THE TWYMAN/FETZER SHELL GAME

[Greg Burnham]

Pat/Bill,

Thanks for your comments- I appreciate them. Of course, you're both right on many counts- we shouldn't accept any and all conspiracy theories and the critical community has always been fractured and prone to personality conflicts. I also should have specified Dallas law enforcement in general, not just the police. Pat's points about the early critics are all good ones. While many did speculate that Oswald himself was a shooter, and that the mafia was behind it all, I think that virtually all the major ones (the ones whose works we still read today) questioned almost everything and agreed Oswald was a patsy. I'm all too aware of Weisberg's antipathy towards Lane; when I was a member of Lane's Citizens Committe of Inquiry, we all joked about the "feud" between them. Weisberg was a cranky individual who was not the most pleasant man in person (during a long evening I spent with him in the early 1980s, he spent most of the time dismissing all other critics), but he was one of the most important researchers of all, and he also made an excellent case, imho, for Oswald being the figure in the doorway. That being said....

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't necessarily believe that two shells were found on the sixth floor. You may very well be right, and there were three shells found and no mystery here. I also don't necessarily believe a Mauser, and not the Carcano, was found by Boone and Weitzman on the sixth floor. I don't necessarily think there was a hole in the windshield of the limo, either. My point was- there are legitimate doubts about all these issues, imo, but there appears to be an increasing percentage of my fellow researchers who believe they've been definitely settled.

I usually agree with Bill Kelly, and I strongly concur with his view that there is plenty of strong evidence for conspiracy, without all these tangential issues. I also like the idea of Doug Horne's line in the sand, and I'm firmly on the coup side with him there. However, at this point, I don't know how many researchers would agree with us. That's what concerns me- if we keep giving ground on so many questions that are minor in and of themselves, for no apparent reason, then before we know it, there will be precious little left to build any case for conspiracy on.

I respect both of you very much and hope I've made myself a little clearer.

Hey Don,

I thought you were quite clear the first time and I agree with you. I didn't interpret your first post as a definitive claim about the items for which you were criticized and then chose to clarify in your second. But, that's just me, I guess. The important point in your overview, IMHO, is that it is counter-productive for researchers to conveniently declare "case closed" selectively, if and when a piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit their pet theory interferes with that theory prior to that piece being properly retired.

Without a doubt it's true that not every single theory ever advanced about this case is 100% true, but our task isn't to definitively prove which CT's are false. Our task is to demonstrate that one theory is false, namely, the official theory. It is the lone nuts' job to pick apart each and every CT -- it is our job to pick apart 2, the WCR and the HSCA, primarily. We would also be remiss if we didn't pick apart the many psycho side show productions that attempt to rationalize the incomprehensible LN pseudo-science.

I respect a researcher's right to focus on and retire bogus claims, be they CT or LN, as there exist plenty that are clearly out of whack. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Todd W. Vaughan]

“I respect a researcher's right to focus on and retire bogus claims, be they CT or LN, as there exist plenty that are clearly out of whack. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

“This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

Are you saying the Twyman/Fetzer claim that 2 empty shells and a live round were found in the sniper nest is not a “bogus claim” and is not “clearly out of whack”?

Pat/Bill,

Thanks for your comments- I appreciate them. Of course, you're both right on many counts- we shouldn't accept any and all conspiracy theories and the critical community has always been fractured and prone to personality conflicts. I also should have specified Dallas law enforcement in general, not just the police. Pat's points about the early critics are all good ones. While many did speculate that Oswald himself was a shooter, and that the mafia was behind it all, I think that virtually all the major ones (the ones whose works we still read today) questioned almost everything and agreed Oswald was a patsy. I'm all too aware of Weisberg's antipathy towards Lane; when I was a member of Lane's Citizens Committe of Inquiry, we all joked about the "feud" between them. Weisberg was a cranky individual who was not the most pleasant man in person (during a long evening I spent with him in the early 1980s, he spent most of the time dismissing all other critics), but he was one of the most important researchers of all, and he also made an excellent case, imho, for Oswald being the figure in the doorway. That being said....

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't necessarily believe that two shells were found on the sixth floor. You may very well be right, and there were three shells found and no mystery here. I also don't necessarily believe a Mauser, and not the Carcano, was found by Boone and Weitzman on the sixth floor. I don't necessarily think there was a hole in the windshield of the limo, either. My point was- there are legitimate doubts about all these issues, imo, but there appears to be an increasing percentage of my fellow researchers who believe they've been definitely settled.

I usually agree with Bill Kelly, and I strongly concur with his view that there is plenty of strong evidence for conspiracy, without all these tangential issues. I also like the idea of Doug Horne's line in the sand, and I'm firmly on the coup side with him there. However, at this point, I don't know how many researchers would agree with us. That's what concerns me- if we keep giving ground on so many questions that are minor in and of themselves, for no apparent reason, then before we know it, there will be precious little left to build any case for conspiracy on.

I respect both of you very much and hope I've made myself a little clearer.

Hey Don,

I thought you were quite clear the first time and I agree with you. I didn't interpret your first post as a definitive claim about the items for which you were criticized and then chose to clarify in your second. But, that's just me, I guess. The important point in your overview, IMHO, is that it is counter-productive for researchers to conveniently declare "case closed" selectively, if and when a piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit their pet theory interferes with that theory prior to that piece being properly retired.

Without a doubt it's true that not every single theory ever advanced about this case is 100% true, but our task isn't to definitively prove which CT's are false. Our task is to demonstrate that one theory is false, namely, the official theory. It is the lone nuts' job to pick apart each and every CT -- it is our job to pick apart 2, the WCR and the HSCA, primarily. We would also be remiss if we didn't pick apart the many psycho side show productions that attempt to rationalize the incomprehensible LN pseudo-science.

I respect a researcher's right to focus on and retire bogus claims, be they CT or LN, as there exist plenty that are clearly out of whack. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[Greg Burnham]

“I respect a researcher's right to focus on and retire bogus claims, be they CT or LN, as there exist plenty that are clearly out of whack. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

“This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

Are you saying the Twyman/Fetzer claim that 2 empty shells and a live round were found in the sniper nest is not a “bogus claim” and is not “clearly out of whack”?

That is correct, Todd. I think the photo is inconclusive and somewhat up for interpretation at this point. I certainly wouldn't claim I can tell for sure either way because I can't. So, it isn't "clearly out of whack"... and merely claiming that it is--for the purpose of denigrating Jim Fetzer and Noel Twyman--doesn't make it so.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[John Dolva]

The Shadow (on the floor board) Knows.

Edited May 25, 2010 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

The Shadow (on the floor board) Knows.

You are learning John....

[Jerry Logan]

“I respect a researcher's right to focus on and retire bogus claims, be they CT or LN, as there exist plenty that are clearly out of whack. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

“This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

Are you saying the Twyman/Fetzer claim that 2 empty shells and a live round were found in the sniper nest is not a “bogus claim” and is not “clearly out of whack”?

That is correct, Todd. I think the photo is inconclusive and somewhat up for interpretation at this point. I certainly wouldn't claim I can tell for sure either way because I can't. So, it isn't "clearly out of whack"... and merely claiming that it is--for the purpose of denigrating Jim Fetzer and Noel Twyman--doesn't make it so.

Greg,

You actually believe it's remotely possible that the the TSBD photo shows an unfired cartridge?

Jerry

[Bernice Moore]

Ah!

I put them in the ballistics thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=193465

Sorry Bernice.

ta da the lost have been found, they have found a home, well good for them, things happen no problem, b

[Don Jeffries]

Thanks, Monk. I have told you this already- but it's really great to have your voice on the forum.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks, Monk. I have told you this already- but it's really great to have your voice on the forum.

You're welcome, Don. It's great to be here since I got kicked off of the history channel! But, I'm in good company...