THE 12 WHO BUILT THE OSWALD LEGEND ( Part 1 )

[David G. Healy]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--OSWALD-AND-by-Bill-Simpich-100315-5.html

[William Kelly]

http://www.opednews....h-100315-5.html

Thanks for updating us on that David. I think Bill Simpich's series of articles are the most important things going on right now.

As for OpEd News, someone reposted my early review of Jim Douglas' book, and I got some emails from people who read it there.

But they rejected a book review I wrote of Doug Horne's IARRB, though they push Thom Hartman and the mob killed Kennedy angle with no problems.

When I recently tried to repost the Minister of Diz at DP from CTKA at OpEd,

http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html

I got this response from one of their editors:

I just browsed through the article. I have difficulty using the screens for editors to make comments, and I still don't fully understand the editorial philosophy of OpEd News. Obviously this article represents extensive work and documentation.

It is difficult for me to evaluate fairly since I happen to be convinced that Oswald was, in fact, the sole disturbed individual who shot JFK. Having been an adult when the assassination occurred I was able to follow the unfolding events.

At this point, almost a half century after the event, opinions have congealed. Just as there are those convinced that Jesus rose after three days, or that it is a myth, beliefs about the JFK murder are entrenched, and arguments are meaningless.

So, a given publication either becomes dedicated to this dialogue or it refuses such content. I read the FAQ on this site, and I don't see any new information on the event in this article. So I would vote that it be rejected.

[John Dolva]

If the rejction is based on a flawed understanding of the oped thingy and a browse and a look at the FAQ is sufficient for rejection it's the rejection that needs rejection. (imo)

[Christopher Hall]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--OSWALD-AND-by-Bill-Simpich-100315-5.html

Thanks, David.

This looks interesting.

I will try to read it (and the essay linked to in it, The Agency Which Spies on Its Spies) shortly.