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

IIRC, David Lifton has an audio tape of Gaeton Fonzi's classic confrontation with Arlen Specter in 1966:

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

IF I have that right, it'd be great to have a transcript of the encounter released, and a short film re-enacting the part where Fonzi made a fool of Specter could be shot for peanuts.

Vincent Salandria helped prepare Fonzi for the Specter ambush -- maybe he could provide commentary.

What actor would play Gaeton Fonzi? Who should play the young Arlen Specter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.....And I should say, there are signs the propaganda war is beginning sooner than we thought. For example, Texas Monthly, just sent out a compendium of all their stories on the JFK case throughout the last generation to their subscribers. And this is barely February. They did a hatchet job on Armstrong a few years back and are notoriously bad on the case.

That article on John Armstrong appeared in their November 1998 issue, five years before Armstrong published his book.

http://www.texasmont...e/november-1998

Here is what one of their writers wrote about Jim Garrison in that issue:

Notwithstanding Kevin Costner’s noble portrayal of him in JFK, Garrison—the chief proponent of this theory—was a lying, attention-grabbing megalomaniac with McCarthyite tendencies who had been dismissed from the National Guard for mental problems. He tried to prove his theory by taking businessman Clay Shaw to court in 1969 for conspiring to kill the president. The resulting trial was nothing less than a circus. Garrison sought to prove his case with an array of peculiar characters, including a man in a toga identifying himself as Julius Caesar, a heroin addict, and a New York accountant who said he often fingerprinted his daughter to make sure she was not an impostor. The prosecution mischaracterized evidence and bribed, intimidated, and even had witnesses hypnotized. He ultimately said that there were sixteen assassins at Dealey Plaza, including the three tramps and a man who popped out of a sewer. Though he presented plenty of intriguing suspicions, he had few facts, and it took the jury only 45 minutes to find Shaw innocent of all charges. The New York Times later called Garrison’s crusade against Shaw “one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of American jurisprudence.”

Notoriously bad seems like an understatement

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just talking about this on DPF.

I think the movement needs a Jimmy Stewart character on board, someone with widespread trust levels who can do the opposite of what they did with Cronkite in the 60s and afterwards. Someone to rally behind or sponsor the community. After that there needs to be a guy with a widespread knowledge of facts & sources, almost to recall at will. To me that guy is Jim DiEugenio.

It would be good to have other specialists in other areas as stated, David Mantik, Jim Douglass etc. This is an ideal "batting order" but realistically there will not be the time to have all these guys on say, Leno or Good Morning America. At most you got ten minutes to convince someone or at least plant that seed. The last thing that is said has to be to point the audience in the direction of a book to learn more. Now - whether that's Destiny Betrayed or Unspeakable or something else, that's a whole other question.

Who is the Jimmy Stewart character? The anti-Cronkite? I don't know. It's more than 10 years since I lived in the States and I'm no longer familiar enough with the culture.

Martin

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

David,

Are you taking the piss?

Shall we do a quick test? Print off a copy of your last two posts and knock on your neighbours' front door. Ask them to have a read through. You can inform them that it will provide enlightenment in the JFK case.

After they've finished reading you could perhaps take a photograph of their faces and attach it to this thread.

{sigh} indeed.

Here's some feedback for you. I hope you take it well, seeing as how you're often quite quick in giving it out; what you have written reads like it's been put through an industrial food blender.

You write, "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..."

You then say "This seems simple to understand and present..."

I beg to differ. Your last two posts require a deciphering manual. The irony of all this is you claim that "the FACE of our research is not taken seriously" before you go on to weave together a series of paragraphs that can only be described as some sort of military strength cryptogram.

Thanks for the post Lee... you seem to be the only one I have heard from who cannot follow the post... Hoover knew, Hoover said so, Hoover then covered it up. Lee was NEVER a "lone" anything... for if he was, the CIA made him out to be anything but.

I wrote:

HIS (Hoover) suspicions, given he HAD to know what was shaking in some manner, was (WERE / Sorry Lee wrong tense) either correct

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

You do see this as a continuation of my previous post? They do appear back to back...

The info he has (both his own sources and the CIA's) suggests Oswald was NOT alone in the assassination OR the CIA is setting Oswald up to BE associated with "commies".... is there another conclusion here Lee?

Yet you make not a single comment about the MEAT of my post... HOOVER KNEW, HOOVER TOLD LBJ, HOOVER WROTE THAT MEMO TO HIS PEOPLE, EITHER HE WAS RIGHT and there was a conspiracy

or the CIA led him, ONI and State to believe there was, and leading thru Cuba to Russia...

I've shown friends the memo, the call transcript and shown them the CIA cables from Oct.... (I assume those here know the Cable I refer to so I did not post it - AGAIN)

No manual needed to understand at all... in fact - it's clear as day.

The FACE of our research is HOOVER, Lee. He KNEW there was a problem with Mexico City immediately... and he KNEW he could do nothing about it.

He BELIEVES there needs to be more investigation done and that the initial conclusions of the FBI report... HIS report... is, in essence, irresponsible.

You do not see how this memo is much more damaging than Katzenbach? It addresses each of the key aspects of the cover-up AND the conspiracy.... with the credibility of Hoover.

Add now the HSCA stating there WAS A CONSPIRACY....

Buddy, if you have a better way to say it, to get the message to the world... DO IT. Every other argument that I've read as the CRUX of the JFK Research community's is easily dismissed or made to appear ridiculous by the DVP crowd.

Have you seen ANY REBUTTAL to the Hoover Memo and LBJ conversation that allows for a different interpretation?

If my post itself does not convey this... I'm terribly sorry I did not express myself adequately. the passion though for this conclusion and presentation remains...

Offer me something else that PROVES Oswald was either set up or in a conspiracy... that cannot be easily refuted or misdirected away...

--------------

Lee,

Can you tell us what part of the following leaves the argument open to a rebuttal that can prove the opposite?

That Oswald was actually in Mexico City AND not connected to anyone during that entire episode.. a LONE NUT from day one just wandering around Mexico City for fun

I'm serious... and then add the CIA Alvarado memo attached. PLEASE find holes in the argument... if you'd rather red pencil the messenger... have at it... I only presented the idea for you and those with the skills to decide if the argument held the necessary water to make it one of the pillars of our presentation:

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"

JEH:

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 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.

AlvaradoCIA.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much Lee...

Very helpful.

Hoover and the HSCA both state a Conspiracy existed in simple black and white.

the CIA tells Hoover Oswald was in Mexico City - again simple black and white

Hoover and the HSCA tells us the WCR was premature, inadequate and simple wrong.... but was sold to the US public in any case.

Yet you want to take an hour and 100 thread pages to explain why Bledsoe didn't see Oswald on the bus.. or where CE399 was... or the story of the rifle... or Baker's affidavit vs his testimony, or, or, or ???

and THAT will prove our case.?? to whom will this approach prove our case Lee?

WE already know this.... Joe Street-Corner does not.... he KNOWS something is wrong... but cannot put a finger on it.

What if "Joe" KNEW Hoover agreed with them THAT WEEKEND. and said so to LBJ as well as wrote it down?

talk about {sigh}

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people dedicated to coming on this damn forum each day to try and debunk every critical argument that you can muster and they'll be trying to debunk them as quick as you can write them!

Or, when they don't actually have anything intellectual to add they'll heap on insults and repeat conclusions endlessly

Shall we all dismiss ourselves as being irrelevant because there are people out there writing complete crap about us? Jeez.

Thank you, Lee!

Trolls barking at the sun don't count. Insults and endlessly repeated non sequiturs don't count.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion was to campaign for Warner Brothers to re-release the film for the 50th Anniversary with a new marketing strategy including a new introduction and epilogue. If there is one thing that can truly get the world talking again about the assassination of John Kennedy it is Oliver Stone's movie.

I'm buying it. I think it's a far superior idea than cobbling together a bunch of experts. More and more I'm beginning to realize how many self-elected "experts" don't know the first thing about the actual murder of JFK, but can speak with authority on every last artifact of the cover-up.

This clip blows up the cover-up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you dare sit there and put words in my mouth, David. I think we both put up with that from other people so don't you damn well stoop to the same level.

You want to miss the point of my VERY SIMPLE post to you from yesterday, then fine. Knock yourself out.

- Let’s see… YOU don’t understand… YOU can’t follow and it’s MY fault? Whatever Lee.

You started off by your jumbled mess last night by dismissing Tom Fairlie's idea to begin promoting scenes from JFK as a possiblility in generating some interest in the case and you dismissed it by claiming it is "not a documentary." Who the hell cares if it's not a documentary? Other than the assassination event itself there has been nothing over the last fifty years that has come even close to generating the level of discourse that Oliver Stone's film generated. So stop with the "it's not a documentary" bollocks.

- Correct.. IMO defaulting to JFK the movie filled with composite characters and stretches of the truth, to me, sets us up for having to explain even more than our point… we’d have to explain why so many inaccuracies are presented as “fact peppered with poetic license”… I think that muddies the water and makes our task even harder… MY OPINION Lee… so sorry you can’t receive it without coming unglued.

And second… In the same vein as your reply… DON’T TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT WRITE… JFK was not a documentary… sorry to burst your bubble. And if you think the “level of discourse” is more important than what the FOIA results were FROM those motivated by movie… have at it. More people know the History/Discovery channel DOCUMENTARIES which show conclusively that Oswald did it alone, than “JFK” which doesn’t. Talk about Bollocks -

How many people read Jim’s ripping apart of “the Ruby Connection” versus those who saw it and believed it… or “Inside the Target Car” crap for that matter…. Name a Single “name” who now publically claims what JFK the Movie tried to show… versus the Hanks/Paxon/DeCapria’s getting involved in yet MORE PROJECTS to show Oswald’s Guilt and the government’s innocence.

You went on to support your dismissal by stating there are entire website's out there that are devoted to debunking the movie's content and theories. Again, so what? There are people dedicated to coming on this damn forum each day to try and debunk every critical argument that you can muster and they'll be trying to debunk them as quick as you can write them! Shall we all dismiss ourselves as being irrelevant because there are people out there writing complete crap about us? Jeez.

No Lee… we should examine our message and work to make it clear, simple and concise. We don’t even agree as a community on what the message is while Fetzer is plowing ahead with a clear statement, “Oswald is Innocent” albeit with the wrong supporting argument…. Pointing to JFK the movie and saying “there it is” accomplishes nothing.

Finally, do you have a link to a post from where I've claimed the following :

"Yet you want to take an hour and 100 thread pages to explain why Bledsoe didn't see Oswald on the bus.. or where CE399 was... or the story of the rifle... or Baker's affidavit vs his testimony, or, or, or ???"

Wow, how much self-importance do you give yourself dude? Did you not take 100 pages in a thread to prove that point with people who KNOW the subject? Have WE not taken page after page to present the complete story of why C2766 was not Oswald’s?

Again, so sorry that YOU cannot read that statement in the manner it was delivered… YOU, the universal YOU… If I had written “WE” maybe you would have gotten it? Your only reply to my post was {sigh}….

If you can't find where I've suggested we use the above previous threads and topics I've been involved in to generate "public interest" in the case then I'd request that you shut your damn mouth.

Angry and literal… helluva way to go about this. Believe it or not… this is really not just about YOU. If it helps you... I apologize for inferring that YOU specifically would take so much time to present our case... when you offer something other than the 189 minute long "JFK the movie" and the reams of supporting data needed just to explain why it is not REALLY accurate, fine.

The only suggestion I've made to generate real "public interest" is to use the only bloody thing worked for us in the past; the movie JFK.

And I thought that was not a good idea – that there is still too much in that movie for most to latch onto. That we needed something simple and unassailable…

IMO (In MY opinion) HOOVER documenting his concern over a conspiracy – and the HSCA publishing its findings that there WAS a conspiracy… is simple and provable with little room for argument. THAT was my point, always has been my point – and I am again sorry you didn’t see that and instead decided to make this a personal attack.

My suggestion was to campaign for Warner Brothers to re-release the film for the 50th Anniversary with a new marketing strategy including a new introduction and epilogue. If there is one thing that can truly get the world talking again about the assassination of John Kennedy it is Oliver Stone's movie.

Fine Lee. Let’s talk about the assassination and Oswald’s involvement. You have 30 seconds to make your point…(as opposed to the 3+ hour movie) to offer ANY STATEMENT YOU WANT that suggests Oswald’s innocence and/or the machinery of a conspiracy. Here’s mine:

===============================

J. Edgar Hoover was told by the CIA, and his own sources, that Oswald was in Mexico City planning his escape after being paid for and then killing JFK. (CIA cables) HOOVER told LBJ this within days of the killing. HOOVER puts on paper, in a memo to his Senior Staff, that we should NOT state in the FBI report that Oswald was alone:

“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 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.

15 years later the HSCA concluded that JFK was killed as a result of a Conspiracy. HOOVER was right. HOOVER was right from the start. Lee Harvey Oswald was NEVER alone. NEVER a Lone Nut…. the CIA made the entire thing up… and HOOVER knew it.

I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

=================================

Now Lee…. If there is something you can offer that is as clear and easy to explain as the Director of the FBI stating point blank that HE does not feel his own agency’s report and subsequently the WCR should come to THAT conclusion…

Post it.

Your condescension and lack of respect for what I know, what I’ve offered in the past and what I will continue to offer is alarming. If you can do better… do it.

None of this was ever intended to be a personal attack on you.

Watching the research community “leaders” build a 4 hour opera in hopes Joe Sidewalk – who can’t pay attention for more than 30 seconds - gets the message is a bit disturbing. Define the message Lee…. That's Marketing's first task. I claimed that not only has Fetzer done so, but has made it very difficult for the rest of us to both disprove his evidence while singing the same conclusion.

When YOU tell newbies/friends/neighbors that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, what do YOU say to help them GET IT? (btw – if you feel this is too much asking you to do something that you don’t want to or shouldn’t have to, that’s fine too. You owe me nothing of course. I’ve just NEVER seen a quality argument against Mexico or Hoover’s declarations…)

You?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion was to campaign for Warner Brothers to re-release the film for the 50th Anniversary with a new marketing strategy including a new introduction and epilogue. If there is one thing that can truly get the world talking again about the assassination of John Kennedy it is Oliver Stone's movie.

I'm buying it. I think it's a far superior idea than cobbling together a bunch of experts. More and more I'm beginning to realize how many self-elected "experts" don't know the first thing about the actual murder of JFK, but can speak with authority on every last artifact of the cover-up.

This clip blows up the cover-up:

Blows up the cover-up? Really? Please try to remember I'm on YOUR side Cliff... I KNOW there was a conspiracy and all this clip does

is confuse the issue. All I am doing here is what any of the known LNers would do....

-----------------------

And in 5 seconds DVP... heck, even Brian Walker could rebut this argument...

LOOK at where that image puts the two men in relation to each other and the limo

LOOK at the right to left angle across JFK... the actual one was 11 degrees....

Why remove the limo and its position on Elm? Cause we all know it shifts everything to the left... JC is further left ON ELM then JFK and they aligned much more directly with the 6th floor... just sayin.

Where does 1.6 seconds come from? (that answer alone will confuse the uninformed)

Why can't Garrison (Costner) get the entrance and exit from JC's wrist correct?

-----------------------

We must include ballistics, sounds, testimonies, interpretations, etc... to even BELIEVE what Garrison is saying... and he STILL doesn't present the info with enough context to understand it.

But it makes for a very nice scene....

Now Cliff...

HOOVER tells us he thinks there was a conspiracy and why.... he tells LBJ and we have proof. He documents his feelings in a memo for all of history to find. AND we have that as well.

We also have the actual cables from CIA about Oswald... no ambiguity there.

DVP is on the thread... yo, DVP, can you refute this:?

I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man. J. Edgar Hoover.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This clip blows up the cover-up:

Blows up the cover-up?

Debunking the SBT trajectory is the easiest, most effective way to puncture the lone shooter myth.

Really?

You can't rebut what the movie depicted in regard to the low back wound. So, really.

Please try to remember I'm on YOUR side Cliff... I KNOW there was a conspiracy and all this clip does

is confuse the issue.

How does a demonstration of the absurdity of the SBT trajectory confuse the issue?

All I am doing here is what any of the known LNers would do....

No, they don't engage with me. They rely on Craig Lamson to spew insults and gibberish about the sun. Otherwise, they have nothing to say.

The prima facie case for conspiracy precludes rebuttal. All they can do is blatantly lie about the evidence, so they do.

-----------------------

And in 5 seconds DVP... heck, even Brian Walker could rebut this argument...

I've been confronting DVP on the low back wound this entire thread and he says nothing.

There is no LNer other than our resident xxxxx willing to tell bald faced lies about the evidence.

LOOK at where that image puts the two men in relation to each other and the limo

LOOK at the right to left angle across JFK... the actual one was 11 degrees....

Why remove the limo and its position on Elm? Cause we all know it shifts everything to the left... JC is further left ON ELM then JFK and they aligned much more directly with the 6th floor... just sayin.

Meaningless details. The significant detail is the low back wound. Everything else is window dressing.

Where does 1.6 seconds come from? (that answer alone will confuse the uninformed)

Why can't Garrison (Costner) get the entrance and exit from JC's wrist correct?

-----------------------

We must include ballistics, sounds, testimonies, interpretations, etc... to even BELIEVE what Garrison is saying... and he STILL doesn't present the info with enough context to understand it.

But it makes for a very nice scene....

Yes, and since the initial detail concerning the low back wound is an unchallenged fact, a very effective scene.

Now Cliff...

HOOVER tells us he thinks there was a conspiracy and why.... he tells LBJ and we have proof. He documents his feelings in a memo for all of history to find. AND we have that as well.

We also have the actual cables from CIA about Oswald... no ambiguity there.

DVP is on the thread... yo, DVP, can you refute this:?

I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man. J. Edgar Hoover.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff brings up a salient point; with all the feuding that continues to go on within the research community, what consensus could we arrive at, what would we have any spokesperson argue?

I maintain that we need to keep it simple. Concentrate on the indisputable fact that LHO didn't do it, and that the official story is impossibly wrong. While I tend to agree with Cliff about the holes in the clothing being the clearest indication that no single shooter could have done it, I understand that ours is not the prevailing opinion among researchers. Perhaps an emphasis on how the crime was never intended to be investigated, with Katzenbach's November 25 memo and Hoover's early comments being primary sources for this. Thus, in my mind, I would have any "face" chosen emphasize the impossible nature of the official story and how the crime scene was corrupted, the chain of possession hopelessly muddled for all the key pieces of evidence, and most importantly, that the "investigation" was in reality a hugely flawed prosecutorial brief against the deceased Oswald.

Despite Lee's reticence about it, I do think an "occupy" Dealey Plaza would at the very least garner more attention than anything else the research community could do. CSPAN might well cover something like that, and if there was a lineup of knowledgeable speakers, then a lot of people would be watching them on television.

Most young people, born well after 1963, consider the JFK assassination a distant event they have no connection to. However, nearly every young person I talk to thinks there was a conspiracy. I think we limit our impact when we isolate the JFK assassination as an event unassociated with any other, when in fact a lot of us believe it was the beginning of the massive governmental corruption that has pretty much continued unabated until this day. The names may change, but we see the same witholding of evidence, destruction of evidence, violation of the most basic legal protocols and associated unnatural deaths in most of the truly significant political events since November 22, 1963.

The research community needs to reach out to groups like We Are Change, Russia Today, Infowars and many others. They are full of enthusiastic young people who would probably love to "occupy" Dealey Plaza. Don't worry about the personalities of Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura. They have a lot more devoted followers than any of us could hope to have. They are consistently stating the official story of the JFK assassination is wrong. That's really the only critical point, isn't it? Don't quibble about minutiae, embrace all the people they bring with them. As I said, you're not going to impress the Anderson Coopers and Bill O'Reilly's of the world, no matter how "respectable" you try to be. They aren't interested in the truth.

Treating the JFK assassination as the start of our slide into criminal corruption is the way to go, imho. If anyone has a connection to RFK, Jr. (maybe David Talbot?), I think he'd be the best possible "face" we could hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, thank you as always for your kind words. You're a true comrade in arms, my friend!

Cliff brings up a salient point; with all the feuding that continues to go on within the research community, what consensus could we arrive at, what would we have any spokesperson argue?

I maintain that we need to keep it simple. Concentrate on the indisputable fact that LHO didn't do it, and that the official story is impossibly wrong. While I tend to agree with Cliff about the holes in the clothing being the clearest indication that no single shooter could have done it, I understand that ours is not the prevailing opinion among researchers.

This is due to the vagaries of human nature. The clothing evidence isn't "sexy." It's pedestrian. Downright prosaic. In fact, "clothing movement" itself the operative definition of "commonplace."

It's the most common human-related event on the planet, arguably: Someone raises their arm casually and the fabric of their pliable upper body garment indents along the shoulder-line. How often does that happen on a daily basis on this planet?

Hundreds of billions? At least.

And yet all LNs and most CTs deny this occurred with JFK. They seem to think the opposite clothing movement occurred.

Go figure.

Another reason is because these researchers to whom you refer are students and authorities on the cover-up of the JFK assassination.

But, with all due respect, they don't understand the first thing about the actual murder -- the root fact of which is that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to have been associated with the throat wound, ergo the throat wound was one of entrance and thus a conspiracy.

A study of the head wounds is not a study of JFK's murder. Since there may have been pre-autopsy surgery to the head and so much of the head wound evidence is conflicting -- a study of the head wounds is a study of the cover-up.

A study of the autopsy photos and autopsy report and autopsist testimony is a study of the cover-up.

The MC and CE399 and the NAA are artifacts of the cover-up.

Oswald and everything related to him -- a study of the cover-up.

Z-film and body alteration -- studies of the cover-up.

A study of the actual murder involves the physical evidence related to the actual murder -- primarily the clothing and the Dealey Plaza photos. It involves a study of the throat and back wounds -- the only issues where the facts are clear-cut.

A study of JFK's murder certainly involves the witness testimony in Dealey/Parkland/Bethesda -- especially the testimony and statements concerning the back and throat wounds.

Such a study includes the properly prepared documents at Parkland and Bethesda in regard to the throat and back wounds.

The clothing evidence, the witness statements, and the properly prepared documents all agree -- low back wound, throat entrance wound.

The root fact of the T3 back wound/throat entrance wound presents us with a mystery: two entrance wounds, no exits, no bullets recovered during the autopsy.

Any study of the actual murder of JFK must focus on this central mystery. Otherwise, you're just mucking around in the cover-up.

I haven't read Destiny Betrayed yet, but given what Jim DiEugenio has posted on this thread, he seems singularly disinterested in these crucial issues surrounding JFK's murder.

On the cover-up DiEugenio is an authority, but as to the actual murder...destiny befuddled.

Me, I'm a man of the old school.

http://politicalassa...m/2012/11/1560/

"I told Specter that I knew there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy notwithstanding his single-bullet theory because the holes in the custom-made shirt and suit jacket of Kennedy could not have ridden up in such a fashion to explain how a shot from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, hitting Kennedy at a downward angle of roughly 17 degrees, and hitting no bone, could have exited from his necktie knot."
-- Vincent Salandria

The prima facie case precludes rebuttal. There is no fact-based challenge to the T3 back wound/clothing evidence.

But it doesn't preclude nasty insults and lame non sequiturs. Nothing could prevent that...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK did a great job in raising awareness. However its poetic licence (or inaccuracies, as DVP et al would say) mean that the full power of the content is lost.

If you considered JFK to be 95% accurate, it allows those such as Max Holland to expend column inch after column inch talking and focusing on the "exaggerations" "lies" "falsehoods" and "distortions" contained in the film.

We need an update of the Nigel Turner format with the information from the last 25 years. (Note I said format, I didn't mean involving Turner again). Something that can be played at the 50th and for years to come on cable afterwards.

Maybe the "Jimmy Stewart" anti-Cronkite could be the presenter?

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...