The Present State Of The Critical Community

[Cliff Varnell]

You are sounding more and more like a neo-con yourself. The alleged "bunching up" seen in the Jeffries film "throws a new light" on things, but suggesting the Umbrella Man's filmed behavior is suspcious is "absolute lunacy?" The "bunched up" theory is just as impossible at the single bullet theory. If you don't know that, you know nothing about this case. Even if you accept the improbable notion that the most immaculately dressed politician of his time somehow allowed his coat to ride up some 5 inches in public, are you going to seriously entertain the notion that his shirt rode up to such an extent that the holes matched perfectly? And what about the autopsy face sheet, the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report? Exactly how did they all become "bunched up?"

I was waiting on that coming lol!!! What a load of garbage, it's clear his jacket was bunched up in Dealey Plaza, the photographic record clearly shows this.

The holes in the clothes clearly show this.

One does not have to look at a single photograph to figure out that

the jacket was "bunched up" at the moment JFK was shot in the back.

Bullet hole in the back of the shirt: 4" below the bottom of the shirt collar.

Bullet hole in the back of the jacket: 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the jacket collar.

The jacket was "bunched up" 1/8" -- obviously.

The SBT requires about 3" of JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated in

near-tandem.

1/8" does not equal 3".

These obvious facts appear to have eluded a sizable segment of the

"critical research community."

The claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in a manner consistent

with the SBT is debunked by the photographic evidence, which shows JFK's

jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Edited April 10, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[David Andrews]

You are sounding more and more like a neo-con yourself. The alleged "bunching up" seen in the Jeffries film "throws a new light" on things, but suggesting the Umbrella Man's filmed behavior is suspcious is "absolute lunacy?" The "bunched up" theory is just as impossible at the single bullet theory. If you don't know that, you know nothing about this case. Even if you accept the improbable notion that the most immaculately dressed politician of his time somehow allowed his coat to ride up some 5 inches in public, are you going to seriously entertain the notion that his shirt rode up to such an extent that the holes matched perfectly? And what about the autopsy face sheet, the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report? Exactly how did they all become "bunched up?"

I was waiting on that coming lol!!! What a load of garbage, it's clear his jacket was bunched up in Dealey Plaza, the photographic record clearly shows this.

The holes in the clothes clearly show this.

One does not have to look at a single photograph to figure out that

the jacket was "bunched up" at the moment JFK was shot in the back.

Bullet hole in the back of the shirt: 4" below the bottom of the shirt collar.

Bullet hole in the back of the jacket: 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the jacket collar.

The jacket was "bunched up" 1/8" -- obviously.

The SBT requires about 3" of JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated in

near-tandem.

1/8" does not equal 3".

These obvious facts appear to have eluded a sizable segment of the

"critical research community."

The claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in a manner consistent

with the SBT is debunked by the photographic evidence, which shows JFK's

jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Not forgetting that the back of a man's dress shirt is frequently bloused out above the belt line for comfort, or just through normal wear stress. The backs of men's dress shirts frequently adhere to suit coats after sitting with back to upholstery.

Suit coats and sport coats frequently bunch up in ordinary sitting - try shooting a documentary film sometime, with a slate of interviewees to film. You'll be having them all sit on their pulled-down coattails, too - a la Albert Brooks in the 1980s film comedy "Broadcast News."

The Jeffries film shows a very familiar inch-high (aprx.) creased "hump" of fabric immediately behind JFK's shoulder line. Get a friend to ride in a convertable with one elbow above the door and see how easily it happens.

[Don Jeffries]

As Cliff points out, any "bunching up" of JFK's jacket was miniscule, and could not possibly explain why the bullet holes were so far down the back.

Anyone at this point in time who doesn't acknowledge the back wound was too low to have exited from the throat is either unfamiliar with the evidence or being willfully dishonest. We have the holes in JFK's coat, matching almost perfectly with the holes in his shirt. We have Boswell's orginal autopsy sheet, which "mistakenly" placed the back wound where the holes in his clothing are. We have Burkley's certificate of death, which described the back wound as being located where the holes in his clothing are. We have Sibert & O'Neill describing the back wound as being located where the holes in his clothing are, and also stating that "the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." Echoing this is Roy Kellerman's testimony that Dr. Finck had told him, "there are no lanes for an outlet of entry in this man's shoulder."

Here's a good discussion about this subject:

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect...lls.htm#Jenkins

There is absolutely no question about it; the wound on the back was too low for the ridiculous single bullet theory to work, even ignoring all its other impossible aspects.

There are few things more established by the evidence than this point. Researchers should have as much respect and patience for those who continue to ignore this as they do for those who maintian that JFK survived the shooting. This IS a black and white issue.

[Evan Marshall]

Bill-while there is no statute of limitations on murder, God apparently has put his own statute of limitaions on defendents and witnesses. We all ought to be able to agree that we would like to know the truth whatever is turns out to be. I certainly have my own views of what happened, but I could we wrong-I have been before and unless I die in the next 10 seconds, I will be again.

Our egos are our biggest foe not the anti-conspiracy folks. if well intentioned folks of any ilk could put their pet theory on hold and start from a point of agreement, EVEN only if it's JFK died in Dallas and we kept our sarcasm and ridicule inside our heads instead of on the tips our tongues AND focus on finding the truth we could move slowly towards an understanding of what really happened. If it's LHO on the 6th floor or David Phillips, Mitch Werbell, George Nonte and some old China hands on the grasy knoll, or Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with a candle stick-we could move IF we could establish an "Ego Free Zone" but I'm more skeptical about that happening than I am about who really killed Malcolm X.

I've written three books and know what it's like to be the deflator of people's pet theories that they gained fame AND/OR money with. People are puzzled why I don't respond angrily when attacked in print. It's really very simple. My need to be loved, respected, admired or even tolerated ends with my youngest grandchild.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Evan Marshall

[Cliff Varnell]

Not forgetting that the back of a man's dress shirt is frequently bloused out above the belt line for comfort, or just through normal wear stress. The backs of men's dress shirts frequently adhere to suit coats after sitting with back to upholstery.

Suit coats and sport coats frequently bunch up in ordinary sitting - try shooting a documentary film sometime, with a slate of interviewees to film. You'll be having them all sit on their pulled-down coattails, too - a la Albert Brooks in the 1980s film comedy "Broadcast News."

The Jeffries film shows a very familiar inch-high (aprx.) creased "hump" of fabric immediately behind JFK's shoulder line. Get a friend to ride in a convertable with one elbow above the door and see how easily it happens.

Yes, clothing readily moves in amounts up to an inch due to casual body

movement. The term of art in clothing design is "normal ease."

But the SBT requires 3 INCHES of near tandem shirt/jacket movement,

or "gross ease."

One inch does not equal three inches.

It just doesn't.

That such a large segment of the "critical research community" insists

on pretending that it does leaves me forever amazed.

The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting. The jacket

dropped in those 90 seconds...

Edited April 11, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[John Simkin]

I've written three books and know what it's like to be the deflator of people's pet theories that they gained fame AND/OR money with. People are puzzled why I don't respond angrily when attacked in print. It's really very simple. My need to be loved, respected, admired or even tolerated ends with my youngest grandchild.

Nice quote. I am interested in the books that you have written. Do you want to discuss them on the forum?

[John Dolva]

Evan, I reckon that's so spot on on so many levels. That's the way to keep going IMO. For me it's my loved ones and ultimately myself. I don't give a xxxx (in the nicest way that I feel like mustering at the time, which often falls short of any ideal) about what anyone thinks personally, I'm cool with me, my kids reckoning I'm lame is about as good as it gets (just kiddin C&S ). Good, bad, from others is just white noise. An approach that deals with the nitty gritty has my attention irrespective of who the the person is, if amongst the vitriol or praise and games there is something worth dealing with, sure, why not?

Edited April 11, 2009 by John Dolva

[Evan Marshall]

they can be seen at www.stoppingpower.net, and I'm not sure of the relevance here except in a very limited way.

[David Andrews]

Not forgetting that the back of a man's dress shirt is frequently bloused out above the belt line for comfort, or just through normal wear stress. The backs of men's dress shirts frequently adhere to suit coats after sitting with back to upholstery.

Suit coats and sport coats frequently bunch up in ordinary sitting - try shooting a documentary film sometime, with a slate of interviewees to film. You'll be having them all sit on their pulled-down coattails, too - a la Albert Brooks in the 1980s film comedy "Broadcast News."

The Jeffries film shows a very familiar inch-high (aprx.) creased "hump" of fabric immediately behind JFK's shoulder line. Get a friend to ride in a convertable with one elbow above the door and see how easily it happens.

Yes, clothing readily moves in amounts up to an inch due to casual body

movement. The term of art in clothing design is "normal ease."

But the SBT requires 3 INCHES of near tandem shirt/jacket movement,

or "gross ease."

One inch does not equal three inches.

It just doesn't.

That such a large segment of the "critical research community" insists

on pretending that it does leaves me forever amazed.

The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting. The jacket

dropped in those 90 seconds...

If you've worn a dress shirt, undergarment,* suit coat, and tie, you know in your heart that it takes a couple inches of fabric rise above the belt line to produce the 1" (aprx. - I was being conservative) creased uprise behind the suit collar that I described. So there is more than an inch of play in the fabric, and if you've dressed for the public you've fretted over this stuff the way women used to fret over stocking seams.

JFK went through several earlier limo stops in which he made some more animated motions than we see in film shot closer to Dealey, and he's animated enough in the later footage to produce bunching as we see in the Jeffries film. I'm violating high rules of masculine stoicism to argue this, but this I do for truth.

*"undergarment" also denotes the corset-like support JFK wore. The Ace bandages wrapped around hip and thigh can't have kept his shirt Hathaway-stable, either.

Edited April 12, 2009 by David Andrews

[Terry Mauro]

Don,

One irony is that "operation Mockingbird" probably was not even necessary - the "journalist community" would have gladly carried out it's objectives with much less expensive CIA influence than was unleashed. No member of the press has the slightest interest in investigating and reporting on the circumstances of quotes of GHW Bush and Karl Rove displayed here, confidently and publicly endorsing the new biography of a man; http://samuelpryor.com/Home_Page.html who Winchell. Pearson, Marquis Childs, Asst. US Attorney General O. John Rogge, and perhaps a dozen authors of books, including presidential biographer Herb S. Parmet, all described as knowingly and deliberately introducing candidate Willkie to a traitor who was openly offering millions of dollars in funding from Goring and Ribbentrop for Wendell Willkie's campaign to unseat FDR. This man Pryor later flew Davis to meet with Willkie at Pryor's Jupiter Island home and introduced him to isolationist committee chairman Verne Marshall.

Pryor befriended and chose to be buried next to Charles A. Lindbergh. This saga has the added dimension that the Nazi Abwehr agent that Pryor collaborated with and aided in the corruption of candidate Willkie, was the deliberatley hidden grandfather of Gray Davis....successfully kept hidden even as Davis's 2003 California gubernatorial opponent, Arnold Schwarzenneger, a man who in 1990 had voluntarily asked Simon Weisenthal to investigate the Nazi background of Schwarzenneger's own family, was the target of much negative news reporting related to his father and grandfather's Nazi service.

Opinion, as Peter so clearly posted....is "incentivized", shaped by ideology, agenda, and anticipated reward. The proof is, as I keep coming back to, the fact that we as country, much more so than western Europe with the exception of the UK, are skewed so far to the right, but we still think we are "centrists". Militarized, "law and order", corporatism seems like "home" to most of us. Only six percent of the world population, but confining 25 percent of the world's prisoners....no problem.

Rabidly right wing religious fanatics openly infesting the military and shaping a "biblical" foreign policy, no problem:

The man who recently headed the pentagon policy board wrote this years before his appointment:

"Israel should insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the biblical land of Israel, the 1996 report suggested..."

No matter what the consequences of the dominance of our political and business culture by entrenched neo-fascism, there is no discussion as to whether a shift to the distant left side of center would be to our benefit, and the populist accomplishments of the French voters, influenced by their left leaning political ideology, is reflexively ridiculed, and never examined critically, even as 50 million in the US have no health insurance coverage and tuition costs for higher education become increasinlgy unaffordable.

When it comes to rationally reacting to implausible official BS like the "magic bullet" and the WC declaration that both Oswald and Ruby were LNs, why would you expect most to react any differently than the do when they never even notice the fact that the French voter has achieved many benefits from the way he votes, vs. the American, who seems to have achieved next to none for himself and his family?

****************************************************************

"Opinion, as Peter so clearly posted....is "incentivized", shaped by ideology, agenda, and anticipated reward. The proof is, as I keep coming back to, the fact that we as country, much more so than western Europe with the exception of the UK, are skewed so far to the right, but we still think we are "centrists". Militarized, "law and order", corporatism seems like "home" to most of us. Only six percent of the world population, but confining 25 percent of the world's prisoners....no problem.

Rabidly right wing religious fanatics openly infesting the military and shaping a "biblical" foreign policy, no problem:

The man who recently headed the pentagon policy board wrote this years before his appointment:

"Israel should insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the biblical land of Israel, the 1996 report suggested..."

No matter what the consequences of the dominance of our political and business culture by entrenched neo-fascism, there is no discussion as to whether a shift to the distant left side of center would be to our benefit, and the populist accomplishments of the French voters, influenced by their left leaning political ideology, is reflexively ridiculed, and never examined critically, even as 50 million in the US have no health insurance coverage and tuition costs for higher education become increasingly unaffordable."

On target, Tom.

Nothing like keeping the unwashed masses dumbed down, glued to their plasma screens, as well as easily accessed and gps'd through their damned cell phones, and late model, gas-guzzling SUV's. You, sure hit the nail on the head with that one. Bravo!

And, if this is considered to be an "atta boy" reply, then so be it! I could care less.

[Cliff Varnell]

If you've worn a dress shirt, undergarment,* suit coat, and tie, you know in your heart that it takes a couple inches of fabric rise above the belt line to produce the 1" (aprx. - I was being conservative) creased uprise behind the suit collar that I described.

David, with all due respect, you are grossly over-stating the mount of slack

fabric in a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt. And you are still significantly

under-stating the amount of elevated fabric required by the SBT.

Let's consult the expert on fine men's dress -- Alan Flusser:

CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS

(Alan Flusser) pg 79:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit

comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the

jacket...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six

inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around.

The "lines of the jacket" were even more important in the case of

John F. Kennedy, who wore a suit style called "Updated American Silhouette."

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-pa...-american-style

The main feature of this style was the "suppressed waistline" -- which meant that

the shirt and jacket were designed to fit "close to the torso."

So there is more than an inch of play in the fabric, and if you've dressed for

the public you've fretted over this stuff the way women used to fret over

stocking seams.

There's far more than an inch of fabric in play in a suit jacket due to the

simple fact that the wearer does not sit on the tail of the jacket, as he

does with the shirt. There is only a fraction of an inch of slack in a

custom-made dress shirt for the reason Flusser cited -- 3/4" to be exact,

according to a San Francisco shirt-maker with whom I've discussed the

issue.

JFK went through several earlier limo stops in which he made some more

animated motions than we see in film shot closer to Dealey, and he's animated

enough in the later footage to produce bunching as we see in the Jeffries film.

No need to speculate. Let's take a look at the photographic evidence and

see if your analysis holds water.

Here's a photo on Main St. about 2 minutes before the shooting, taken 30

seconds before the Jefferies film. Please note the position of JFK's jacket,

the fold in the back of the jacket, and JFK's posture.

The jacket rode up to JFK's hairline; the diagonal fold in the jacket was an

indentation; JFK was turned to the right and waved his right hand.

Right?

Now here's a frame from the Jefferies film. Note that the jacket rode up to

JFK's hairline, and the "bunch" is a bulge.

Here's the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston about

one minute before the shooting. Note the position of the jacket well below the

hairline, and the horizontal/diagonal indentation in the jacket across the

right shoulder-line.

Here are two frames from the Houston St. segment of the Nix film. In the

first frame JFK was leaning forward chatting with Nellie, and in the second

frame he had just sat back in his seat. Please note that the shirt collar was

not visible in the first frame, but was visible in the second.

So already we can see that JFK had knocked his jacket down in a matter

of seconds by first brushing the back of his head with his right hand (Weaver),

and then by leaning forward to talk to Nellie and then sitting back (Nix).

The jacket was knocked down again at circa Z178 when JFK turned his head

to the right and began to wave his right arm.

This posture is very similar to JFK's posture in the first Main St. photo: head

turned to the right, right hand waving. The indentation in the back of the

jacket is also similar, as we can see in Betzner #3 taken at Z186:

The back of JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in film and photos taken on

Elm St. The jacket rode up to the hairline in film and photos taken on

Main St.

It should be obvious, David, that the jacket dropped in Dealey.

I'm violating high rules of masculine stoicism to argue this, but this I do for truth.

Seems to me you're arguing that JFK's clothing violated the principles of fine

men's dress, and that dropping down is the same as riding up.

There's no truth in any of that whatsoever.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

If you've worn a dress shirt, undergarment,* suit coat, and tie, you know in your heart that it takes a couple inches of fabric rise above the belt line to produce the 1" (aprx. - I was being conservative) creased uprise behind the suit collar that I described.

David, with all due respect, you are grossly over-stating the mount of slack

fabric in a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt. And you are still significantly

under-stating the amount of elevated fabric required by the SBT.

Let's consult the expert on fine men's dress -- Alan Flusser:

CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS

(Alan Flusser) pg 79:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit

comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the

jacket...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six

inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around.

The "lines of the jacket" were even more important in the case of

John F. Kennedy, who wore a suit style called "Updated American Silhouette."

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-pa...-american-style

The main feature of this style was the "suppressed waistline" -- which meant that

the shirt and jacket were designed to fit "close to the torso."

So there is more than an inch of play in the fabric, and if you've dressed for

the public you've fretted over this stuff the way women used to fret over

stocking seams.

There's far more than an inch of fabric in play in a suit jacket due to the

simple fact that the wearer does not sit on the tail of the jacket, as he

does with the shirt. There is only a fraction of an inch of slack in a

custom-made dress shirt for the reason Flusser cited -- 3/4" to be exact,

according to a San Francisco shirt-maker with whom I've discussed the

issue.

JFK went through several earlier limo stops in which he made some more

animated motions than we see in film shot closer to Dealey, and he's animated

enough in the later footage to produce bunching as we see in the Jeffries film.

No need to speculate. Let's take a look at the photographic evidence and

see if your analysis holds water.

Here's a photo on Main St. about 2 minutes before the shooting, taken 30

seconds before the Jefferies film. Please note the position of JFK's jacket,

the fold in the back of the jacket, and JFK's posture.

The jacket rode up to JFK's hairline; the diagonal fold in the jacket was an

indentation; JFK was turned to the right and waved his right hand.

Right?

Now here's a frame from the Jefferies film. Note that the jacket rode up to

JFK's hairline, and the "bunch" is a bulge.

Here's the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston about

one minute before the shooting. Note the position of the jacket well below the

hairline, and the horizontal/diagonal indentation in the jacket across the

right shoulder-line.

Here are two frames from the Houston St. segment of the Nix film. In the

first frame JFK was leaning forward chatting with Nellie, and in the second

frame he had just sat back in his seat. Please note that the shirt collar was

not visible in the first frame, but was visible in the second.

So already we can see that JFK had knocked his jacket down in a matter

of seconds by first brushing the back of his head with his right hand (Weaver),

and then by leaning forward to talk to Nellie and then sitting back (Nix).

The jacket was knocked down again at circa Z178 when JFK turned his head

to the right and began to wave his right arm.

This posture is very similar to JFK's posture in the first Main St. photo: head

turned to the right, right hand waving. The indentation in the back of the

jacket is also similar, as we can see in Betzner #3 taken at Z186:

The back of JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in film and photos taken on

Elm St. The jacket rode up to the hairline in film and photos taken on

Main St.

It should be obvious, David, that the jacket dropped in Dealey.

I'm violating high rules of masculine stoicism to argue this, but this I do for truth.

Seems to me you're arguing that JFK's clothing violated the principles of fine

men's dress, and that dropping down is the same as riding up.

There's no truth in any of that whatsoever.

I'm bumping this up for the benefit of Craig Lamson.

He has dismissed the above analysis as "poor" -- but he has

neglected to make a case for such a conclusion.

[Robert Howard]

I wanted to post some thoughts on this topic, if for no other reason than the Don Jeffries post that initiated it. First of all, I agree practically 100% with the sentiments that Don expressed. I will add that I am one of the most vocal advocates of a large conspiracy, if that makes him feel a little bit better. [serious statement, but in a attempt to be a little more optimistic about the future]

I feel strongly that I can offer a concise explanation of why the fervency of the early years has been replaced by those who allegedly once believed in the concept of a conspiracy and have "seen the light," [he said sarcastically] without judging motivation per se, but recalling that the very business of living, working et cetera has politics in it. The assassination and subsequent controversy [LN vs CT, for the sake of simplicity] have obviously been not only no exception, but is exponentially larger. The demographic generation of today [17-45] has 9-11 and the whole issue of at least 45 years of a very real issue of partisan politics and underlying corruption in that same sphere to deal with, and sadly the JFK Assassination is to a great degree, not anachronistic, but a collective explanation in not black and white, but "grey," that whatever happened, whether a massive conspiracy or at least 2 gunmen or, for the really out of touch with reality, in my observation perception of Oswald did it. These two divergent groups will have one shared belief that the Warren Commission was a political approach to the investigation of the century.That belief is that it was so badly handled that there was a coverup at the very least after the fact.

The unpopular issue I will address is my viewpoint that those who were researchers who were pro-conspiracy were motivated by being politically correct and got tired of taking on the 700 lb. gorilla, [ie government/intelligence/media nexus] while I concede that some people may have had a sincere change of heart, I believe they are in the minority.

It will also be a very unpopular statement to say, but I am of the firm belief that the time passed long ago when the threads about the Zapruder film/blood splatter/real film versus fakery belong in as separate section!!!!! For the love of God, the simple fact that the swapping of insults, casting aspersions on the other's intelligence and so on, has done more to degrade even the appearance of professionalism on the Forum, than anything except the possible exception of flaming.

It would also seem that the novel? idea of how many copies of said film were made, and what facts regarding that area are known, versus what isn't known appears to be more than conspicuously absent, which to some of us who cannot see how arguing about the Zapruder film has a damn thing to do with resolution of unresolved issues regarding the who, what, when, why of a crime, that in my estimation is the turning point in American history from a country that had many moments of greatness, and was destined for more, and then imploded on itself in 1964. I do not believe many members of this Forum really understand politics, in the sense that there is a lack of understanding that Obama is already walking a tightrope on the issue of allowing former Bush administration officials to be indicted for torture, which is a campaign promise, I realize.

But look at what has happened to every Democratic politician that has wadded through the JFK waters.......Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Frank Church, George McGovern, Gary Hart.......ring a bell? Are you really so naive to think there was not a relationship between their wading through those waters and their perception by the media and right-wing politicians as psuedo-villains, If Obama goes there, his Administration will be most fortunate not to plunge into oblivion.

I wish I didn't believe that, but I sincerely do.......

American's who are not afraid of being called liberal have a lot of catching up to do to counteract the demonizing of that group, for the last four and a half decades.

What the research community needs are authentic historian/researchers that do not think of giving up in the fourth quarter. Not all of the abuse for being biased and partial regarding the "facts versus the fantasy" of the assassination are heaped on the believers of conspiracy, in many ways ordinary people are still really very interested in getting to the bottom of 1963, as long as its not filled with smoke and mirrors, we live in the age of the Top 10 redacted media stories of the year, both schools of belief regarding pro versus non conspiracy are aware of this, the onus is on the research community to deliver.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Robert Howard

[John Dolva]

Robert, I don't think you need to thimk yourselves out on a limb on your suggestion.

At the moment of writing there seems to be a number of related threads on the first page

four on imagery

three on textual discussions of evidence

one on a discussion of the research community

one on CIA attacks on the forum which could be argued to be related to the other single one.

These two could belong to a topic/section to do with the Education Forum.

If the Imagery and Textual were sectioned here on the JFK forum as sub forums then in each there would be up to five other prominent topics readily seen and overall there would be a better continuity. Each can readily refer to the other, but those with specific interest in one or the other would be presented with a wider choice and also specific disparate threads given more 'airtime' and coexist and overall progress would be favoured. (IMO). In each section one would be presented with a choice of nine topics on the first page, this is better than sometives not even one. If there is an attempt to derail fruitful discussions by flooding with one or the other, then such a move could to some extent counteract that.

edit: add: one problem would be the transition. Sorting everything.

Given the huge numbers of topics perhaps a simple way of sorting them would be to open the two new sections as a separate 'Topic' from the ''Important Topics'' and the ''Forum Topics'' and topics culled from the Forum Topics would gradually fill the two sub sections according to moderators combined descicions drawn from member comments. Perhaps IOW initially three subforums, a mixed, an imagery, and a textual.

Edited April 27, 2009 by John Dolva

[Robert Howard]

Robert, I don't think you need to thimk yourselves out on a limb on your suggestion.

At the moment of writing there seems to be a number of related threads on the first page

four on imagery

three on textual discussions of evidence

one on a discussion of the research community

one on CIA attacks on the forum which could be argued to be related to the other single one.

These two could belong to a topic/section to do with the Education Forum.

If the Imagery and Textual were sectioned here on the JFK forum as sub forums then in each there would be up to five other prominent topics readily seen and overall there would be a better continuity. Each can readily refer to the other, but those with specific interest in one or the other would be presented with a wider choice and also specific disparate threads given more 'airtime' and coexist and overall progress would be favoured. (IMO). In each section one would be presented with a choice of nine topics on the first page, this is better than sometives not even one. If there is an attempt to derail fruitful discussions by flooding with one or the other, then such a move could to some extent counteract that.

edit: add: one problem would be the transition. Sorting everything.

Given the huge numbers of topics perhaps a simple way of sorting them would be to open the two new sections as a separate 'Topic' from the ''Important Topics'' and the ''Forum Topics'' and topics culled from the Forum Topics would gradually fill the two sub sections according to moderators combined descicions drawn from member comments. Perhaps IOW initially three subforums, a mixed, an imagery, and a textual.

Thanks for your thought's, I certainly do not want anyone that is interested in the Zapruder issues to feel slighted, but I do feel I raised a valid point, that has been raised buy others.