Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Present State Of The Critical Community


Recommended Posts

The recent spate of film alteration threads between Jim Fetzer and his supporters and Josiah Thompson and his supporters illustrate a disturbing trend in the JFK assassination research community.

It has become increasingly clear to me, from participating on JFK assassination forums over the past decade, that many critics have tempered their once fervent beliefs in conspiracy. We also have the curious phenomenon of the converts to lone nutterism; once strong proponents of conspiracy like Todd Vaughn, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Dave Reitzes, Dave Perry, etc., who have become vocal adherents to the official fairy tale for no rational reason. There are no similar well-known converts to conspiracy, which is strange. I've questioned many of these miraculously converted lone nutters (as well as Gary Mack) on forums before, asking them what it was that caused them to alter their opinion. None can give an intelligible response.

There a good number of people on this and other forums now who describe themselves as "fence sitters." They are truly incomprehensible to me. Reading even one or two of the best critical works on this subject, and studying the Warren Commission's Hearings & Exhibits, should be enough to push anyone with any degree of intelligence and awareness into a strong disbelief in the official story. I've questioned some of these "fence sitters" in the past, and they haven't given me any intelligible response.

Then there are those I call neo-cons. They appear, to me, to have a neo-belief in conspiracy. While publicly stating that there was probably a conspiracy, they appear to accept far too many things that were once considered improbable or even impossible. Gary Mack is the foremost example of a neo-con, in my view. Some of these seeming CTers think Oswald killed Tippit. Almost all of them ignore the ramifications of the Umbrella Man and probably accept Steven Witt's absurd story. Almost everyone now (except David Wrone) appears to accept that it definitely was Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald, in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photograph. As has recently been discussed here, all too many appear to think that the once thoroughly suspect backyard photos are genuine. As I've stated, nothing has happened in recent years to explain this- there is simply no logical reason for researchers to give ground on any of these issues.

At least there are still a fair number of passionate believers in conspiracy on this forum; JFK Lancer has really been taken over by the neo-cons and "fence sitters," which is why I rarely post there now. There are good people on Lancer, whom I used to respect, that now seem to believe the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine. In light of the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, described in unison by many different doctors and nurses in Dallas, this is simply impossible to understand.

On Lancer, but to a degree here as well, nothing stirs the pot like a film alteration thread. I've tried to raise this point several times before, but it bears repeating; I simply don't comprehend why Jim Fetzer and Jack White raise such animosity from so many, with their particular theories. I don't accept or reject it, but I think it has merit and deserves more respect than the ravings of Tom Purvis, for example. Purvis, however, gets more respect from nearly everyone here than Fetzer or White do. Even the most extreme parts of the film alterationist theory is far more credible, imho, than what Tom Purvis says (or doesn't say, because much of it is unfathomable) in every post. Even the least knowledgable newcomer to the subject, or the most stubborn lone nutter, get far more respect from most believers in conspiracy than Jim Fetzer or Jack White do here (and certainly on Lancer, where I don't think they really have any supporters).

Many of us have been fighting this fight for decades. I've been studying this case for about 35 years now. It's become an integral part of my life, and will always be important to me. Thus, it hurts to see how fractured the critical community has become. With internet forums like this, we ought to be able to make some real progress in learning the truth about what really happened on November 22, 1963. Instead, too many threads become predictable and juvenile jousting matches between David Healy, Bill Miller, Craig Lamson and Len Colby. When you throw in the frequent long, rambling contributions of Tom Purvis, these threads become tremendously boring. Even if a newcomer drifting into those threads should find them interesting, he/she is bound to be turned off by the tenor of the discussions. Then when Jim Fetzer posts something, Josiah Thompson joins the fray and they exchange the same insults with each other that we've heard so many times before. Now if only Josiah would deign to answer some the questions I've asked him....

I don't hold out much hope for the future, in terms of the true assassins of JFK ever being known. Those of us that care deeply about this subject can't even agree on basic issues, and large egos and strong personalities clearly dominate the field. I'm starting to understand why Penn Jones became tired of the whole thing before he died (and that was back in the early to mid-1990s), and why Gary Shaw has seemingly retired from the field.

We need to remember why we're here and acknowledge that we can do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Tom Scully

Don,

We all live in "these times", and what you describe is the result of a general drift to a right of center socio-political orientation that is so encompassing and seems so complete that it takes on all of the earmarks of a grand conspiracy, trumping all others, including the sub plot that was the assassination of JFK.

What has happened is masked by the notion that the "adults are in charge", now!

Corporatism (Fascism ?) has come to our door, been greeted warmly, and "let in", and all parties are perfectly fine with it.....too extreme to have any notion that they even are extreme.

Fetzer and White are collateral damage, is all..... conspiracy....what conspiracy.... just "continutiy of government"....is all...nothing too see here!

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, I disagree... To be a conspiracy theorist, one only has to doubt the official conclusion that Oswald acted alone. One does not have to agree with other CTs on point A or Point B, just doubt the official conclusion. It's how it is now. And how it's been for 40 years... If I recall, the first big divide in CT-land came with Garrison. A number of researchers split off when he started claiming he'd solved the case and Shaw was CIA, etc. Another split came with Lifton and his body alteration theory. Another with Groden and Livingstone and their photo alteration theory. And still another with White and Fetzer and their Zapruder film alteration theory. With each split some head further down conspiracy road. Others stay put. Now, some of those who stay put might SEEM like they are single-assassin theorists, but in reality they believe what they've always believed. (That's not to say they are right, of course.)

While I have long felt a conspiracy was likely, I really didn't know enough prior to 2003 to have an opinion. One of the first books I read in 2003 was Case Closed. I was, briefly, convinced that Oswald did act alone. In the pursuit of truth, however, I decided to use this thing called the internet and find out more. I found a number of websites on Case Closed, which pointed out its inaccuracies. I discovered the History Matters website and began reading about the medical evidence, and soon realized that the "official" interpretation of an autopsy photo was clearly incorrect. This led me to conduct my own investigation, not as part of a "team" but as someone sincerely interested in the truth. This investigation led me to a unique understanding of the medical evidence, and the crime itself.

Now...should I decide that those reluctant to embrace my ideas--which I believe to be borne out by the evidence--are no longer CTs? Of course not...

It follows, then, that people pushing film alteration, photo alteration, body alteration, and/or the deification of Jim Garrison should also get over themselves and recognize that those who refuse to follow them can still be CTs... and that no litmus test is necessary to be a conspiracy theorist.

BTW, in recent years the single-assassin theorist crowd over at aaj has split in two over the nature of Kennedy's head wounds. They are as divided on this issue as the conspiracy crowd is on film alteration. If we, as CTs, focus on their differences, rather than our own, we can destroy the sense of security they provide those seeking to get off the fence, or just learning about the case.

I mean, does it make any sense to YOU that the official location of the head wound entrance moved 4 inches between 1967 and 1968?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Thanks for your reasoned reply. However, I have to disagree with you just a bit.

While there was a personality conflict from the very beginning, primarily between Harold Weisberg and his followers, and Mark Lane and his followers, there was no disagreement between the camps on the evidence. I tried, very gingerly, to question Weisberg about this when I had a nice meeting with him back in the early '80s, but got nowhere. They just despised each other, in my opinion out of sheer jealousy.

Certainly you are right in pointing out how the critics disagreed over Jim Garrison. However, again, that was not really about the basic evidence- it was simply that many believers in conspiracy felt that Garrison had no case against Clay Shaw. As for Lifton, body alteration was something new, and because of the incredible nature of the theory it was bound to divide even diehard conspiracy adherents. Again, I don't think there was a split on the basic evidence.

I don't believe in a litmus test for conspiracy believers, as I've said before. However, those of us who've been involved with this case for decades are naturally going to be suspicious when other knowledgable researchers suddenly change position on a crucial aspect of it. For instance, when some begin to state that the backyard photos are "probably genuine," or that they haven't seen any evidence that they are fake, you can't simply dismiss that lightly. The studies that raised questions about the fraudulent nature of these photos have been around for years. I simply wanted to know what had happened in the intervening period of time, other than predictable rubber stamp "investigations" by government "experts," to show that they are indeed legitimate photographs.

Why do so many more critics now believe that Oswald killed Tippit? Again, what has happened in recent years to cause this shift in opinion? The state of the evidence against Oswald in that case has been analyzed for decades; Harold Weisberg alone showed that it was impossible for him to even physically be at the scene of the crime in time to commit it. Why are the Umbrella Man's curious actions that day now ignored, or accepted as the innocuous protests of the thoroughly uncredible Steven Witt? TUM was the closest thing we have to a conspirator captured on film.

We've had two highly publicized books written in the last 15-20 years, touting the lone nutter line. Both "Case Closed" and Bugliosi's magnus ridiculotus have been dissected online by knowledgable people and found completely wanting. In other words, there's nothing new in them to covert anyone familiar with the evidence (except, of course, Vince Palamara, who inexplicably claims to have been converted by Bugliosi, although of course he can't tell us specifically why). Those who have converted to lone nutterism are not novices who were swayed by these books and have nothing to compare them to. They are usually former firm believers in conspiracy who obviously know better. Like Vince, they can't explain their conversion. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to wonder what is behind such a huge shift in opinion. I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone asked me why I changed my beliefs about a particular subject. More importantly, I think I'd be able to provide at least a reason why.

I appreciate your contributions here, and always read your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent spate of film alteration threads between Jim Fetzer and his supporters and Josiah Thompson and his supporters illustrate a disturbing trend in the JFK assassination research community.

It has become increasingly clear to me, from participating on JFK assassination forums over the past decade, that many critics have tempered their once fervent beliefs in conspiracy. We also have the curious phenomenon of the converts to lone nutterism; once strong proponents of conspiracy like Todd Vaughn, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Dave Reitzes, Dave Perry, etc., who have become vocal adherents to the official fairy tale for no rational reason. There are no similar well-known converts to conspiracy, which is strange. I've questioned many of these miraculously converted lone nutters (as well as Gary Mack) on forums before, asking them what it was that caused them to alter their opinion. None can give an intelligible response.

There a good number of people on this and other forums now who describe themselves as "fence sitters." They are truly incomprehensible to me. Reading even one or two of the best critical works on this subject, and studying the Warren Commission's Hearings & Exhibits, should be enough to push anyone with any degree of intelligence and awareness into a strong disbelief in the official story. I've questioned some of these "fence sitters" in the past, and they haven't given me any intelligible response.

Then there are those I call neo-cons. They appear, to me, to have a neo-belief in conspiracy. While publicly stating that there was probably a conspiracy, they appear to accept far too many things that were once considered improbable or even impossible. Gary Mack is the foremost example of a neo-con, in my view. Some of these seeming CTers think Oswald killed Tippit. Almost all of them ignore the ramifications of the Umbrella Man and probably accept Steven Witt's absurd story. Almost everyone now (except David Wrone) appears to accept that it definitely was Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald, in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photograph. As has recently been discussed here, all too many appear to think that the once thoroughly suspect backyard photos are genuine. As I've stated, nothing has happened in recent years to explain this- there is simply no logical reason for researchers to give ground on any of these issues.

At least there are still a fair number of passionate believers in conspiracy on this forum; JFK Lancer has really been taken over by the neo-cons and "fence sitters," which is why I rarely post there now. There are good people on Lancer, whom I used to respect, that now seem to believe the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine. In light of the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, described in unison by many different doctors and nurses in Dallas, this is simply impossible to understand.

On Lancer, but to a degree here as well, nothing stirs the pot like a film alteration thread. I've tried to raise this point several times before, but it bears repeating; I simply don't comprehend why Jim Fetzer and Jack White raise such animosity from so many, with their particular theories. I don't accept or reject it, but I think it has merit and deserves more respect than the ravings of Tom Purvis, for example. Purvis, however, gets more respect from nearly everyone here than Fetzer or White do. Even the most extreme parts of the film alterationist theory is far more credible, imho, than what Tom Purvis says (or doesn't say, because much of it is unfathomable) in every post. Even the least knowledgable newcomer to the subject, or the most stubborn lone nutter, get far more respect from most believers in conspiracy than Jim Fetzer or Jack White do here (and certainly on Lancer, where I don't think they really have any supporters).

Many of us have been fighting this fight for decades. I've been studying this case for about 35 years now. It's become an integral part of my life, and will always be important to me. Thus, it hurts to see how fractured the critical community has become. With internet forums like this, we ought to be able to make some real progress in learning the truth about what really happened on November 22, 1963. Instead, too many threads become predictable and juvenile jousting matches between David Healy, Bill Miller, Craig Lamson and Len Colby. When you throw in the frequent long, rambling contributions of Tom Purvis, these threads become tremendously boring. Even if a newcomer drifting into those threads should find them interesting, he/she is bound to be turned off by the tenor of the discussions. Then when Jim Fetzer posts something, Josiah Thompson joins the fray and they exchange the same insults with each other that we've heard so many times before. Now if only Josiah would deign to answer some the questions I've asked him....

I don't hold out much hope for the future, in terms of the true assassins of JFK ever being known. Those of us that care deeply about this subject can't even agree on basic issues, and large egos and strong personalities clearly dominate the field. I'm starting to understand why Penn Jones became tired of the whole thing before he died (and that was back in the early to mid-1990s), and why Gary Shaw has seemingly retired from the field.

We need to remember why we're here and acknowledge that we can do better.

Don...nice observation. But I disagree with your description of "White and Fetzer alteration THEORIES".

I try to avoid theorizing. I present facts which I discover. I let others theorize about them. For instance

I presented THE FACT that the Moorman line of sight is TOO LOW for Mary to have taken her photo

STANDING ON THE GRASS as in the Z film. THIS IS A FACT. Anyone can prove it by going to Dealey

Plaza. It is NOT A THEORY. But people on the internet DISTORT THIS FACT with misdirection, creating

false arguments about an alleged GAP which is a total non sequitur. So I wish people would use more

care and differentiate THEORIES from FACTS.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it, Don. It sounds like your complaint is not so much against those who disagree, as against those who once agreed but no longer do. I, too, find this confusing, but attribute it to a confluence of factors. One is that, unfortunately, many conspiracy theorists are not as informed as they should be. As a result, they can be swayed when the weight of the evidence suggesting Oswald's guilt suddenly registers. Another factor is time. There is an old expression that you shouldn't trust a young conservative or an old liberal. It is natural for many to grow conservative in their old age, and to write off many of their former beliefs as follies of youth. It is also true that those with a stake in society are less likely to question the basis of that society. As a consequence, a former "liberal" college student, once he becomes a successful businessman, might find himself feeling alienated by those questioning the official story on 9/11, and come to believe his own youthful belief that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy was equally mistaken. I see this thread in Myers and Bugliosi, among others. They are so put off by the "anti-Americanism" of conspiracy theorists that they find their own misrepresentation of the evidence easy to justify. "It's for a good cause"...etc.

As far as Palamara, I suspect he's back on the fence. He told me recently that he loved my DVD on the medical evidence. Although it's possible, I sincerely doubt someone thoroughly convinced Oswald acted alone could make such a statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what bothers me is that there are too many in love with pet theories and cannot disagree without being extremely disagreeable. I found during two tours in Detroit Homicide that I was often wrong and had to back up and view the murder in question from a different angle. We often sat down as a squad and ran it from different perspectives until we reached a consensus and then divided up the things that needed to done and did them. Did we always solve them? no, but atleast we examined and explored alternative theories.

until people can muzzle their ego's, we'll rarely make genuine progress-and that's the tragedy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent spate of film alteration threads between Jim Fetzer and his supporters and Josiah Thompson and his supporters illustrate a disturbing trend in the JFK assassination research community.

It has become increasingly clear to me, from participating on JFK assassination forums over the past decade, that many critics have tempered their once fervent beliefs in conspiracy. We also have the curious phenomenon of the converts to lone nutterism; once strong proponents of conspiracy like Todd Vaughn, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Dave Reitzes, Dave Perry, etc., who have become vocal adherents to the official fairy tale for no rational reason. There are no similar well-known converts to conspiracy, which is strange. I've questioned many of these miraculously converted lone nutters (as well as Gary Mack) on forums before, asking them what it was that caused them to alter their opinion. None can give an intelligible response.

There a good number of people on this and other forums now who describe themselves as "fence sitters." They are truly incomprehensible to me. Reading even one or two of the best critical works on this subject, and studying the Warren Commission's Hearings & Exhibits, should be enough to push anyone with any degree of intelligence and awareness into a strong disbelief in the official story. I've questioned some of these "fence sitters" in the past, and they haven't given me any intelligible response.

Then there are those I call neo-cons. They appear, to me, to have a neo-belief in conspiracy. While publicly stating that there was probably a conspiracy, they appear to accept far too many things that were once considered improbable or even impossible. Gary Mack is the foremost example of a neo-con, in my view. Some of these seeming CTers think Oswald killed Tippit. Almost all of them ignore the ramifications of the Umbrella Man and probably accept Steven Witt's absurd story. Almost everyone now (except David Wrone) appears to accept that it definitely was Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald, in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photograph. As has recently been discussed here, all too many appear to think that the once thoroughly suspect backyard photos are genuine. As I've stated, nothing has happened in recent years to explain this- there is simply no logical reason for researchers to give ground on any of these issues.

At least there are still a fair number of passionate believers in conspiracy on this forum; JFK Lancer has really been taken over by the neo-cons and "fence sitters," which is why I rarely post there now. There are good people on Lancer, whom I used to respect, that now seem to believe the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine. In light of the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, described in unison by many different doctors and nurses in Dallas, this is simply impossible to understand.

On Lancer, but to a degree here as well, nothing stirs the pot like a film alteration thread. I've tried to raise this point several times before, but it bears repeating; I simply don't comprehend why Jim Fetzer and Jack White raise such animosity from so many, with their particular theories. I don't accept or reject it, but I think it has merit and deserves more respect than the ravings of Tom Purvis, for example. Purvis, however, gets more respect from nearly everyone here than Fetzer or White do. Even the most extreme parts of the film alterationist theory is far more credible, imho, than what Tom Purvis says (or doesn't say, because much of it is unfathomable) in every post. Even the least knowledgable newcomer to the subject, or the most stubborn lone nutter, get far more respect from most believers in conspiracy than Jim Fetzer or Jack White do here (and certainly on Lancer, where I don't think they really have any supporters).

Many of us have been fighting this fight for decades. I've been studying this case for about 35 years now. It's become an integral part of my life, and will always be important to me. Thus, it hurts to see how fractured the critical community has become. With internet forums like this, we ought to be able to make some real progress in learning the truth about what really happened on November 22, 1963. Instead, too many threads become predictable and juvenile jousting matches between David Healy, Bill Miller, Craig Lamson and Len Colby. When you throw in the frequent long, rambling contributions of Tom Purvis, these threads become tremendously boring. Even if a newcomer drifting into those threads should find them interesting, he/she is bound to be turned off by the tenor of the discussions. Then when Jim Fetzer posts something, Josiah Thompson joins the fray and they exchange the same insults with each other that we've heard so many times before. Now if only Josiah would deign to answer some the questions I've asked him....

I don't hold out much hope for the future, in terms of the true assassins of JFK ever being known. Those of us that care deeply about this subject can't even agree on basic issues, and large egos and strong personalities clearly dominate the field. I'm starting to understand why Penn Jones became tired of the whole thing before he died (and that was back in the early to mid-1990s), and why Gary Shaw has seemingly retired from the field.

We need to remember why we're here and acknowledge that we can do better.

The main objective of this forum was to get people who had different opinions to logically discuss their differences. It has been a complete failure in doing this.

As Evan Marshall has pointed out, the problem seems to be that once people have developed a particular theory, they do not take kindly to people disagreeing with them about it. This often results in them questioning your motives about why you disagree with them. In some cases they are hostile to you if you do not yourself attack these people you both disagree with without the necessary passion. For example, I had this email from a fellow researcher this morning:

From Jim DiEugenio's review of Waldron at:

http://www.ctka.net/2009/legacy_secrecy.html

”Unfortunately, that's about it for the positives. Which is a really bad batting average for a book of over 800 pages. Yet none of the travesty listed above stops people like Rex Bradford and John Simkin from having Waldron do interviews on their web sites. Which makes me think the assassinations are really more of a business interest for these two entrepreneurs than a pursuit of historical truth.”

It seems Rex and myself are being attacked as we have allowed Lamar Waldron to defend his theories on our websites. If Jim bothered to read what I have said about Lamar’s books he would know that I totally disagree with his theory of the Mafia being involved in the assassination of JFK. But that does not seem to matter. What he objects to is that I have given a platform to Lamar's views. He then goes on to argue that the reason why Rex and I grant Lamar this freedom of expression is that it is “really more of a business interest for these two entrepreneurs than a pursuit of historical truth.” I cannot speak for Rex but this forum does not make any money at all – in fact, it costs me a considerable amount of money to run the forum. Even if I did make money out of the forum, it does not in itself invalidate the attempt to allow people to express their own thoughts on the case. Anyway, what is the difference between a person who runs a forum or website from a writer of books? Does the fact that Jim receives royalties from the books he writes leave him open to the criticism that he is more interested in making money than in obtaining “historical truth”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what bothers me is that there are too many in love with pet theories and cannot disagree without being extremely disagreeable. I found during two tours in Detroit Homicide that I was often wrong and had to back up and view the murder in question from a different angle. We often sat down as a squad and ran it from different perspectives until we reached a consensus and then divided up the things that needed to done and did them. Did we always solve them? no, but atleast we examined and explored alternative theories.

until people can muzzle their ego's, we'll rarely make genuine progress-and that's the tragedy

Thank you Evan,

I have found that there are different types of evidence - that which you can argue over its interpetation, and that which you can use to identify additional evidence and new witnesses.

Those who want to argue over film alteration can do so to their hearts content, but if it leads to the conclusion that the film was altered, without identifying the criminal culpret who altered it, then simply blaming the government doesn't wash. Those who see anomalies in the photos and films, can't take that a step further and obtain a meaningful conclusion that either explains something or leads to an explanation.

Then there are those who have pet theories, like Russo and Waldron, who, either leave out pertenant info that doesn't fit in with their theories, or when shown facts that dispute their interpetation of events, fail to adapt their theories to the new information.

Waldron for instance, as Frog has recently pointed out, was informed that his chief protaginist in the December 1, 1963 Coup in Cuba - was on that date out of the country on a long planned trip abroad, and was in no position to lead a coup in Cuba. But that doesn't phase Waldron, who still hams up this pet theory that has been throughly discredited.

By failing to adapt his theory to new information, then all of his work is now disrespected.

I think it can be easily determined if the evidence is disputable, or if it leads to new evidence and new witnesses.

We have been following these investigative leads now for years, and they have been developed to the point where it is now necessary to create a legal venue for the evidence to be presented and the testimony taken from the new witnessess.

As far as I can determine, there are only a few potential legal venues - Congressional Hearings, Civil Suit (ala MLK) or a grand jury (federal, state or local).

As a policeman, you undertand the role of the grand jury in the criminal justice system and what can and can not be admitted into evidence.

With a new president, a new attorney general, a new Federal DA in North Dallas and DC and a new DA in Dallas, the possibility of convening a grand jury has increased greatly over the past two years.

Tink Thompson, as an experienced criminal investigator, also understands the nature of evidence and what is admissible in a grand jury and what is not admissible.

Limiting the discussion, at least on some threads, to what evidence can be admitted to a grand jury would certainly cut out the junk that is not worth arguing over and concentrate on that which can lead to suspects in the crimes related to the assassination.

As for Don's observations of the divisions among the so-called research community, CTs vs. LNs, Alterationists vs Non-Alterationists, Garrison vs. Shaw, none of that comes into play when you cut it down to the simple evidence that can be admitted in court.

There are those who want to take a side and argue, and those who want to research the investigative leads that present themselves, and follow them to where the official investigaiton failed to go.

To go down that route, and to go to court, one must keep an open mind and be able to change one's opinion or theory, but it doesn't seem that there's many out there capable of doing that.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
.......As far as I can determine, there are only a few potential legal venues - Congressional Hearings, Civil Suit (ala MLK) or a grand jury (federal, state or local).

As a policeman, you undertand the role of the grand jury in the criminal justice system and what can and can not be admitted into evidence.

With a new president, a new attorney general, a new Federal DA in North Dallas and DC and a new DA in Dallas, the possibility of convening a grand jury has increased greatly over the past two years.

Tink Thompson, as an experienced criminal investigator, also understands the nature of evidence and what is admissible in a grand jury and what is not admissible.

Limiting the discussion, at least on some threads, to what evidence can be admitted to a grand jury would certainly cut out the junk that is not worth arguing over and concentrate on that which can lead to suspects in the crimes related to the assassination.

As for Don's observations of the divisions among the so-called research community, CTs vs. LNs, Alterationists vs Non-Alterationists, Garrison vs. Shaw, none of that comes into play when you cut it down to the simple evidence that can be admitted in court.

There are those who want to take a side and argue, and those who want to research the investigative leads that present themselves, and follow them to where the official investigaiton failed to go.

To go down that route, and to go to court, one must keep an open mind and be able to change one's opinion or theory, but it doesn't seem that there's many out there capable of doing that.

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I don't know where you're getting your insight....I posted on this thread about the developing state of present affairs....the "new climate" you seem to anticipate will portend the possibility of a fair hearing of "the evidence" of a conspiracy involved in the murders of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald....my post just under Don Jeffries' opening post got no "play", so your comments persuade me there is a need to spell it out for all of our readers:

(An expansion of my prior post....)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...cism/index.html

.....large numbers of Bush critics have been admirably willing to criticize Obama when he embraces the very policies that prompted so much anger and controversy during the Bush years. Last night, Keith Olbermann -- who has undoubtedly been one of the most swooning and often-uncritical admirers of Barack Obama of anyone in the country (behavior for which I rather harshly criticized him in the past) -- devoted the first two segments of his show to emphatically lambasting Obama and Eric Holder's DOJ for the story I wrote about on Monday: namely, the Obama administration's use of the radical Bush/Cheney state secrets doctrine and -- worse still -- a brand new claim of "sovereign immunity" to insist that courts lack the authority to decide whether the Bush administration broke the law in illegally spying on Americans.

The fact that Keith Olbermann, an intense Obama supporter, spent the first ten minutes of his show attacking Obama for replicating (and, in this instance, actually surpassing) some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses of executive power and secrecy claims reflects just how extreme is the conduct of the Obama DOJ here. Just as revealingly, the top recommended Kos diary today (voted by the compulsively pro-Obama Kos readership) is one devoted to attacking Obama for his embrace of Bush/Cheney secrecy and immunity doctrines. Also, a front page Daily Kos post yesterday by McJoan vehemently criticizing Obama (and quoting my criticisms at length) sparked near universal condemnation of Obama in the hundreds of comments that followed. .....

......UPDATE III: Yesterday, I posted an interview I did with Clive Stafford Smith, the lawyer for numerous Guantanamo detainees, including Binyam Mohamed, who is involved in a rather amazing dispute with the Pentagon. The transcript for that interview is now available here.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/rad...mith/index.html

....On an obviously related note, McClatchy has the story of a new court ruling finding that Bush officials purposely hid evidence of the mental illness of a key witness it used in its prosecutions of various Guantanamo detainees, leading the federal judge to ask: "How can this court have any confidence whatsoever in the United States government to comply with its obligations and to be truthful to the court?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...recy/index.html

.....On a very related note: last night, The New York Review of Books published the full report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (.pdf), which documented in detail the brutal torture to which the 14 "high-value" detainees whom we disappeared into our CIA "black sites" were subjected and demanded "that the US authorities investigate all allegations of ill-treatment and take steps to punish the perpetrators, where appropriate." As Scott Horton notes, the ICRC does not call for investigations and prosecutions easily, but rather, "only where the evidence of criminal conduct is manifest." Yet Obama's handpicked CIA Director, Leon Panetta, continues to demand that there be no investigations of any kind, let alone prosecutions. As a CIA spokesperson told the New York Times yesterday in response to the ICRC report:

Mr. Panetta "has stated repeatedly that no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished." The C.I.A.'s interrogation methods were declared legal by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush.....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...bama/index.html

....What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior. As EFF's Bankston put it:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This is the Obama DOJ's work and only its work, and it is equal to, and in some senses surpasses, the radical secrecy and immunity claims of the Bush administration.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...emos/index.html

-- namely, I'd like to see evidence that the GOP Senate caucus is really prepared to unify in a filibuster of Obama nominees in order to keep these torture memos concealed. But even if it is true, it's entirely irrelevant. Politically, that's a fight the Obama administration -- if it even remotely believes in all the things it has been saying about transparency -- should be prepared to wage. But beyond the political considerations, the government simply has no right to keep things secret in order to avoid political embarrassment or conflict, and Obama's top OLC officials themselves spent the last five years arguing exactly that.

The only conceivable reason for wanting to keep these memos secret is to avoid the deep and justifiable embarrassment the U.S. will feel upon placing before the world documents that explicitly authorized war crimes at the highest levels of our government, and thereby avoid what will inevitably be the increasing political pressure -- domestic and international -- to investigate and prosecute the war criminals. Those who authorized these tactics knew full well that what they were doing was wrong. Here is how the 2007 Times article described the internal disputes over the OLC memos within the Bush administration:.....

My point is that we have a choice of closing our eyes to all of the emerging signs of a perverse continuity of government after a transition from the dominance of one major political party, over to the other party....the one with the charismatic presidential candidate who campaigned on a theme of change and hope.

I'm not going to do that, Bill, and I hope I am not misreading your optimistic comments to mean that you are not "on your guard", because it is seeming that nothing has changed....it is all about a conspiracy to permit as little change in the power balance and in the portfolios of the wealthholders who buy it, as it was on 11/22/63. Of course, the LNs will tell you that all of it is a long list of coincidences, but we can observe who perennially dominates, and the likes of the CFR are always prominent, as just one example. No new high level hearings or investigations of any importance are coming, Bill....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......As far as I can determine, there are only a few potential legal venues - Congressional Hearings, Civil Suit (ala MLK) or a grand jury (federal, state or local).

As a policeman, you undertand the role of the grand jury in the criminal justice system and what can and can not be admitted into evidence.

With a new president, a new attorney general, a new Federal DA in North Dallas and DC and a new DA in Dallas, the possibility of convening a grand jury has increased greatly over the past two years.

Tink Thompson, as an experienced criminal investigator, also understands the nature of evidence and what is admissible in a grand jury and what is not admissible.

Limiting the discussion, at least on some threads, to what evidence can be admitted to a grand jury would certainly cut out the junk that is not worth arguing over and concentrate on that which can lead to suspects in the crimes related to the assassBill,

I don't know where you're getting your insight....I posted on this thread about the developing state of present affairs....the "new climate" you seem to anticipate will portend the possibility of a fair hearing of "the evidence" of a conspiracy involved in the murders of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald....my post just under Don Jeffries' opening post got no "play", so your comments persuade me there is a need to spell it out for all of our readers:ination.

As for Don's observations of the divisions among the so-called research community, CTs vs. LNs, Alterationists vs Non-Alterationists, Garrison vs. Shaw, none of that comes into play when you cut it down to the simple evidence that can be admitted in court.

There are those who want to take a side and argue, and those who want to research the investigative leads that present themselves, and follow them to where the official investigaiton failed to go.

To go down that route, and to go to court, one must keep an open mind and be able to change one's opinion or theory, but it doesn't seem that there's many out there capable of doing that.

Bill Kelly

(An expansion of my prior post....)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...cism/index.html

.....large numbers of Bush critics have been admirably willing to criticize Obama when he embraces the very policies that prompted so much anger and controversy during the Bush years. Last night, Keith Olbermann -- who has undoubtedly been one of the most swooning and often-uncritical admirers of Barack Obama of anyone in the country (behavior for which I rather harshly criticized him in the past) -- devoted the first two segments of his show to emphatically lambasting Obama and Eric Holder's DOJ for the story I wrote about on Monday: namely, the Obama administration's use of the radical Bush/Cheney state secrets doctrine and -- worse still -- a brand new claim of "sovereign immunity" to insist that courts lack the authority to decide whether the Bush administration broke the law in illegally spying on Americans.

The fact that Keith Olbermann, an intense Obama supporter, spent the first ten minutes of his show attacking Obama for replicating (and, in this instance, actually surpassing) some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses of executive power and secrecy claims reflects just how extreme is the conduct of the Obama DOJ here. Just as revealingly, the top recommended Kos diary today (voted by the compulsively pro-Obama Kos readership) is one devoted to attacking Obama for his embrace of Bush/Cheney secrecy and immunity doctrines. Also, a front page Daily Kos post yesterday by McJoan vehemently criticizing Obama (and quoting my criticisms at length) sparked near universal condemnation of Obama in the hundreds of comments that followed. .....

......UPDATE III: Yesterday, I posted an interview I did with Clive Stafford Smith, the lawyer for numerous Guantanamo detainees, including Binyam Mohamed, who is involved in a rather amazing dispute with the Pentagon. The transcript for that interview is now available here.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/rad...mith/index.html

....On an obviously related note, McClatchy has the story of a new court ruling finding that Bush officials purposely hid evidence of the mental illness of a key witness it used in its prosecutions of various Guantanamo detainees, leading the federal judge to ask: "How can this court have any confidence whatsoever in the United States government to comply with its obligations and to be truthful to the court?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...recy/index.html

.....On a very related note: last night, The New York Review of Books published the full report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (.pdf), which documented in detail the brutal torture to which the 14 "high-value" detainees whom we disappeared into our CIA "black sites" were subjected and demanded "that the US authorities investigate all allegations of ill-treatment and take steps to punish the perpetrators, where appropriate." As Scott Horton notes, the ICRC does not call for investigations and prosecutions easily, but rather, "only where the evidence of criminal conduct is manifest." Yet Obama's handpicked CIA Director, Leon Panetta, continues to demand that there be no investigations of any kind, let alone prosecutions. As a CIA spokesperson told the New York Times yesterday in response to the ICRC report:

Mr. Panetta "has stated repeatedly that no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished." The C.I.A.'s interrogation methods were declared legal by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush.....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...bama/index.html

....What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior. As EFF's Bankston put it:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This is the Obama DOJ's work and only its work, and it is equal to, and in some senses surpasses, the radical secrecy and immunity claims of the Bush administration.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...emos/index.html

-- namely, I'd like to see evidence that the GOP Senate caucus is really prepared to unify in a filibuster of Obama nominees in order to keep these torture memos concealed. But even if it is true, it's entirely irrelevant. Politically, that's a fight the Obama administration -- if it even remotely believes in all the things it has been saying about transparency -- should be prepared to wage. But beyond the political considerations, the government simply has no right to keep things secret in order to avoid political embarrassment or conflict, and Obama's top OLC officials themselves spent the last five years arguing exactly that.

The only conceivable reason for wanting to keep these memos secret is to avoid the deep and justifiable embarrassment the U.S. will feel upon placing before the world documents that explicitly authorized war crimes at the highest levels of our government, and thereby avoid what will inevitably be the increasing political pressure -- domestic and international -- to investigate and prosecute the war criminals. Those who authorized these tactics knew full well that what they were doing was wrong. Here is how the 2007 Times article described the internal disputes over the OLC memos within the Bush administration:.....

My point is that we have a choice of closing our eyes to all of the emerging signs of a perverse continuity of government after a transition from the dominance of one major political party, over to the other party....the one with the charismatic presidential candidate who campaigned on a theme of change and hope.

I'm not going to do that, Bill, and I hope I am not misreading your optimistic comments to mean that you are not "on your guard", because it is seeming that nothing has changed....it is all about a conspiracy to permit as little change in the power balance and in the portfolios of the wealthholders who buy it, as it was on 11/22/63. Of course, the LNs will tell you that all of it is a long list of coincidences, but we can observe who perennially dominates, and the likes of the CFR are always prominent, as just one example. No new high level hearings or investigations of any importance are coming, Bill....

Tom,

I don't think the ramblings of Greenwald or Oberman constitue anything, though I often agree with them. They're still playing Bi-Partisan Politics, and their criticism of Obama are right in line with what John Judge, Cynthia McKinney and others have been saying all along.

I'm not concerned with the balance of power or the portfolios of the wealthholders, or LNs or any of that crap, but I do believe that the changes in leadership - at both the Congessional Oversight Committee, and in the Presidency, and in the Attorney General and in the District Attorneys make it possible for a new round of sworn testimony in the JFK assassination, even if it only concerns the government records.

You may be absolutly right when you say, "No new high level hearings or investigations of any importance are coming, Bill....", but it won't because certain people didn't try.

We will see, because the investigations are already happening, it's just a matter of getting a legal venue to place their results.

We will see who is right, my optomistic anticipation or your negative vision.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify a few things.

First, as a diehard civil libertarian, I believe in everyone's right to state their own beliefs, even if I vehemently disagree with them. In the past, I was almost always against the "banning" of a particular poster on other forums, even though I hardly agreed with anything they said. This is not about demanding that assassination researchers adhere to a certain fixed set of opinions, with no dissent allowed. I think Lamar Waldron's theories are outlandish, but I certainly don't object to John Simkin having him answer questions on the forum.

What I've observed over the past several years is a gradual shift in consensus among the majority of JFK assassination critics. Again, if the lone nutters and neo-cons were persuasive with their arguments, and had provided new insight and/or evidence to cause this shift in consensus, I would certainly understand that. Perhaps I'd already be a neo-con myself in that case. However, to my knowledge, no such insight and/or evidence has been produced by anyone to cause passionate conspiracy believers to suddenly convert to lone nutterism or temper their views.

A national debate was not held on issues like the Umbrella Man, the unnatural deaths of witnesses, the Tippit murder or the backyard photos, wherein it was dramatically shown that most critics had been mistaken in their beliefs. In other words, there is no logical reason for so many researchers to give ground on these crucial aspects of the case. I could bring up other areas in which CTers seem to have backed off inexplicably; the question of the identity of the rifle found in the TSBD, the question of ownership of the Carcano, the indications that a bullet was found in the grass at Dealey Plaza and many more. Whenever the subject of the Carcano is brought up on this and other forums, it seems to be taken for granted that Oswald ordered it and it was the weapon found on the sixth floor. The fact that the only legal documents, and much of the testimony surrounding the discovery of this weapon identify it as a German mauser doesn't seem to concern many critics any longer. The fact that all the myriad of perplexing questions that critics like Sylvia Meagher raised long ago about the Carcano, from the magazine ad to the p.o. box to the "Hidell" alias, remain unanswered doesn't seem to concern many critics now, either. Why?

When a highly respected researcher like Josiah Thompson states that the backyard photos are "probably genuine," and also claims that the Zapruder film doesn't show the Umbrella Man pumping his umbrella up and down, what are we to think? He didn't provide any rationale for his statement about the backyard photos, which he presumably once questioned like the rest of us, and has never retracted his untrue statement about the Umbrella Man. He has also ignored several requests from me on this forum to answer a few questions. Of course, he is under no obligation to do that, but if he is participating on this forum for any other reason than to bicker with Jim Fetzer, he should have no qualms about doing so. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about; an apparent temperance of belief, without an explanation. Again, neither he nor Gary Mack nor anyone else owes us any explanation, but if someone chooses to participate in a give and take forum like this, one has to expect others to notice such things and question them.

The holes in JFK's clothing, supported by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, completely, 100% disprove the single bullet theory. That's not even taking into consideration the nearly pristine condition of CE399, and the comparision photos of identical ammunition, test fired into substances like a goat carcass that showed a great deal of visible damage, found in the official records. Thus, there is no reason for anyone to serously engage a poster who still accepts such fairy tales. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to post their drivel, but it does mean that no honest researcher should respect it.

While not everything is black and white, some things are. The single bullet theory is impossible. Most witnesses did claim shots came from the front. Oswald was a mediocre shot, and there is no credible evidence he ever shot a weapon again after leaving the marines as such. There is nothing but the fanciful testimony of his wife Marina to tie him to the General Walker shooting. The President's head does go visibly back and to the left, and witnesses like Hargis were sprayed with blood and brain matter. The Secret Service did not react in a competent manner that day, and driver Bill Greer did at least slow down before the shots were fired. The evidence indicates that Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. There is no evidence for exactly what time he left the TSBD after the shooting. Every witness who supposedly encountered Oswald on his fanciful post-assassination journey had severe credibility problems and would have been destroyed in court by a competent defense attorney. None of the "evidence" against Oswald could even have been entered into the record in an honest court of law, on chain of possession issues alone. The best evidence indicates that Oswald entered a Rambler shortly after the assassination, but this lead was never investigated by the authorities. There is abundant evidence of Oswald imposters prior to the assassination. Oswald's "Hidell" alias was obviously not a true attempt at forging a new identity, becasue his Select Service card with "Hidell" on it had a photograph, and would have been useless, since real ones didn't have photographs.

Okay, there I go ranting again. But I do feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan,

I'm not sure which mistakes you're referring to, since you weren't specific.

As for JFK's head moving back and to the left, it undeniably does. However, there is general agreement that it moves forward first, as you said. It is pretty reasonable to speculate then, as many of us have over the years, that he was hit by almost simultaneous head shots from the rear and then the front. My point about the backwards movement is that there is no question about it, and it clearly contradicts the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots from behind.

I was just trying to come up with a list of items that are either unquestionable (i.e., the impossibility of the single bullet theory) or solid indications of conspiracy that have seemingly been abandoned by many researchers for no apparent reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to my knowledge, no such insight and/or evidence has been produced by anyone to cause passionate conspiracy believers to suddenly convert to lone nutterism or temper their views.

A national debate was not held on issues like the Umbrella Man, the unnatural deaths of witnesses, the Tippit murder or the backyard photos, wherein it was dramatically shown that most critics had been mistaken in their beliefs. In other words, there is no logical reason for so many researchers to give ground on these crucial aspects of the case. I could bring up other areas in which CTers seem to have backed off inexplicably; the question of the identity of the rifle found in the TSBD, the question of ownership of the Carcano, the indications that a bullet was found in the grass at Dealey Plaza and many more. Whenever the subject of the Carcano is brought up on this and other forums, it seems to be taken for granted that Oswald ordered it and it was the weapon found on the sixth floor. The fact that the only legal documents, and much of the testimony surrounding the discovery of this weapon identify it as a German mauser doesn't seem to concern many critics any longer. The fact that all the myriad of perplexing questions that critics like Sylvia Meagher raised long ago about the Carcano, from the magazine ad to the p.o. box to the "Hidell" alias, remain unanswered doesn't seem to concern many critics now, either. Why?

The holes in JFK's clothing, supported by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, completely, 100% disprove the single bullet theory. That's not even taking into consideration the nearly pristine condition of CE399, and the comparision photos of identical ammunition, test fired into substances like a goat carcass that showed a great deal of visible damage, found in the official records. Thus, there is no reason for anyone to serously engage a poster who still accepts such fairy tales. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to post their drivel, but it does mean that no honest researcher should respect it.

While not everything is black and white, some things are. The single bullet theory is impossible. Most witnesses did claim shots came from the front. Oswald was a mediocre shot, and there is no credible evidence he ever shot a weapon again after leaving the marines as such. There is nothing but the fanciful testimony of his wife Marina to tie him to the General Walker shooting. The President's head does go visibly back and to the left, and witnesses like Hargis were sprayed with blood and brain matter. The Secret Service did not react in a competent manner that day, and driver Bill Greer did at least slow down before the shots were fired. The evidence indicates that Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. There is no evidence for exactly what time he left the TSBD after the shooting. Every witness who supposedly encountered Oswald on his fanciful post-assassination journey had severe credibility problems and would have been destroyed in court by a competent defense attorney. None of the "evidence" against Oswald could even have been entered into the record in an honest court of law, on chain of possession issues alone. The best evidence indicates that Oswald entered a Rambler shortly after the assassination, but this lead was never investigated by the authorities. There is abundant evidence of Oswald imposters prior to the assassination. Oswald's "Hidell" alias was obviously not a true attempt at forging a new identity, becasue his Select Service card with "Hidell" on it had a photograph, and would have been useless, since real ones didn't have photographs.

Okay, there I go ranting again. But I do feel better.

THANK YOU......and may I add a thought of my own ?

When the criminals control the evidence:

a.) there is certain to be "inconsistancies" in the "evidence"

b.) the "official" record will be in conflict with what the witnesses saw and the physical and scientific testing conducted afterward.

c.) the conclusions of the investgation will point to someone else

d.) witnesses will be intimidated

e.) witnesses will be ignored

f.) witnesses will be threatened

g.) police lineups will be "fixed"

h.) there will be evidence tampering

and yet, do "converts" to the LN side find such behavior NORMAL ?

Do any of them understand that THIS CASE WAS A BAG JOB ?

That justice WAS NOT SERVED in this case ?

Let me put it this way:

Kennedy was warned not to come to Dallas or "they" were going to kill him. Kennedy went to Dallas and lo and behold, he's shot down in the street like a mad dog.

Were any of those citizens who forewarned of his murder interviewed by the DPD ?

Were any of those citizens who forewarned of his murder interviewed by the FBI ?

Were any of those citizens who forewarned of his murder invited to appear before the WC ?

Wouldn't it have been NORMAL for a murder investigation to talk to anyone who had forewarned of that murder?

Wouldn't it have been NORMAL for security to be extremely tight in a hostile city as Dallas ?

Not only was it not tight, what little security was planned by the DPD was removed by the SS.

IMO, Kennedy was led into an ambush by those who preferred Johnson as president and there was a subsequent conspiracy to hide that fact from the American people.

I just don't understand how that cannot be clear to folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan,

I never suggested that there was anything sinister behind any of the sudden conversions to lone nutterism or the temperance of formerly strong pro-conspiracy views. I do believe they are curious and often inexplicable. Vince Palamara, for instance, was one of my favorite researchers. Imho, he thoroughly documented the failure of the Secret Service to do its job in Dealey Plaza and his work would cause most intelligent people to suspect at least some agents of complicity in the crime. When he filmed his abrupt conversion to lone nutterism and uploaded it on You Tube, I was hardly the only person to be totally flabbergasted. He was questioned by myself and others on this forum, as to what caused his sudden shift of opinion. Like Gary Mack, Dale Myers, Todd Vaughn and so many others, he couldn't give us a single reason why he changed his mind. I think such mysterious conversions are irrational and certainly worthy of discussion on forums like this.

As for the Umbrella Man, there is certainly some movement there. I am hardly the first person to describe this as "pumping." The larger issue is why his strange behavior is not even mentioned any more by anyone. Do you believe Steven Witt's ridiculous story, and accept that he was the Umbrella Man? There used to be a general consensus that he was a signal man of sorts for the shooters. This notion appears to have been dropped by nearly everyone. Why?

There is nothing wrong with research evolving as new evidence comes to light. That, however, really hasn't been the case here. What evidence has arisen over the past 25-30 years that would cause knowledgable researchers to back off from a strong pro-conspiracy stance? We are under no obligation to respect all opinions. For instance, if someone maintains the grass is red or the sky is brown, he has the right to do so, but no rational person is going to spend a moment considering the validity of what he says.

This evolution of opinions that you mention, based on research, is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Where is this research that caused so many to discard the well founded doubts that Oswald killed Tippit? That caused some to believe that the backyard photos are "probably genuine?" When someone changes their own well documented beliefs on a crucial aspect of this case, we are certainly entitled to question that on forums like this. The fact that they do so without giving any reasons why is bound to breed suspicion. That's the nature of discussion forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...