of these facts for some, as yet unrevealed reason.

Just as Senator Schweiker stated.

2. Thereafter, logic , and the application of logic, appears to have escaped those who truly search for the answers to this enigma.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Of course on this very Forum I have, occasionally, been subject to the same type of intellectual arrogance I am trying to condemn through this thread.

For some, a person is a "disinformation agent" or perhaps even a "minion of the conspiracy" even if he believes in a conspiracy but does not agree with the right conspiracy!

Based on the medical evidence, it is far easier to conclude there was a conspiracy than it is to determine who were the parties to the conspiracy.

But again the arrogance behind such sentiments as "only my position is correct and any rational person understands that" is exhibited very strongly by Bugliosi and others of his ilk as well as by some on our side of the conspiracy question. (By the way, I do not see that kind of arrogance from Professor McAdams.)

1. In the application of logic, one must study ALL of the applicable facts.

2. Any "logic" which is a result of an inept study of the facts is of it's own nature an inept and incomplete approach to logical resolution.

3. A complete study of the WC by anyone thoroughtly skilled in the application of logic, should always result in the determination that the WC is not

a logical answer to the facts of the assassination.

And, when one finds such items as the altered evidence; the hiding of information relative to the third shot; the problems with the WC's vehicle speeds; etc; etc;, then logic also dictates that the WC was an intentional misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination.

Thereafter, one frequently leaves the world of "logic" and enters into the world of mythological creatures; multiple assassins; and body snatchers.

All of which are completely illogical and which have absollutely no basis or foundation in factual evidence.

So, the "logical" truth and fact that the WC is an intentional mis-representation of the facts (aka lie), is not prima facie evidence for the many and often ridiculous theories as to the reason for this lie.

It is merely evidence that the WC, for whatever reason, is a lie.

Thereafter, the "Logical" approach must be again applied to determine the exact reason(s) for this lie on the part of the WC.

In that regards, Bugliosi can easily and logically shoot down virtually any of the so-called "conspiracy theories" which continue to be expounded and which are without any basis or foundation in factual evidence.

Thus, even though one may be able to demonstrate the "logic" of the WC's misrepresentations, the illogical nature of the claims of multiple assassins, body snatchers; and GIANT conspiracies which encompass half of the known world, easily negate any logical and factual gains made in demonstration that the WC is not a true presentation of the facts of the assassination.

Tereafter, excuses for the WC are easily done by merely making excuses for the "mistakes", errors; lack of information available, etc; etc; in which one can give the WC the "out" for having made these mistakes of judgement.

Unfortunately! Altered Survey Data and intentional hiding of this alteration IS NOT an error in judgement.

1. Anyone who approaches this issue with an open mind, can not walk away from it and not be fully assured that the WC IS NOT the truth and facts, and is in fact an intentional misrepresentation of these facts for some, as yet unrevealed reason.

Just as Senator Schweiker stated.

2. Thereafter, logic , and the application of logic, appears to have escaped those who truly search for the answers to this enigma.

Re-boot to head of the class:

[Charles Drago]

Okay.

Tim, I sincerely thank you for your interest in my apparently controversial premise -- one that I have reason to suspect was responsible for Bugliosi's counter-claim that "no reasonable person can disagree" with his conclusions. This thread continues what I believe to be an extremely valuable discussion.

For the record: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

Tim wrote: "Therefore, I believe, people such as Bugliosi and McAdams, who for whatever reason do not want to find a conspiracy, will ignore evidence supporting a low back wound."

Willful ignorance of evidence in a criminal investigation ... Seems to me that such behavior is associated with accessories after the fact: individuals who are therefore complicit, in this instance, in the murder of the president of the United States. And no, I'm not claiming that Bugliosi and McAdams and the rest are literally guilty under the law. More's the pity. But you must take my meaning.

Tim asked, "Is it not intellectual arrogance to assert that no rational person can disagree with your position on the conspiracy question?"

Nope.

The simply posed "how" question regarding the death of JFK has been simply, powerfully, irrefutably, and repeatedly answered. Reasonable access to the easy-to-understand supporting evidence -- to the proof of the plot -- can lead a rational mind to no conclusion other than conspiracy.

A further point of clarification: I do not have a "position" on the "how" question, and neither should you. "Position" implies the existence of an equally valid counter-position or argument. And such is not the case in the Kennedy killing.

Tim wrote, "It is a heck of a lot easier to demonstrate that rational minds differ on the question whether there was a conspiracy than it is to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy." (emphasis in original)

Nope.

You could not be more wrong. The existence of a conspiracy has been demonstrated with eloquent simplicity. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical fact. There is ZERO valid evidence supporting the LN lie. If a once-rational mind has been poisoned by nationalism and its supporting propaganda to the extent that the imprimatur of the state alone is sufficient to prompt embrace of the LN illusion, then we must conclude that rationality has been driven from that temple.

Jack, I thank you for your kind words and, as always, for your eternal commitments to truth and justice.

You wrote, "This is not a MATTER OF OPINION. Dr. Mantik demonstrates scientifically that the xrays were forgeries...NOT a matter of opinion. Dr. Costella demonstrates scientifically that the Zfilm is altered...NOT a matter of opinion."

Let me differ with you slightly but significantly. Dr. Mantik's scientific demonstration that JFK's PM x-rays were forged proves cover-up only. However, his scientific demonstrations of what was obfuscated by and added to those forgeries, in tandem with his cliinical destruction of the SBT, prove multiple gunmen shot at and hit the president.

Likewise, proof of alteration of the Z-film in and of itself would not necessarily prove the multiple gunmen argument, but by definition would prove cover-up.

Finally, back to Tim, who wrote, "In order to disagree with my premise, I think one would have to assert that any intelligent and rational person who argues that there was no conspiracy does not really BELIEVE what he or she is saying (that is, he or she is lying and does not really hold the opinions he or she is asserting) and that the opinions being set forth are done so to protect the conspirators (for whatever reason)."

Yup. But with a caveat.

Please reread my original statement: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

I crafted this sentence as carefully as possible. Please do not isolate its elements.

It is difficult to believe that Vincent Bugliosi's access to the JFK evidence has been and remains anything but reasonable.

VB claims to conclude that LHO committed the crime alone, which is to say absent co-conspirators.

VB's Goebbels-esque television performances and vitriolic literary excesses to the contrary notwithstanding, he cannot be said to demonstrate behaviors that persuasively indicate cognitive impairment.

Therefore, if one may be allowed to stretch the definition of "complicity" in the crime of JFK's murder to include, alas, a literally non-criminal effort to protect the conspiracy by denying its very existence, then VB may be said to be complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is historical fact.

Charles Drago

Edited August 1, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Jack White]

Okay.

Tim, I sincerely thank you for your interest in my apparently controversial premise -- one that I have reason to suspect was responsible for Bugliosi's counter-claim that "no reasonable person can disagree" with his conclusions. This thread continues what I believe to be an extremely valuable discussion.

For the record: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

Tim wrote: "Therefore, I believe, people such as Bugliosi and McAdams, who for whatever reason do not want to find a conspiracy, will ignore evidence supporting a low back wound."

Willful ignorance of evidence in a criminal investigation ... Seems to me that such behavior is associated with accessories after the fact: individuals who are therefore complicit, in this instance, in the murder of the president of the United States. And no, I'm not claiming that Bugliosi and McAdams and the rest are literally guilty under the law. More's the pity. But you must take my meaning.

Tim asked, "Is it not intellectual arrogance to assert that no rational person can disagree with your position on the conspiracy question?"

Nope.

The simply posed "how" question regarding the death of JFK has been simply, powerfully, irrefutably, and repeatedly answered. Reasonable access to the easy-to-understand supporting evidence -- to the proof of the plot -- can lead a rational mind to no conclusion other than conspiracy.

A further point of clarification: I do not have a "position" on the "how" question, and neither should you. "Position" implies the existence of an equally valid counter-position or argument. And such is not the case in the Kennedy killing.

Tim wrote, "It is a heck of a lot easier to demonstrate that rational minds differ on the question whether there was a conspiracy than it is to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy." (emphasis in original)

Nope.

You could not be more wrong. The existence of a conspiracy has been demonstrated with eloquent simplicity. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical fact. There is ZERO valid evidence supporting the LN lie. If a once-rational mind has been poisoned by nationalism and its supporting propaganda to the extent that the imprimatur of the state alone is sufficient to prompt embrace of the LN illusion, then we must conclude that rationality has been driven from that temple.

Jack, I thank you for your kind words and, as always, for your eternal commitments to truth and justice.

You wrote, "This is not a MATTER OF OPINION. Dr. Mantik demonstrates scientifically that the xrays were forgeries...NOT a matter of opinion. Dr. Costella demonstrates scientifically that the Zfilm is altered...NOT a matter of opinion."

Let me differ with you slightly but significantly. Dr. Mantik's scientific demonstration that JFK's PM x-rays were forged proves cover-up only. However, his scientific demonstrations of what was obfuscated by and added to those forgeries, in tandem with his cliinical destruction of the SBT, prove multiple gunmen shot at and hit the president.

Likewise, proof of alteration of the Z-film in and of itself would not necessarily prove the multiple gunmen argument, but by definition would prove cover-up.

Finally, back to Tim, who wrote, "In order to disagree with my premise, I think one would have to assert that any intelligent and rational person who argues that there was no conspiracy does not really BELIEVE what he or she is saying (that is, he or she is lying and does not really hold the opinions he or she is asserting) and that the opinions being set forth are done so to protect the conspirators (for whatever reason)."

Yup. But with a caveat.

Please reread my original statement: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

I crafted this sentence as carefully as possible. Please do not isolate its elements.

It is difficult to believe that Vincent Bugliosi's access to the JFK evidence has been and remains anything but reasonable.

VB claims to conclude that LHO committed the crime alone, which is to say absent co-conspirators.

VB's Goebbels-esque television performances and vitriolic literary excesses to the contrary notwithstanding, he cannot be said to demonstrate behaviors that persuasively indicate cognivite impairment.

Therefore, if one may be allowed to stretch the definition of "complicity" in the crime of JFK's murder to include, alas, a literally non-criminal effort to protect the conspiracy by denying its very existence, then VB may be said to be complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is historical fact.

Charles Drago

Charles...I admire the logic of what you say!

Would you accept this statement as logical:

ANYONE PARTICIPATING IN THE COVERUP OF THE ASSASSINATION

IS AN ACCESSORY TO THE ASSASSINATION.

Some equivocate and say..."oh, that is just part of the coverup, not

part of the plot." I SAY, THE COVERUP WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PLOT.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack

[Jack White]

Okay.

Tim, I sincerely thank you for your interest in my apparently controversial premise -- one that I have reason to suspect was responsible for Bugliosi's counter-claim that "no reasonable person can disagree" with his conclusions. This thread continues what I believe to be an extremely valuable discussion.

For the record: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

Tim wrote: "Therefore, I believe, people such as Bugliosi and McAdams, who for whatever reason do not want to find a conspiracy, will ignore evidence supporting a low back wound."

Willful ignorance of evidence in a criminal investigation ... Seems to me that such behavior is associated with accessories after the fact: individuals who are therefore complicit, in this instance, in the murder of the president of the United States. And no, I'm not claiming that Bugliosi and McAdams and the rest are literally guilty under the law. More's the pity. But you must take my meaning.

Tim asked, "Is it not intellectual arrogance to assert that no rational person can disagree with your position on the conspiracy question?"

Nope.

The simply posed "how" question regarding the death of JFK has been simply, powerfully, irrefutably, and repeatedly answered. Reasonable access to the easy-to-understand supporting evidence -- to the proof of the plot -- can lead a rational mind to no conclusion other than conspiracy.

A further point of clarification: I do not have a "position" on the "how" question, and neither should you. "Position" implies the existence of an equally valid counter-position or argument. And such is not the case in the Kennedy killing.

Tim wrote, "It is a heck of a lot easier to demonstrate that rational minds differ on the question whether there was a conspiracy than it is to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy." (emphasis in original)

Nope.

You could not be more wrong. The existence of a conspiracy has been demonstrated with eloquent simplicity. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical fact. There is ZERO valid evidence supporting the LN lie. If a once-rational mind has been poisoned by nationalism and its supporting propaganda to the extent that the imprimatur of the state alone is sufficient to prompt embrace of the LN illusion, then we must conclude that rationality has been driven from that temple.

Jack, I thank you for your kind words and, as always, for your eternal commitments to truth and justice.

You wrote, "This is not a MATTER OF OPINION. Dr. Mantik demonstrates scientifically that the xrays were forgeries...NOT a matter of opinion. Dr. Costella demonstrates scientifically that the Zfilm is altered...NOT a matter of opinion."

Let me differ with you slightly but significantly. Dr. Mantik's scientific demonstration that JFK's PM x-rays were forged proves cover-up only. However, his scientific demonstrations of what was obfuscated by and added to those forgeries, in tandem with his cliinical destruction of the SBT, prove multiple gunmen shot at and hit the president.

Likewise, proof of alteration of the Z-film in and of itself would not necessarily prove the multiple gunmen argument, but by definition would prove cover-up.

Finally, back to Tim, who wrote, "In order to disagree with my premise, I think one would have to assert that any intelligent and rational person who argues that there was no conspiracy does not really BELIEVE what he or she is saying (that is, he or she is lying and does not really hold the opinions he or she is asserting) and that the opinions being set forth are done so to protect the conspirators (for whatever reason)."

Yup. But with a caveat.

Please reread my original statement: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude the president was murdered as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."

I crafted this sentence as carefully as possible. Please do not isolate its elements.

It is difficult to believe that Vincent Bugliosi's access to the JFK evidence has been and remains anything but reasonable.

VB claims to conclude that LHO committed the crime alone, which is to say absent co-conspirators.

VB's Goebbels-esque television performances and vitriolic literary excesses to the contrary notwithstanding, he cannot be said to demonstrate behaviors that persuasively indicate cognivite impairment.

Therefore, if one may be allowed to stretch the definition of "complicity" in the crime of JFK's murder to include, alas, a literally non-criminal effort to protect the conspiracy by denying its very existence, then VB may be said to be complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is historical fact.

Charles Drago

Charles...I admire the logic of what you say!

Would you accept this statement as logical:

ANYONE PARTICIPATING IN THE COVERUP OF THE ASSASSINATION

IS AN ACCESSORY TO THE ASSASSINATION.

Some equivocate and say..."oh, that is just part of the coverup, not

part of the plot." I SAY, THE COVERUP WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PLOT.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack