Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary


Martin White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh God Cliff.

I cannot believe you said that.

But you did.

Why should DVP argue with you on that?

All he does is watch you and Lammy go at it for years on end.

A false equivalency you could drive a motorcade thru!

You seem to think that Craig Lamson has a legitimate argument.

Care to reiterate the points Craig makes that impress you so much, Jim?

On this thread Craig has repeated the same hapless non sequitur like a broken record and Jim DiEugenio gives it intellectual weight??

Unbelievable...I discuss the case with Craig to demonstrate how weak his rhetoric is. He doesn't give Von Pein or Paul Baker any talking points. I guess you haven't caught on to that yet, eh Jim?

Do you think these guys don't cooperate with each other? And know who should take on who over what? That is why when I first got on here, Retizes showed up. DVP brought him on and himself. And they both had that phony excuse for not debating me on Len's show in hand. Do you think they didn't talk with each other to coordinate that mutual excuse?

Reitzes is their New Orleans guy. DVP didn't trust himself with me on Garrison. So Reitzes was brought in. I let him fulminate a few days. And then I started to go at him. And at him. Do you see him here anymore?

I argue with DVP about a wide variety of subjects. Which you never take on.

No, I prefer to cut to the chase. The T3 back wound/throat entrance wound leads in two directions -- the central mystery of the case (two wounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets recovered) and the initial Lone Nut cover-up coming out of the White House Situation Room.

I'll leave the rabbit holes in the case to you, Jim.

Fine. But my God, don't compare all the things that I do with you and the shirt.

I don't.

In words of Vincent Salandria, the clothing evidence goes to the core of the case. I don't waste my time with artifacts of the cover-up because we cut to the chase on that subject and go right to MGeroge Bundy in the White House Situation Room.

I just went over six things that all impeach Sturdivan and DVP on the so called "physical evidence".

Bollocks. The only physical evidence relating to the actual murder of JFK is the clothing evidence, and the Dealey Plaza photos.

You muck around in artifacts of the cover-up, sir.

I don't.

We all know about you and Lammy and the shirt. And have known for years. Or is it eons?

Nothing compared to the time Vincent Salandria spent pressing the clothing evidence.

You are impressed with Lamson's arguments, obviously.

Care to reiterate them, Jim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bollocks. The only physical evidence relating to the actual murder of JFK is the clothing evidence, and the Dealey Plaza photos.

My God Ciff, you have finally gone over the edge.

Excuse me?

I made a statement which corroborates the points you make below. Do you not recognize when people are agreeing with you?

This has nothing to do with me.

How is Ce399 directly related to the murder of JFK? It's a plant.

How are the head x-rays related to the actual assassination if they were faked?

No Jim, they're artifacts of the cover-up. Rabbit holes designed for research like yours.

Anyone who can write that has OCD.

Or someone who forgot about the Harper fragment. Other than that...only the clothing evidence and the photos are directly related to the murder.

Except in your case we know what its about.

I'm the first journalist to have used the phrase "hardcore punk rocker".

I co-formed the seminal hardcore punk rock band -- 7 Seconds -- (and their immediate successor band Section 8) and brought hardcore political punk rock bands into Reno Nevada 1980 to 1982.

The DIY ethic pioneered by the hardcore punk rock movement helped fuel the internet DIY explosion.

I hold a legacy in the history of American rock n roll.

So piss off.

That is it for me with you. I will now put you on ignore. You have become irrelevant.

Wow. That's fine by me Jim. I tend to distrust anyone who attaches the word "truth" to their enterprise.

The totality of reliable physical evidence, supported by eyewitness accounts of his doing what the physical evidence shows he did, makes the case against Lee Harvey Oswald an open and shut case. He murdered John Kennedy and Officer Tippit and gravely wounded John Connally. The [Mark] Lane myth of 'Oswald as Patsy' and all similar conspiracy myths merit no serious consideration.

The above--taken from the link to DVP's site-- really sums up who DVP is, and why it is crazy to try and argue with him. Here is a man who is so desperate for support of his crumbling view that he quotes, of all people, Larry Sturdivan. Without telling you that Sturdivan backed the now exposed bullet lead analysis for decades. And in fact, still does!

Yep, years after the scientific world has dropped this as "junk science" and the FBI has refused to use it ever again in court. Why? Because since the last time they used it, their agent almost went to jail. Yet Von Pein still trots out the guy I like to call "Crazy Larry". And he does this with a straight face.

Its one thing to talk about a body alteration idea.

A subject which relates to the cover-up of the JFK assassination.

But to say the physical evidence in this instance makes the case against Oswald "open and shut", now that is only something that a fanatic like Sturdivan, backed up by another fanatic like DVP could say.

CE 399 is a solid physical piece of evidence? Oh really. Except Todd's initials are not on it. And Frazier already had it before it was given to him.

So it relates to the cover-up of the assassination, not the assassination itself.

The new location of the head entry wound at the cowlick, this is solid physical evidence? Even though this means that since the head and tail of this bullet were allegedly found in the car, the 6.5 mm object (remember, its 6.5 mm) has to be the middle portion of the bullet, this somehow got stuck in the back of the head.

Now, let us think about this one. As the bullet is coming down through air into JFK's rear skull, it split in three. And this happened on the outside of the skull. The rear part, somehow elevated itself--sort of like Star Wars--over the middle, while the middle part somehow just stopped. Then the front and back of the bullet hurtled through the head and landed in the front of the limo. Even though the alleged exit for this bullet is supposed to be on the side of the head, above and to the right of the ear.

How nuts is this? Even Sturdivan said that its not possible! Another expert who said it was not possible is Donahue.

Given the highly conflicted nature of the head wound evidence, it constitutes a study of the cover-up, not the actual assassination. The number of times JFK was hit is a mystery, but not the central mystery.

Now let us go to another aspect of the sturdy physical evidence, the x rays and photos. In 1966 and 1967, the team at Bethesda that night was called in by the Justice Department and Ramsey Clark to certify that all the photos extant matched what they saw and took that night.

Sounds neat huh?

Except for one thing. When called before the ARRB this was exposed as perjury.

Right. The x-rays and photos are tainted -- although a case can be made for the authenticity of the neck x-ray.

For instance, people like Humes and John Stringer, the official autopsy photographer, actually said there were photos missing. There is a memorable passage about how these people all lied in the transcript. When Gunn asks him about going along with the tide, Stringer acknowledges that, as Gunn said, you know, some people don't. Stringer replies, well that is true. But they do not last long.

Let us continue with the Sturdivan/DVP crock of BS about the reliability of the vaunted "physical evidence".

Gentle reader, I'm confused. I dispute the applicability of CE399 and the head wound evidence to the actual assassination, and Jim D. ridicules me. But here Jim D is disputing the authenticity of all this evidence.

What am I saying here that he isn't? I know Jim won't respond, but since he's so nasty who cares?...

When Stringer saw the photos of the brain in NARA today, he was taken aback. He did not recognize the intactness of the exhibit. (BTW, this was a reaction by many witnesses.) But further, he said that 1.) He never used that kind of film, and 2.) He never used that kind of technical process. And when he was asked if he took them, he said no. Which leaves the question: Who did? And why?

Now, in typical Holocaust Denial reaction to this devastating evidence, what does fruity Davey say? Please sit down.

Stringer had a bad memory. Yep. that is it. In other words, we are to believe that Stringer somehow forgot the type of film he used for decades, and the process he used for the same time period. Sort of like an auto mechanic forgetting how he took off tires and hubcaps.

See, this is what I mean about arguing with these, what Dershowitz called, an exhibit, not a witness. And to this day, I do not know why he was allowed back on.

And what about Mantik and his optical density readings which show that the light transmission readings are so far off in certain aspects of the x rays as to be literally "off the charts".

How 'bout that artifact of the cover-up?!?1

How is this different from the point I was making -- only the clothing evidence and the Dealey Plaza photos relate directly to the actual murder

What about the dented shell found on the sixth floor? The likes of which no one could ever duplicate in that manner, and which Donahue never saw before. And which Chris Mills could not duplicate unless he did his experiment with an empty shell?

Yep Davey, that is some really reliable and sturdy "physical evidence" in this case. No rational person would be caught dead advocating it. But no one ever called DVP and Sturdivan rational. Far from it.

Why Simkin ever let him back on here is simply inexplicable. I guess he likes this Roman gladiator in the arena stuff. You know bread and circuses for the lurkers.

That's because he isn't in there doing it.

How does an historian single-mindedly ignore crucial physical evidence relating to the actual assassination?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A false equivalency you could drive a motorcade thru!

You seem to think that Craig Lamson has a legitimate argument.

Care to reiterate the points Craig makes that impress you so much, Jim?

On this thread Craig has repeated the same hapless non sequitur like a broken record and Jim DiEugenio gives it intellectual weight??

Unbelievable...I discuss the case with Craig to demonstrate how weak his rhetoric is. He doesn't give Von Pein or Paul Baker any talking points. I guess you haven't caught on to that yet, eh Jim?

Once again you display your complete and utter incompetence varnell. The SUN proves you wrong on all counts. That's a simple and unimpeachable fact. Its also unimpeachable that you have zero understanding of how the SUN even works.

Which is why you look so completely silly. Maybe you will have something intelligent to say when you finally figure out how the SUN works. But then again I'm not holding my breath thinking that will ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the main crux of the thread, how is this for a recommendation:

Simply ask people to re-watch the movie JFK!

I decided to watch this again with a couple of my kids (the "director's cut", ooh) and am amazed how well this film holds up. Back then, before the ARRB, this movie was able to put a fine point on at least 100 interesting facts about the case. Back then, I was a newbie and admired the movie for its dramatic elements (e.g., the DC exposition) and Stone's technical prowess. Over the years, I came to realize that the story was more compelling than I first thought and I would argue that most of us no longer consider it relevant. Even if we liked it, we feel that it's no longer current. However, looking back, I can see that this movie has all of the elements that we need going forward.

  • A well-made, richly produced movie that dramatizes most of the important elements of the case
  • An awesome cast (especially the likable Kevin Costner as the hero and the frenetic Joe Pesci as Ferrie)
  • A plot that stitches everything together into a workable, believable narrative
  • The places where Stone takes dramatic license are exactly the places where he should take dramatic license (e.g., Willie O'Keefe). Plus, he uses a fairly consistent practice of portraying the authenticity of elements proportionally; in other words, impressions are illustrated through innuendo and hearsay and facts are spoken of plainly and repeatedly.

Of course, some people will argue that the movie is over-long at 3:09, but I have a hard time believing that someone is going to do a lot better within that timeframe.

I have not yet addressed the goal of 50th anniversary actions, but how about we encourage our friends, families, and local schools to simply show this film again? It might inspire ARRB round two.

Sometimes the answer is so simple. I think you've hit the nail on the head, Tom.

Could we not begin a campaign/petition to get Warner Brothers to theatrically rerelease JFK for the anniversary? I'd be surprised if they've not already considered it. Maybe Jim DiEugenio could get in touch with Oliver and propose theidea of a new introduction and epilogue for the movie? Something that links the events of 1963 to the incremental decline of America over the last five decades and quickly details some of the answers the ARRB has given to us?

Back in 1991 and through JFK's video release virtually every friend/student I knew at home and whilst at university had seen the film and I distinctly remember many conversations I had with people about it. I believe the buzz that was created when it was first released could be created again especially if RFK Jr. becomes more vocal about his, and his father's, views and he begins to promote certain books that will get the public asking the right questions.

I think Tom usually hits the nail on the head. Although he is not a frequent EF poster, his comments are always thoughtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or someone who forgot about the Harper fragment. Other than that...only the clothing evidence and the photos are directly related to the murder.

If someone is going to be the face of JFK research shouldn't they know what "physical evidence" pertains directly to the murder of JFK, and what evidence pertains to the cover-up?

What does an inventory of physical evidence directly relating to JFK's murder look like?

1) The clothing evidence

2) The Dealey Plaza films and photos

3) The Harper fragment

4) The two "missiles" recovered at the autopsy (bullet fragments -- in my OCD I forgot that one, too)

What am I overlooking? CE399, the BOH autopsy photo and the head x-rays appear to be artifacts of the cover-up.

The MC -- it's an artifact of the cover-up.

Suppressed autopsy x-rays and photos -- they directly relate to the murder but the very fact they are missing indicates cover-up.

Everything relating to Oswald involves the cover-up.

I don't want to knock anybody but it seems to me a lot of people who think they are students of the JFK assassination are actually students of the JFK assassination cover-up.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not yet addressed the goal of 50th anniversary actions, but how about we encourage our friends, families, and local schools to simply show this film again? It might inspire ARRB round two.

That might be expecting a bit much, Tom, but we could certainly encourage people to share clips from the film on Facebook.

I like this one -- the presentation of the prima facie case for conspiracy, a debunking of the SBT trajectory based primarily (but not exclusively) on the low back wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a re-release of the film with a new introduction and an epilogue. Combine that with pressure to release documents, and throw in a little RFK Jr. Time to talk with Oliver Stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not yet addressed the goal of 50th anniversary actions, but how about we encourage our friends, families, and local schools to simply show this film again? It might inspire ARRB round two.

That might be expecting a bit much, Tom, but we could certainly encourage people to share clips from the film on Facebook.

I like this one -- the presentation of the prima facie case for conspiracy, a debunking of the SBT trajectory based primarily (but not exclusively) on the low back wound.

The more I think about it the more I'm on board with Tom on this one.

I nominate the above clip from JFK -- the presentation of the prima facie case -- as the face of JFK research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

{sigh}

This thread illustrates why the FACE of our reseach is not taken seriously...

Point by point DVP has an argument that MOST would find compelling... don't bother me with facts.

OUR government wouldn't let that happen....

Stone's JFK is not a documentary... there are sites devoted to nothing but showing the "poetic license" taken.

Loose Change is a documentary... Pentacon... etc. and is recent and relevant and deathly important... is it making a difference?

We'd like to think so.

CE399 - which I have always believed was never in DP... STILL has the c2766 rifle's signature... which then requires us to open that can of worms

and eyes glaze again...

Fetzer's project is called the "Oswald Innocence Campaign" - what happens when campaigns fail... and someone else wins...

The loser slinks off and disappears to history.... (and goes on to other more relevant conspiracies)

Damage to Fetzer's JFK presentation (which is as simple as reading the rest of Fritz's notes - the backbone of his argument - and finding he changed his clothes) damages the entire FJK effort... it back burners it as being "fringe" and lets Fetz sell MANY more 9/11 books, tapes and bobble heads

Fetz is winning this one... and it's brilliant. when WE trash Fetz's Oswald/Altgens, we TRASH the one product we are trying to put a face to.... he is forcing us to publically state that his Oswald Innocence is the RIGHT conclusion - which we KNOW it is - just from the wrong evidence... or get on the bandwagon, shut up and unify.

He (they) have now made it necessary to both discredit and distance ourselves from him... while proving his conclusion for ourselves....

Carolyn Arnold signed an FBI statement stating she saw Oswald walking past those same front doors at 12:25, after 12:20... and walk away.

We have discussed here... I personally have promoted the theory that the Lunchroom was a fable created by Baker/Truly and Fritz since they actually did run into someone, just not Oswald.

Yet if a Fable... where then was Oswald after passing the front doors and Carolyn's vision? Did he walk out the front door? Do we know what happens in the 20 minutes "someone" takes Altgens film and comes back with a photo?

The analysis of the image is not the issue... we know Baker's affidavit does not mention a lunchroom... written THAT DAY...

If it was Oswald coming down the stairs... it's a slam dunk - yet that's not where the testimony goes.... closing mechanisms, little windows... and a coke that gets excised... BY Baker.

Is it just a LITTLE more possible that Oswald was stading out front? I think Just as likely as Craig was right about Oswald leaving the way HE saw....

So round and round we go and the only one screaming "OSWALD IS INNOCENT - HERE'S {one reason} WHY" is Fetz.

Add his "probability" BS and the site and reasoning is a fiasco

So I ask again... WHAT is our product... WHY and WHO are we talking to?

How do we counter, "3 shots, three shells, his rifle" without it sounding like the DNA evidence at OJ's trial?

IMO... Oswald in Mexico makes or breaks it all...

If he WAS there, he was there involved in a conspiracy... not a LONE anything

If he was not... the CIA created the scapegoat 8 weeks prior to the killing

Hoover's letter on Dec 12th specifically states he was not / is not comfortable with charging Oswald alone based on MEXICO CITY FBI sources.. this is HARD evidence that is impossible to refute...

Nothing DVP or McAdams can say can counter that paragraph... or the simplicity of the logic....

The LNer cannot escape that Oswald HAD to be in Mexcio City on those dates.. for the sole purpose of arranging passage via friendlies back to Russia.

If that's not him in Mexico, "Oswald is a Patsy set up by the CIA"

Correct me if I'm wrong here... there simply is no argument that can overturn this conclusion and logic...

11:35 a.m. December 12, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. TOLSON

MR. BELMONT

MR. MOHR

MR. CONRAD

MR. DELOACH

MR. EVANS

MR. ROSEN

MR. SULLIVAN

Mr. Lee Rankin called from New York to check in with me on the matter of the Commission. He wanted to work out an arrangement with me which he thought might be satisfactory. He said he understood Mr. Belmont handled the investigation.

I told Mr. Rankin that Mr. Belmont, Mr. Rosen and I handled the preparation of the report and will handle additional leads as they come in.

Mr. Rankin asked how he should handle anything that comes up, things the Commission will want developed further, in regard to the FBI - whether they should be handled directly with me or somebody I would designate.

I replied that I will designate someone. I explained that I sent Mr. Malley down to Dallas to handle all of our angles down there; that he was on the ground there; and that I think he probably would be the man who would be more familiar with things Mr. Rankin should further explore. I stated Mr. Malley is in Dallas at the present time but will be ordered back tomorrow; that he will be available; and that we will be glad to run out any additional men as he may want.

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

Fourth, I stated I did not believe any conclusions concerning Rubenstein should be reached at this time because he has not been tried; that was why I suggested to the Attorney General of Texas - and understand the Chief Justice did too- that his court of special inquiry be held in abeyance until after the Commission makes its findings. I said I thought they would go ahead with the Rubenstein trial in February; that was why I felt our report should name merely the facts we have established.

I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr. Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation.

Mr. Rankin stated he knew we would; that he just wanted to

-2-

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 3

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

establishing it as a matter I should know. I told him not to hesitate to call me; that I will designate Mr. Malley and he will advise me at once of anything. Mr. Rankin then said he would get in touch with me if he thinks there is anything which should be taken up on that level.

I mentioned to him the actions of the Soviet Embassy, the Communist Party in New York, and John Abt is making available to us their information on Oswald.

I also discussed the operations of the Dallas Police Department in the case which led to the murder of Oswald.

I told Mr. Rankin the Department held the report about five days and then began to leak items from the Department on it, items such as the shooting of General Walker, things not known in Dallas; that I kept pressing them to get the report to the Commission; that a debate was going on between the Department and me; that I did not want any conclusion drawn but I thought a conclusion had been made in the letter of transmission to the Commission; that there would have been no purpose in appointing a Presidential Commission except to evaluate the facts; that it was the duty of the FBI to get the facts

and let the Commission reach a conclusion.

I told Mr. Rankin we would want to do anything we can here to make his job easier. He said he has always had complete confidence in that and in me.

Mr. Rankin inquired if anything had been done about seeing that the films would be preserved and available for the Commission. I answered that we have them ourselves; that we have films taken by private individuals; that the President was not being covered by a car with television people as they do here in Washington; that there was not a professional photographer where this took place; that the Secret Service car immediately in back had already passed the building, which was at an angle, with the result they couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. I mentioned the comment by former Chief of Secret Service Baughman that he could not understand why the Secret Service men did not open fire with machine guns at the window. I said the Secret Service men did not see where the shots came from and would have killed a lot of innocent people if they had done so.

In connection with stories indicating that Oswald could not have done this alone, I stated he was a marksman and it wasn't anything he

-3-

Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr December 12, 1963

page 4

Conrad, DeLoach, Evans Rosenm Sullivan

could not do; that we have tested it on our rifle range and were able to get shots off even faster than he did; that there is no question in my mind about it; that we also found the fingerprints and the bullets so conclusively fired from the gun; that we have all this and we have all the photographs.

Mr. Rankin inquired if we also have the television film run off of the shooting of Oswald, and I told him we have this.

Mr. Rankin said Mr. Malone delivered to him a copy of the report and also offered to help in any way possible; this was very kind of Malone; but he will not deal with Malone in anything unless it is some

emergency and he has to handle it locally. I told Mr. Rankin this was all right and, if he should need to call upon Malone, Malone would be available.

I also told Mr. Rankin there is a direct wire between the New York Office and here; that he can always place any calls to here over our wire; and that I will arrange for this.

I told Mr. Rankin to let us know if there is anything we can do.

Very truly yours,

J.E.H.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS...

Wasn't there a fairly successful movie 'bout Edgar recently...

something HE actually wrote might be interesting to publicize

HIS suspicions, given he HAD to know what was shaking in some manner, was either correct

or created by the CIA to appear correct... which is what we come to find to be true...

Specific members of the CIA at the time were creating the evidence against Oswald at least as early as late Sept.. evidence Hoover relied upon to make strategic decisions...

NOT necessarily evidence against Oswald as JFK's assassin... maybe to create bona fides for some other mission, some other infultration or scene to play out...

Yet evidence none the less which BECAME part of the BEST evidence implicating Oswald.

....

This seems simple to understand and present ...

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we speak of finding a viable "face" for the research community, who is it that we wish such a "face" to impress? Since the overwhelming majority of Americans have never accepted the lone assassin fairy tale, I think it's obvious that we're anxious to impress the mainstream media. If only we could find someone perfect to present our case to them....

I think it's awfully naive to think that we're ever going to unearth a Lois Lane out there- the stereotypical tireless reporter who will stop at nothing to get a story. The only reporters like this in the establishment press work for smaller organs and have no real influence. We're never going to win over the Anderson Coopers, Bill O'Reillys, Katie Courics, etc. We should have seen enough of these wildly overpaid "journalists" by now to realize they have zero interest in the truth.

Our best hope is that RFK, Jr. can perhaps influence Caroline and other Kennedy family members to go public with their own doubts. The msm will not ignore something like that, although they still won't cover this issue fairly.

To make any real impact, I believe it would take a huge "occupy" Dealey Plaza effort, with RFK, Jr. and other Kennedys front and center. I still think the msm would distort the coverage of it, but that would certainly be something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we speak of finding a viable "face" for the research community, who is it that we wish such a "face" to impress? Since the overwhelming majority of Americans have never accepted the lone assassin fairy tale, I think it's obvious that we're anxious to impress the mainstream media. If only we could find someone perfect to present our case to them....

What is "our" case, Don?

The JFK Assassination Critical Research Community can't reach consensus on the most obvious of facts -- JFK's T3 back wound.

We all share the conclusion there were 2+ shooters -- but other than that, "we" have no case to present.

Jim DiEugenio's Rabbit Hole Tour guides?

No thanks.

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...