Jump to content
The Education Forum

Josiah Thompson said:


Recommended Posts

"How then did it happen?"

"Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them.

It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it."

Josiah Thompson

Haverford, Pennsylvania

August, 1967

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.

In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.

In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.

Respectfully

Tom Purvis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy. The official, lone assassin story was completely demolished well over 40 years ago. Few people who aren't elected officials or mainstream journalists believe it. I'm not sure what Josiah was looking for here; I have the distinct impression that he now dislikes speculation of any kind. Evidently he felt differently then, and was encouraging speculation.

All critics have ever been able to do is analzye the official "investigation," locate ignored witnesses and interview them, pore over film, and try to make as much sense as possible of the mess the authorities left in the record. None of them, and none of us, will be given subpeona power or any kind of budget. With few figures connected to the events in Dallas still living, obviously any investigation at this point would be difficult, and there would have to be at least some speculation and theorizing involved.

Hopefully Josiah will share his present perspective on this with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I protest this new UNDERLINING of words in our writings not intended to be underlined by the author.

This is a new form of censorship and an infringement on freedom of speech.

Jack

I agree. Moderators, if possible, please get rid of the stupid underlinings of words. It really is quite a distraction and takes away from posts. It is such a practically worthless "utility" that whenever I come upon websites that have it I just cringe.

I mean it is just horrible. It adds all kinds of unintended meanings to posts and extremely annoying worthless web links.

What it really is is being spammed with worthless advertisements.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy. The official, lone assassin story was completely demolished well over 40 years ago. Few people who aren't elected officials or mainstream journalists believe it. I'm not sure what Josiah was looking for here; I have the distinct impression that he now dislikes speculation of any kind. Evidently he felt differently then, and was encouraging speculation.

All critics have ever been able to do is analzye the official "investigation," locate ignored witnesses and interview them, pore over film, and try to make as much sense as possible of the mess the authorities left in the record. None of them, and none of us, will be given subpeona power or any kind of budget. With few figures connected to the events in Dallas still living, obviously any investigation at this point would be difficult, and there would have to be at least some speculation and theorizing involved.

Hopefully Josiah will share his present perspective on this with us.

"It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy."

In event that one has intention of convincing the overall public that the Warren Commission is incorrect, then it remains the responsibility of that individual to provide factual evidence to contradict the (completely fictional) Warren Commission assassination scenario.

Otherwise, their speculative claims have little more credibility than does the Warren Commission's version.

Be those claims relative to how the assassination actually transpired or be they relative to the potential for a conspiracy in the assassination.

Mr. Josiah Thompson, long ago, provided one of the most factual (to date) books relative to the actual event.

Since that time, "new evidence" has shed additional light on exactly how the assassination transpired, and, as with an actual "Trial" within our Courts system, "new evidence" warrants a new look at what was presented as fact by the Warren Commission.

Especially since much of the Warren Commission evidence has now been long ago disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address.

JT

"How then did it happen?"

"Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them.

It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it."

Josiah Thompson

Haverford, Pennsylvania

August, 1967

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.

In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.

In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.

Respectfully

Tom Purvis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your post is a bit fuzzy-headed. The basic problem is not "speculation" but "advocacy."

No historian of the first rank has been willing to touch this case over the last forty-some years. Those who have touched it have often been lawyers. Their efforts have amounted to buiding a case for this view or that view. The result has been a cacaphony of various voices that has left the general public sceptical. Last night Rachel Maddow listed the Kennedy assassination with UFO's, the claim the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11, the theory that the U.S. never made it to the moon in the 1960s, etc. These were all grouped by her under the rubric "conspiracy theories."

The real distinction here is between advocacy and either scholarship or investigation. Over the last thirty-five years, I've helped numerous counsel build cases. That's what lawyers are paid to do. However, I also know that building a case is far afield from real investigation. Real investigation tries to get as close as possible to what is really out there... to what really happened,,,,warts and all!! This too is the aim of true scholarship... to find out what is really there and communicate it.

"Speculation" has little to do with any of this. I'm puzzled why you're "not sure what Josiah was looking for here." I have made a lot of dumbass, confusing statments in my life but this was not one of them. And how you get that the statement was "encouraging speculation" beats me. I'll just chalk it up to "speculation" on your part.

JT

It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy. The official, lone assassin story was completely demolished well over 40 years ago. Few people who aren't elected officials or mainstream journalists believe it. I'm not sure what Josiah was looking for here; I have the distinct impression that he now dislikes speculation of any kind. Evidently he felt differently then, and was encouraging speculation.

All critics have ever been able to do is analzye the official "investigation," locate ignored witnesses and interview them, pore over film, and try to make as much sense as possible of the mess the authorities left in the record. None of them, and none of us, will be given subpeona power or any kind of budget. With few figures connected to the events in Dallas still living, obviously any investigation at this point would be difficult, and there would have to be at least some speculation and theorizing involved.

Hopefully Josiah will share his present perspective on this with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night Rachel Maddow listed the Kennedy assassination with UFO's, the claim the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11, the theory that the U.S. never made it to the moon in the 1960s, etc.

I'll have to add Rachel Maddow to my Tom Hanks list. That's a list of people whom I can't stand to see or hear and whose media presence I will avoid at all costs to avoid getting sick to my stomach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I protest this new UNDERLINING of words in our writings not intended to be underlined by the author.

This is a new form of censorship and an infringement on freedom of speech.

Jack

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night Rachel Maddow listed the Kennedy assassination with UFO's, the claim the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11, the theory that the U.S. never made it to the moon in the 1960s, etc.

I'll have to add Rachel Maddow to my Tom Hanks list. That's a list of people whom I can't stand to see or hear and whose media presence I will avoid at all costs to avoid getting sick to my stomach.

NO! NOT Rachel, too! I sent Chris Matthews a message a few weeks back when he started comparing "birthers" to Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists. I tried to explain that "birthers" had invented a story--that Obama wasn't born here--and were ignoring all evidence to preserve their theory, while conspiracy theorists were trying to make sense of the actual evidence, e.g. that many witnesses thought the shots came from the front and many witnesses to Kennedy's body thought the wound was on the back of his head. That's a HUGE difference...apples and freakin' oranges.

But the mainstream media is unable to process this...simple freakin' fact.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah,

If you weren't asking people to speculate, what were you asking? Speaking for myself, I "made sense" of the evidence more than 35 years ago. It proves conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK, and that there had to have been some sort of conspiracy. What more could you expect average citizens, with no authority, budget or subpoena power, to do? I can guess that you'd call anyone speculating about the size and nature of the conspiracy to be irresponsible in doing so.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that Rachel Maddow is a LNer. She's a typical msm shill, who is enamored with Democrats, much like Keith Olbermann or Matthews, as opposed to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who are enamored with Republicans. All of them agree on quite a few things, first and foremost being a powerful hostility to any and all "conspiracy theories." I don't believe one can become any kind of mainstream "journalist" without at least publicly proclaiming a belief in the lone assassin fairy tale.

Instead of chastising me for being "fuzzy headed," why don't you simply elaborate on what you were saying in the quote this thread is based on? Please tell us how you've "made sense" of the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address.

JT

"How then did it happen?"

"Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them.

It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it."

Josiah Thompson

Haverford, Pennsylvania

August, 1967

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.

In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.

In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.

Respectfully

Tom Purvis

"Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address."

Received!

However, as those who are already on the "distribution list" will no doubt agree, it requires a U.S. Postal mailing address in order to accomodate the volume of (newspaper) publishing's generated to date.

Recognizing that giving out one's postal address is frequently not unlike giving out your SSAN, perhaps those who visit here and are already on the distribution listing may offer comments and/or criticisms as to whether or not what you would be receiving would be worthwhile or merely more "junk mail".

And, although my discussions with those such as:

1. Dr. J.T. Boswell

2. Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

3. Retired FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier

4. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Technician) Henry Heiberger

5. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Supervisor) John F. Gallagher

6. Dallas County, TX surveyor Mr. Robert H. West

Do not necessarily serve to indicate any "proof" of anything, it just may serve to indicate that considerably more time has been spent on doing my "homework" than have most who proclaim to know something about the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Tom. I just misread your post and thought you were asking for my email address. I just emailed you my postal address.

JT

Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address.

JT

"How then did it happen?"

"Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them.

It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it."

Josiah Thompson

Haverford, Pennsylvania

August, 1967

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.

In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.

In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.

Respectfully

Tom Purvis

"Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address."

Received!

However, as those who are already on the "distribution list" will no doubt agree, it requires a U.S. Postal mailing address in order to accomodate the volume of (newspaper) publishing's generated to date.

Recognizing that giving out one's postal address is frequently not unlike giving out your SSAN, perhaps those who visit here and are already on the distribution listing may offer comments and/or criticisms as to whether or not what you would be receiving would be worthwhile or merely more "junk mail".

And, although my discussions with those such as:

1. Dr. J.T. Boswell

2. Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

3. Retired FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier

4. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Technician) Henry Heiberger

5. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Supervisor) John F. Gallagher

6. Dallas County, TX surveyor Mr. Robert H. West

Do not necessarily serve to indicate any "proof" of anything, it just may serve to indicate that considerably more time has been spent on doing my "homework" than have most who proclaim to know something about the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here's the quote: "Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them. It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it."

Why you would think this is an invitation to people to speculate bewilders me? What I think I was saying is pretty simple: The Warren Commission report tried to reconstruct what happened. It has been shot full of holes. That leaves the question unanswered: What happened? That question gets answered as any historical question gets answered... by drawing together the extant evidence in a disciplined manner. The quote was simply setting the table for what I was trying to do in Six Secondsand had nothing to do with speculation. Obviously, I can't help it if you want to speculate about what I meant even when I tell you you're wrong.

JT

Josiah,

If you weren't asking people to speculate, what were you asking? Speaking for myself, I "made sense" of the evidence more than 35 years ago. It proves conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK, and that there had to have been some sort of conspiracy. What more could you expect average citizens, with no authority, budget or subpoena power, to do? I can guess that you'd call anyone speculating about the size and nature of the conspiracy to be irresponsible in doing so.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that Rachel Maddow is a LNer. She's a typical msm shill, who is enamored with Democrats, much like Keith Olbermann or Matthews, as opposed to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who are enamored with Republicans. All of them agree on quite a few things, first and foremost being a powerful hostility to any and all "conspiracy theories." I don't believe one can become any kind of mainstream "journalist" without at least publicly proclaiming a belief in the lone assassin fairy tale.

Instead of chastising me for being "fuzzy headed," why don't you simply elaborate on what you were saying in the quote this thread is based on? Please tell us how you've "made sense" of the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night Rachel Maddow listed the Kennedy assassination with UFO's, the claim the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11, the theory that the U.S. never made it to the moon in the 1960s, etc.

I'll have to add Rachel Maddow to my Tom Hanks list. That's a list of people whom I can't stand to see or hear and whose media presence I will avoid at all costs to avoid getting sick to my stomach.

I am very sorry to hear this. I knew that Chris Mathews suffers from a completely closed mind on the JFK case, but I am really surprised to hear that Rachel Maddow said this. Perhaps this can be changed.

DSL

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...