Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Plague on Both Your Houses


Recommended Posts

1) John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front and the round did not exit.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand the first thing, literally,

about the Kennedy assassination.

2) Why is it the people who are quickest to accuse others of being "government

disinformation agents" are the quickest to reflexively dismiss clear evidence of

CIA-connected complicity in the murder of John F. Kennedy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me you are approaching a topic of considerable significance tangentially. Believing there was a frontal throat-shot is one corolary proof of conspiracy; it seems to me, believing that Lee Oswald was innocent or a patsy is the axiom.

And you are correct in that trying to figure out who is a 'sheep-in-wolves' clothing' in the CT community can be counter-productive, at least to some extent. None of us likes to be sandbagged and have our time wasted by anyone who is intentionally blocking research. I tend to simply ignore the posts of some if I feel replying will just end up being a waste of time.

But the large issue is this -- we know from the past that there is an ongoing cover-up. It is not going away. In fact, it is ramping up for 2013. RH is already on the shelves; that monstrosity was supposed to have *closed* the case again. It did not; but the mini-series based on it is in production and will be heading our way before 2013, we can be sure. The WC apologist TV shows are already popping up; I was inadvertently involved in one of them, ITTC. The focus will be and is to wipe out 50 years of CT research by pushing the LHO acted alone theory once more.

So, perhaps we can take a step back and look at the process objectively. And keep moving things forward.

Minneapolis, MN (-10)

1.9.10

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me you are approaching a topic of considerable significance tangentially. Believing there was a frontal throat-shot is one corolary proof of conspiracy; it seems to me, believing that Lee Oswald was innocent or a patsy is the axiom.

And you are correct in that trying to figure out who is a 'sheep-in-wolves' clothing' in the CT community can be counter-productive, at least to some extent.

None of us likes to be sandbagged and have our time wasted by anyone who is intentionally blocking research. I tend to simply ignore the posts of some if I feel replying will just end up being a waste of time.

But the large issue is this -- we know from the past that there is an ongoing cover-up.

Pamela,

Yes, I agree there is an on-going cover-up, but it is a cover-up that has

taken on a life of its own. The people who espouse LN talking points

(LNs and CTs) really really sincerely believe the nonsense they

are repeating.

This is due to the vagaries of human nature. It's called "motivated reasoning."

I think a lot of researchers got into research with the goal of "solving" the

"Question of Conspiracy," and these researchers are going to deny any

prima facie evidence of conspiracy because they want the JFK Mystery to

continue until they can win it.

But as Vincent Salandria pointed out from the very beginning, the proven T3 back

wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

But that fact takes all the fun out of it for guys like John Hunt and Pat Speer

who want to do important work so they deny the fact that JFK was shot in

the back at T3. This affords them the opportunity to be the "experts" who

will finally crack the case!

There is a lot of this kind of glory seeking going on, frankly.

But I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of John Hunt or Pat Speer,

I just question their "motivated reasoning" for denying the obvious

well-corroborated and crucial fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3.

I have no doubt that Gary Mack is utterly sincere in his belief that

there is no hard evidence of conspiracy.

Employment is a great spur for "motivated reasoning."

It is not going away. In fact, it is ramping up for 2013. RH is already on the shelves; that monstrosity was supposed to have *closed* the case again. It did not; but the mini-series based on it is in production and will be heading our way before 2013, we can be sure. The WC apologist TV shows are already popping up; I was inadvertently involved in one of them, ITTC. The focus will be and is to wipe out 50 years of CT research by pushing the LHO acted alone theory once more.

So, perhaps we can take a step back and look at the process objectively. And keep moving things forward.

Minneapolis, MN (-10)

1.9.10

They've been pushing this nonsense for 46 years and 80% of the

public hasn't bought it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me you are approaching a topic of considerable significance tangentially. Believing there was a frontal throat-shot is one corolary proof of conspiracy; it seems to me, believing that Lee Oswald was innocent or a patsy is the axiom.

And you are correct in that trying to figure out who is a 'sheep-in-wolves' clothing' in the CT community can be counter-productive, at least to some extent.

None of us likes to be sandbagged and have our time wasted by anyone who is intentionally blocking research. I tend to simply ignore the posts of some if I feel replying will just end up being a waste of time.

But the large issue is this -- we know from the past that there is an ongoing cover-up.

Pamela,

Yes, I agree there is an on-going cover-up, but it is a cover-up that has

taken on a life of its own. The people who espouse LN talking points

(LNs and CTs) really really sincerely believe the nonsense they

are repeating.

This is due to the vagaries of human nature. It's called "motivated reasoning."

I think a lot of researchers got into research with the goal of "solving" the

"Question of Conspiracy," and these researchers are going to deny any

prima facie evidence of conspiracy because they want the JFK Mystery to

continue until they can win it.

But as Vincent Salandria pointed out from the very beginning, the proven T3 back

wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

But that fact takes all the fun out of it for guys like John Hunt and Pat Speer

who want to do important work so they deny the fact that JFK was shot in

the back at T3. This affords them the opportunity to be the "experts" who

will finally crack the case!

There is a lot of this kind of glory seeking going on, frankly.

But I don't doubt for a moment the sincerity of John Hunt or Pat Speer,

I just question their "motivated reasoning" for denying the obvious

well-corroborated and crucial fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3.

I have no doubt that Gary Mack is utterly sincere in his belief that

there is no hard evidence of conspiracy.

Employment is a great spur for "motivated reasoning."

It is not going away. In fact, it is ramping up for 2013. RH is already on the shelves; that monstrosity was supposed to have *closed* the case again. It did not; but the mini-series based on it is in production and will be heading our way before 2013, we can be sure. The WC apologist TV shows are already popping up; I was inadvertently involved in one of them, ITTC. The focus will be and is to wipe out 50 years of CT research by pushing the LHO acted alone theory once more.

So, perhaps we can take a step back and look at the process objectively. And keep moving things forward.

Minneapolis, MN (-10)

1.9.10

They've been pushing this nonsense for 46 years and 80% of the

public hasn't bought it yet.

Hopefully, you are correct that the public is even less gullible now than it was nearly 50 years ago when the govt tried to foist the WCR on us. As an historian, trying to move forward with research and being sidetracked and sandbagged for significant clumps of time over the last 21 years, I cannot help but attempt to analyze the agendas of the ongoing cover-up, at least as they seem to apply to the areas I am involved in.

You're correct too that there is a lot of grandstanding, and all of us have our pet theories which we sometimes take too much time defending; nevertheless, there are people or situations I have had to deal with that always end up spelling 'trouble'. And when I see them affecting someone else's research, I tend to pop in and try to define what I am seeing.

Hopefully, we can separate ourselves from anyone who just wants to bog us down and agree to disagree on some of the key issues, while appreciating that we are all working toward the same end; namely, vindication for Lee Oswald.

Some time ago I took offense when it seemed that Doug Weldon was getting witnesses to change their testimony about what they believed they saw at PH and in the WHG. I had no idea how much worse it would be to realize that there were people trying to shut down research on these witnesses and dismiss or discredit them. Yet that has happened. So I find myself much more appreciative of Doug's efforts in this regard, even though we do not see things the same way -- for at least we both realize the importance of these witness statements and will refuse to allow them to go into a black hole.

So, with those who are denying a shot to the back, it may be more valuable to agree to disagree with them on that point and move forward in basic unity.

As far as Gary Mack is concerned, I don't think he can be sincere about anything. He seems to be a mouthpiece who speaks what others tell him to. Why spend much time thinking about anything he says?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fellow Starnes enthusiast Paul Rigby would call me "fatuous" for saying this, but

I don't believe in Government Disinfo Agent bogeymen. Not in this day and age.

What about the guy who works the Nutter desk at Langley -- or on the Carlyle Corp

floors of the TransAmerica Pyramid -- and whose job it is to manage a team of think

tank types who post on JFK newsgroups and forums?

That guy on the Nutter desk believes that Oswald acted alone.

The think tank types like John McAdams believe Oswald acted alone.

It's like a religious faith to these people. Facts make no impression.

Same with the Grandstanders, people afflicted with what I call Young Researcher Syndrome.

These otherwise fine people are motivated by the desire to be seen doing "great work" in the

field of JFK assassination research. They seek to garner sterling reputations for being

Very Serious, and usually concentrate on issues relating to the head wound(s).

The problem ambitious, grandstanding Young Researchers have is that there are two

prima facie cases for conspiracy -- the low back wound and the throat entrance wound.

The low back wound demolishes the SBT and establishes 4+ shots; the throat entrance

wound obviously establishes a shot from the front and thus conspiracy.

Those with Young Researcher Syndrome will never -- I repeat, never -- acknowledge

the low back wound/front throat wound.

Why?

Because to acknowledge those facts forecloses opportunity to do "great work" in the JFK

Assassination parlor game I call -- "Answer the Question of Conspiracy."

How can an ambitious researcher "Answer the Question of Conspiracy" if it's already been

answered?

How can all those hours and days and years studying the head wound

evidence be meaningful and significant if the study is moot?

So Grandstanders always pooh-pooh either the low back wound, the throat

entrance wound, or both. Always.

I recently read over the parts in Praise From A Future Generation concerning

the Vince Salandria - Tink Thompson feud, and it clearly struck me that Tink suffers

(even today!) from Young Researcher Syndrome.

When Tink sat down with Vince in the summer of '66 to work on a magazine article

that would eventually turn into Six Seconds in Dallas, Vince had the case cold:

the clothing defects were powerful corroboration of the T3 back wound; the Parkland

staff almost uniformly described the throat wound as an entrance; the WC testimony

of Nellie Connally, Clint Hill and Linda Willis established the fact that JFK was responding

to throat truma well before the head shot.

At some point in his work with Salandria, I think Tink came to the sense (it may not have

even been a conscious sense!) that all he was going to get out of this collaboration was a

reputation for being Vincent Salandria's "caddy," in a sense.

Tink didn't want to be anyone's caddy; he wanted to play the game -- "Answer the Question

of Conspiracy."

So Tink did what every Grandstander does -- he pooh-poohed the prima facie case for

conspiracy, and went on to glory with his own analyses. A fragment from the head shot

exited the throat? That's about as ridiculous an argument as could possibly be made!

Does this mean that Tink was (is) being intellectually dishonest about the throat entrance?

You bet! But being intellectually dishonest is the most human of failings, and it especially

rears its head when it comes to employment opportunities (or romantic ones!)

But a "government disinformation agent"?

I don't buy it.

I've been dealing with Grandstanders for over a decade. John Hunt, Barb Junkkarinen,

Pat Speer, Anthony Marsh are some of the leading Grandstanders. All of them

pooh-pooh the obvious, prima facie cases of conspiracy and all of them are "expert"

in other areas.

I don't think this makes them bad people, just bad researchers when it comes to

making the case for conspiracy. It doesn't mean they don't do great research in other

areas of the case.

And it definitely doesn't make them "government disinformation agents."

It does mean, however, that they are selling out "the Cause" for their own self-aggrandizement.

Which is exctly what Tink Thompson did back in '66, in my opinion.

No, I think the psyop guys at the CIA realized fairly early on that the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Critical Research Community tended to schism, and the most incriminating,

consistent facts would be lost in all the poo throwing.

Which is exactly what has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does mean, however, that they are selling out "the Cause" for their own self-aggrandizement.

Which is exactly what Tink Thompson did back in '66, in my opinion.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I must disclose the view that every time

Cliff Varnell supports the False Equivalency meme by arguing the clothing evidence

as if it were a battle of equal opinions, he is engaged in an obfuscationary practice

and is selling out "the Cause" for his own self-aggrandizement and high amusement.

With every finger that points, three point back.

Like Tink et...I just can't help myself.

Now back to that Lamson thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

engaged in an obfuscationary practice

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world

think he didn't exist.

"Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..."

Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match...

http://originalsevenseconds.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

engaged in an obfuscationary practice

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world

think he didn't exist.

"Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..."

Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match...

http://originalsevenseconds.com/

I think I got you beat, Cliff. I was the indie buyer for a large music wholesaler with a 30 store chain of its own and had hundreds of meets, greets, and meals with members of N.W.A., Black Flag, Bad Religion, The Replacements, The Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc... not to mention folks like David Cassidy... Roadrunner Records considered me so helpful in breaking Slipknot they sent me a gold record plaque.

But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fellow Starnes enthusiast Paul Rigby would call me "fatuous" for saying this, but

I don't believe in Government Disinfo Agent bogeymen. Not in this day and age.

What about the guy who works the Nutter desk at Langley -- or on the Carlyle Corp

floors of the TransAmerica Pyramid -- and whose job it is to manage a team of think

tank types who post on JFK newsgroups and forums?

That guy on the Nutter desk believes that Oswald acted alone.

The think tank types like John McAdams believe Oswald acted alone.

It's like a religious faith to these people. Facts make no impression.

Same with the Grandstanders, people afflicted with what I call Young Researcher Syndrome.

These otherwise fine people are motivated by the desire to be seen doing "great work" in the

field of JFK assassination research. They seek to garner sterling reputations for being

Very Serious, and usually concentrate on issues relating to the head wound(s).

The problem ambitious, grandstanding Young Researchers have is that there are two

prima facie cases for conspiracy -- the low back wound and the throat entrance wound.

The low back wound demolishes the SBT and establishes 4+ shots; the throat entrance

wound obviously establishes a shot from the front and thus conspiracy.

Those with Young Researcher Syndrome will never -- I repeat, never -- acknowledge

the low back wound/front throat wound.

Why?

Because to acknowledge those facts forecloses opportunity to do "great work" in the JFK

Assassination parlor game I call -- "Answer the Question of Conspiracy."

How can an ambitious researcher "Answer the Question of Conspiracy" if it's already been

answered?

How can all those hours and days and years studying the head wound

evidence be meaningful and significant if the study is moot?

So Grandstanders always pooh-pooh either the low back wound, the throat

entrance wound, or both. Always.

I recently read over the parts in Praise From A Future Generation concerning

the Vince Salandria - Tink Thompson feud, and it clearly struck me that Tink suffers

(even today!) from Young Researcher Syndrome.

When Tink sat down with Vince in the summer of '66 to work on a magazine article

that would eventually turn into Six Seconds in Dallas, Vince had the case cold:

the clothing defects were powerful corroboration of the T3 back wound; the Parkland

staff almost uniformly described the throat wound as an entrance; the WC testimony

of Nellie Connally, Clint Hill and Linda Willis established the fact that JFK was responding

to throat truma well before the head shot.

At some point in his work with Salandria, I think Tink came to the sense (it may not have

even been a conscious sense!) that all he was going to get out of this collaboration was a

reputation for being Vincent Salandria's "caddy," in a sense.

Tink didn't want to be anyone's caddy; he wanted to play the game -- "Answer the Question

of Conspiracy."

So Tink did what every Grandstander does -- he pooh-poohed the prima facie case for

conspiracy, and went on to glory with his own analyses. A fragment from the head shot

exited the throat? That's about as ridiculous an argument as could possibly be made!

Does this mean that Tink was (is) being intellectually dishonest about the throat entrance?

You bet! But being intellectually dishonest is the most human of failings, and it especially

rears its head when it comes to employment opportunities (or romantic ones!)

But a "government disinformation agent"?

I don't buy it.

I've been dealing with Grandstanders for over a decade. John Hunt, Barb Junkkarinen,

Pat Speer, Anthony Marsh are some of the leading Grandstanders. All of them

pooh-pooh the obvious, prima facie cases of conspiracy and all of them are "expert"

in other areas.

I don't think this makes them bad people, just bad researchers when it comes to

making the case for conspiracy. It doesn't mean they don't do great research in other

areas of the case.

And it definitely doesn't make them "government disinformation agents."

It does mean, however, that they are selling out "the Cause" for their own self-aggrandizement.

Which is exctly what Tink Thompson did back in '66, in my opinion.

No, I think the psyop guys at the CIA realized fairly early on that the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Critical Research Community tended to schism, and the most incriminating,

consistent facts would be lost in all the poo throwing.

Which is exactly what has happened.

Cliff, I have a couple of questions for you re the throat frontal wound.

1. Do you also believe that their was a right frontal head wound?

2. If so, do you believe that it originated from the same weapon as the throat wound?

I believe that their was clearly a right frontal head wound which immediately followed a rear head wound. Hence, the rearward tissue and skull splatter.

I am agnostic as to whether the front head wound shot was made with a frangible round or with a traditional rifle round.

But, I have a hard time believing that a throat shot, made with the same high-powered weapon which was the source of the right frontal head wound, would not exit the neck.

I can easily see a throat shot made with a 38 special, for example, not exiting the throat, but not so with a rifle round or with a frangible round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

engaged in an obfuscationary practice

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world

think he didn't exist.

"Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..."

Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match...

http://originalsevenseconds.com/

I think I got you beat, Cliff. I was the indie buyer for a large music wholesaler with a 30 store chain of its own and had hundreds of meets, greets, and meals with members of N.W.A., Black Flag, Bad Religion, The Replacements, The Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc... not to mention folks like David Cassidy... Roadrunner Records considered me so helpful in breaking Slipknot they sent me a gold record plaque.

But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now.

That's the kind of job which will keep you young, Pat.

To what does the "breaking Slipknot" comment relate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, given the obstrutionist role that he has played for more than four decades

now, there is an alternative explanation, which is that this guy, who holds a Ph.D.

from Yale and makes his living as a private investigator, is actually INCREDIBLY

SLOPPY at research and incapable of self-criticism, even when his mistakes have

been pointed out to him over and over and over again. That's the alternative!

My fellow Starnes enthusiast Paul Rigby would call me "fatuous" for saying this, but

I don't believe in Government Disinfo Agent bogeymen. Not in this day and age.

What about the guy who works the Nutter desk at Langley -- or on the Carlyle Corp

floors of the TransAmerica Pyramid -- and whose job it is to manage a team of think

tank types who post on JFK newsgroups and forums?

That guy on the Nutter desk believes that Oswald acted alone.

The think tank types like John McAdams believe Oswald acted alone.

It's like a religious faith to these people. Facts make no impression.

Same with the Grandstanders, people afflicted with what I call Young Researcher Syndrome.

These otherwise fine people are motivated by the desire to be seen doing "great work" in the

field of JFK assassination research. They seek to garner sterling reputations for being

Very Serious, and usually concentrate on issues relating to the head wound(s).

The problem ambitious, grandstanding Young Researchers have is that there are two

prima facie cases for conspiracy -- the low back wound and the throat entrance wound.

The low back wound demolishes the SBT and establishes 4+ shots; the throat entrance

wound obviously establishes a shot from the front and thus conspiracy.

Those with Young Researcher Syndrome will never -- I repeat, never -- acknowledge

the low back wound/front throat wound.

Why?

Because to acknowledge those facts forecloses opportunity to do "great work" in the JFK

Assassination parlor game I call -- "Answer the Question of Conspiracy."

How can an ambitious researcher "Answer the Question of Conspiracy" if it's already been

answered?

How can all those hours and days and years studying the head wound

evidence be meaningful and significant if the study is moot?

So Grandstanders always pooh-pooh either the low back wound, the throat

entrance wound, or both. Always.

I recently read over the parts in Praise From A Future Generation concerning

the Vince Salandria - Tink Thompson feud, and it clearly struck me that Tink suffers

(even today!) from Young Researcher Syndrome.

When Tink sat down with Vince in the summer of '66 to work on a magazine article

that would eventually turn into Six Seconds in Dallas, Vince had the case cold:

the clothing defects were powerful corroboration of the T3 back wound; the Parkland

staff almost uniformly described the throat wound as an entrance; the WC testimony

of Nellie Connally, Clint Hill and Linda Willis established the fact that JFK was responding

to throat truma well before the head shot.

At some point in his work with Salandria, I think Tink came to the sense (it may not have

even been a conscious sense!) that all he was going to get out of this collaboration was a

reputation for being Vincent Salandria's "caddy," in a sense.

Tink didn't want to be anyone's caddy; he wanted to play the game -- "Answer the Question

of Conspiracy."

So Tink did what every Grandstander does -- he pooh-poohed the prima facie case for

conspiracy, and went on to glory with his own analyses. A fragment from the head shot

exited the throat? That's about as ridiculous an argument as could possibly be made!

Does this mean that Tink was (is) being intellectually dishonest about the throat entrance?

You bet! But being intellectually dishonest is the most human of failings, and it especially

rears its head when it comes to employment opportunities (or romantic ones!)

But a "government disinformation agent"?

I don't buy it.

I've been dealing with Grandstanders for over a decade. John Hunt, Barb Junkkarinen,

Pat Speer, Anthony Marsh are some of the leading Grandstanders. All of them

pooh-pooh the obvious, prima facie cases of conspiracy and all of them are "expert"

in other areas.

I don't think this makes them bad people, just bad researchers when it comes to

making the case for conspiracy. It doesn't mean they don't do great research in other

areas of the case.

And it definitely doesn't make them "government disinformation agents."

It does mean, however, that they are selling out "the Cause" for their own self-aggrandizement.

Which is exctly what Tink Thompson did back in '66, in my opinion.

No, I think the psyop guys at the CIA realized fairly early on that the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Critical Research Community tended to schism, and the most incriminating,

consistent facts would be lost in all the poo throwing.

Which is exactly what has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fellow Starnes enthusiast Paul Rigby would call me "fatuous" for saying this, but

I don't believe in Government Disinfo Agent bogeymen.

You're right, Cliff, but that wouldn't stop me buying a round, on the eminently reasonable ground that anyone who admires Starnes, and repudiates Lamson, is anything but a lost cause.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I got you beat, Cliff.

No chance, pal.

I brought hardcore political punk rock into Reno Nevada beginning in 1979:

formed two hardcore political punk bands 7 Seconds and Section 8 and infused

them with my political fervor; promoted Blag Flag twice in Reno in 1981 when

they couldn't get a show anywhere on the West Coast due to the violence

of their audiences...I could go on, but my innate modesty forbids it...

:ice

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fellow Starnes enthusiast Paul Rigby would call me "fatuous" for saying this, but

I don't believe in Government Disinfo Agent bogeymen.

You're right, Cliff, but that wouldn't stop me buying a round, on the eminently reasonable ground that anyone who admires Starnes, and repudiates Lamson, is anything but a lost cause.

Paul

And that wouldn't stop me from drinking it, Paul, with a round or two back!

As long as I don't need to drive.

:ice

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...