Josiah Thompson said:

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, Josiah, we're quibbling over semantics at this point. You obviously know what you had in mind, and I don't want to badger you.

I would ask, however, how any of us can draw the evidence together to form a more coherent picture of what happened. Much of that evidence is missing, most witnesses are dead, and the previous "investigations" were not honest attempts to discern the truth. There are reasonable questions about the validity of some of the most important evidence we do have- the autopsy photos and x-rays and the films of the assassination (especially Zapruder). We all know how you stand on the alteration issue, but the fact that many harbor strong doubts about this most crucial evidence speaks volumes about the inability of the critical community to form a consensus on even the most basic elements of this case. Thus, can we do any better than speculate? Reasonable speculation hopefully, but speculation nonetheless.

The early books dissecting the official case, including yours, demonstrated how impossible the lone assassin thesis was. I guess the sticking point for me is what else anyone can reasonably expect to do now. I would argue that the discussions we have on this forum, minus all the name calling and juvenile behavior, is probably as close as we can come to bringing the evidence together and determining the nature of the conspiracy.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

Obviously!

You are unaware that many consider hearsay; half-truth; rumor; innuendo; and speculation as being factual items of evidence.

In addition to giving one the coveted title of being a "researcher"!

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.