Jump to content
The Education Forum

Can We Agree On A Consensus Statement Regarding Conspiracy?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Absent major objections it seems that a sufficient consensus may be achieved.

I'd like to separately address the diversion which is often alluded to but studiously ingored by some. In a way the point may have been facilitated by the diversion that kept the topic jumping back to the first page and gathering hits. At the same time the original poster, unless relinquishing such rights may get posts moved. It has happened before. When a person, in this case a moderator who certainly is welll aware of this, chooses to accept it then I think we, the rest of us, must respect that as well as trying to see the question is to some extent answered, which on this forum can take a long time if ever. I don't think that is a reason to attack some individuals and not others, iow, no-one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, let me preface my remarks by saying that I think your statement of unity reflects your good spirit and represents an admirable attempt. You know I respect your views and intentions,

However, when it comes to President Kennedy's murder, I have a lot of contrarian and cynic in me I guess.


Can we all agree on the wording in that statement? Call it a general press release if you like. If we could just provide a united front, and coalesce behind the central theme which I assume keeps us all coming to forums like this, then wouldn't we instantly become a more viable, powerful force to be reckoned with?

Whom do you mean by we? Members of this Forum? I don't believe at this point in time, any group will ever become a viable, powerful force to be reckoned with. Too much time has passed for that.

If we are any kind of real community, we have to agree on something.

I can't relate to the concept of a community but, allowing that there is one, how will agreeing on something change anything?

Yes, I could live with that statement as well. However, I really thought my original statement was about as pared down as could be, while still coming as off a strong declaration of collective belief.

The important thing, imho, is for us to reach a consensus.

Again, I just don't see how reaching a consensus will ever be possible. And even if it could be achieved, why would it be important?

I gave up hope long time ago that justice, or even historical truth, would ever be achieved. For me, I think it ended with what has been called The Last Investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Jim addressed your concerns pretty much as I would have. While there is no one group representing JFK assassination researchers, we've often been referred to as a community. A fractured, dysfunctional community, but a community nonetheless.

I think a statement like that would be valuable for anyone who gets a chance to address the public, via radio, television, or large circulation newspapers and magazines. I think the point that should be hammered home relentlessly, is "The assassination was never honestly investigated, and the official explanation is impossible." Don't be baited into providing a "theory," just explain that it isn't up to any researcher to prove what happened. It's enough to declare that the government's version of events couldn't have happened.

This is crucial now, because of the 50th anniversary, as Jim notes. We aren't going to really win with the mainstream media, as they are partisan advocates for the government's narrative, but we can at least try and be more effective in the limited opportunities presented to us.

That's why I was hoping to get people like David Lifton and Josiah Thompson to agree with this statement. They are the ones more likely than the rest of us to get a public forum on the 50th anniversary. I think they would be much more persuasive, and could disarm the msm "journalists" by initially making this kind of strong declaration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Jim addressed your concerns pretty much as I would have. While there is no one group representing JFK assassination researchers, we've often been referred to as a community. A fractured, dysfunctional community, but a community nonetheless.

I think a statement like that would be valuable for anyone who gets a chance to address the public, via radio, television, or large circulation newspapers and magazines. I think the point that should be hammered home relentlessly, is "The assassination was never honestly investigated, and the official explanation is impossible." Don't be baited into providing a "theory," just explain that it isn't up to any researcher to prove what happened. It's enough to declare that the government's version of events couldn't have happened.

This is crucial now, because of the 50th anniversary, as Jim notes. We aren't going to really win with the mainstream media, as they are partisan advocates for the government's narrative, but we can at least try and be more effective in the limited opportunities presented to us.

That's why I was hoping to get people like David Lifton and Josiah Thompson to agree with this statement. They are the ones more likely than the rest of us to get a public forum on the 50th anniversary. I think they would be much more persuasive, and could disarm the msm "journalists" by initially making this kind of strong declaration.

Mr. Jeffries

When you explain the matter this way, I can only respond by saying I support your statement 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During a recent appearance on the Alex Jones show, Richard Belzer, who is friends with Tom Hanks, shared an interesting story. Apparently, he was able to corner Hanks at a party and tried to set him straight about the JFK assassination, and Hanks I guess at least listened. However, the next time he saw him on the street, Hanks was quickly bustled away by his entourage, only barely saying hello to Belzer. I guess he was quite anxious to avoid the subject.

Tom Hanks isn't stupid. I'm sure Richard Belzer isn't the only person who has attempted to enlighten him about the evidence in the JFK assassination. We can only speculate about his motivation, but he can't honestly believe the official story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Jim addressed your concerns pretty much as I would have. While there is no one group representing JFK assassination researchers, we've often been referred to as a community. A fractured, dysfunctional community, but a community nonetheless.

I think a statement like that would be valuable for anyone who gets a chance to address the public, via radio, television, or large circulation newspapers and magazines. I think the point that should be hammered home relentlessly, is "The assassination was never honestly investigated, and the official explanation is impossible." Don't be baited into providing a "theory," just explain that it isn't up to any researcher to prove what happened. It's enough to declare that the government's version of events couldn't have happened.

This is crucial now, because of the 50th anniversary, as Jim notes. We aren't going to really win with the mainstream media, as they are partisan advocates for the government's narrative, but we can at least try and be more effective in the limited opportunities presented to us.

That's why I was hoping to get people like David Lifton and Josiah Thompson to agree with this statement. They are the ones more likely than the rest of us to get a public forum on the 50th anniversary. I think they would be much more persuasive, and could disarm the msm "journalists" by initially making this kind of strong declaration.

Don, if I ask you a year from now since the fiftieth has come and gone, what has changed?

1) What do you expect to be able to say?

2) What would you like to be able to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

In all likelihood, only LNers will be granted access to msm organs during the 50th anniversary coverage. Thus, my call for a statement is probably a moot point. However, I still think it's important for those of us who have devoted most of our lives to this subject to stop bickering with each other and try to coalesce into a united front. I think that can be done, and we can rally around a rather broad statement like the one I wrote.

So, to answer your questions, if the past is any indication, I expect to be disappointed over the 50th anniversary coverage, and to be reading more of the same kind of divisive threads I have bemoaned so often on this forum and others. I would like to be able to say that those of us who have researched this case extensively were finally able to set aside petty squabbles for the greater good, and for a much larger, common cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't Michael Moore do something for the 50th? He's controversial and may not have credibility with some people, but he can get himself heard, and surely doesn't believe the official story. Does he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

The fact is that there is very little actual research being contributed, to this forum, and in the wider society. Fact checking is also not what it should be. Oh, sure...there are folks trying to create/maintain an income stream out of this work, but there seems room to do more than hand wringing, nominating spokespersons, etc. How about adding finding and adding new details, new leads?

Publishing books, creating films, selling literature to tourists is all well and good, but how about digging and sharing, posting research on a research forum? How does it matter if I post that the question of Oswald's complicity should or should not be included in a statement issued by ??? and submitted to ?????. Baking and laying new bricks seems most appropriate in the 19th year and in the 50th.

I think one of the reasons the WC intended to seal the records of their inquiry was to keep as few questions from being asked to as few people as possible. The FBI responded to the testimony of Nancy Perrin Rich by seeking and compiling statements of a couple of California cops who both declared opinions that she was unreliable because she was emotionally disturbed. Imagine if people in the small Maine town Nancy came up in were allowed to read her testimony and then permitted to react to it on the record and in media reporting? Imagine if that had happened after the testimony of Earline Roberts, Mary Bledsoe, and William Whalley? The WC witnesses where not of backgrounds or circumstances as Marina Oswald's, who was separated by thousands of miles, language, and culture, from "her people," folks who knew here for years, knew her secrets, were her close friends. Yet, the FBI handled every witness as if they had no community background, only providing unfavorable details when they were needed to impeach a witness, or came up with nothing unfavorable if a witness tended to help end a line of inquiry. The FBI relied on confidential inquiries to sources such as local credit bureaus, cops, and employers. In their everyday lives, call me crazy, but I don't believe witnesses who come out of communities of ordinary people are in the habit of sharing their most intimate thoughts with credit records clerks, cops, or employers. Routing security clearance investigators tend to interview people like the ones mentioned in this article.:

http://newspaperarchive.com/biddeford-journal/1954-02-16/page-8

NancyPerrinStorkShower54.jpg

NancyPerrinStorkShower54B.jpg

Shower Compliments Mrs. Charles Wilson
Mrs. Charles Wilson (Nancy Mathews) was honored at a stork shower recently atthe home of Mrs. Lawrence Mathews. The hostess was Miss Janet Boissoneault. The guest of honor was presented with a number of gifts following which refreshments were served by Mrs. Mathews and Miss Boissoneault. Others attending were Vyrene Macomber, Mrs. Collemy, Mrs. Olive Gross, Louise Gaffney, Mrs. Tromblay,
Mrs. Florence J. ...son, Mrs, Fannie Gross, Sadie Bruns, Mrs. Marie ...Goldhwaite Contributing but unable to attend were Mrs. Arthur Boissoneault, Mrs. Jean Goldhwaite, Mrs. Nellie Haely, Mrs. Peck, Mrs. Doris Burleigh, Dorothy Peck, Mrs. Clara,,, doux this city, Mrs. I Belanger, Miss Cynthia C...ney, Mrs. Mary Peck, Saco, Earle Crowly, Biddeford, Mrs. Bearse Brown, Kennebunk, Mrs. John D. Ames, Jr., Mary Ellis, Dover, NH, Jennie Mathews, Mrs. I Livingston, Miss Dorothy Livingston, Mrs. Miriam J... Berwick, Mrs. John D....Somersworth, NH.

Maine, Marriages, 1892-1996 about Charles G Wilson
Name: Charles G Wilson Gender: Male Residence: Detroit, MI Spouse's Name: Nancy Mathews Spouse's Gender: Female Spouse's Residence: Saco, ME Marriage Date: 29 May 1953 Marriage Place: Maine, USA

....and really, while we're concentrating real hard on nominating spokespersons and drafting and issuing statements from the community,

how is the fact checking coming? Does it matter who reads the joint statement or what the wording is, if crap like this is sitting out there?

(This is not intended to be taken personally by anyone. It is the strongest example I could find to use to make these points.)::

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t215-nancy-perrin-rich-hamilton-promis

......

As shown by Mark Groubert, Nancy Perrin Rich became Mrs Hamilton when she married ex NSA/CIA Bill Hamilton.

Mark Lane interviews the newly wed Nancy Perrin Rich - now Hamilton.


Bill and Nancy and the INSLAW affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inslaw

It is a story weaves its way through corruption, conspiracy, espionage and affiliations with government/agencies and corporations such as IBM.

Nany Perrin Rich actually mentions IBM in her WC testimony, but then withdraws the comment...



How she could misremember being trained by IBM instead of Remington Rand is beyond me, unless she had dealings with both companies and somehow got confused about what she did with which.

Another area this story detours through is the Iran-Contra Affair - which happens to have been an affair in which Col L Robert Castorr also played a minor role.

Castorr is without any doubt, the colonel mentioned by Nancy during her WC testimony:

Mrs. RICH. At the first meeting there were four people present. There was a colonel, or a light colonel, I forgot which. I also forget whether he was Air Force or Army. It seems to me he was Army. And it seems to me he was regular Army. There was my husband, Mr. Perrin, myself, and a fellow named Dave, and I don't remember his last name. Dave C.--I think it was Cole, but I wouldn't be sure.

-----



The slightly built Castorr and his "mannish" wife at Buckingham Palace
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSIONATION/JFK-WITNESSES-SUSPECTS/Col-L-Robert-Castorr-and-wife-pic_12.htm

I would like to try and work out what - if anything - all this means in terms of the assassination and ongoing cover-up .

VS.:

Maine, Marriages, 1892-1996 about Nancy E Perrin
Name: Nancy E Perrin
Gender: Female
Spouse's Name: Stuart R Hamilton
Spouse's Gender: Male
Marriage Date: 1 Mar 1966
Marriage Place: Maine, USA
Certificate: 912

....and:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40644-2005Apr9_4.html

........

L. Robert Castorr Association Executive

L. Robert Castorr, 92, a retired executive with a number of business groups and a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, died April 7 after a heart attack at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.....

.......His first two marriages, to Dorothy Castorr and Gertrude A. Castorr, ended in divorce.....

Col. Castorr did not marry the woman pictured at Buckingham Palace until 1975.

Last I checked, if you are a researcher, picking spokespersons and drafting community statements is probably not a strong suit. When

we debate, discuss, challenge, we share research. The most reliable details should rise and be featured in these threads and in our members'

other work because the surviving details have passed the scrutiny of others in "the community." Back to work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

Unfortunately, I believe Moore does accept the official story. I saw him on an episode of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect several years ago, when Gerald Posner was one of the other guests. Maher,quite predictably, passionately defended the Oswald-Did-It fairy tale, and so did Jim Belushi. When the assassination was brought up, Moore didn't say a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

We don't need to uncover any more "evidence" at this point. We should be stressing, over and over again like a political talking point, that the official story is impossible. We shouldn't be drawn into providing answers for the msm "journalists" who will surely be skeptical of anything disputing the official narrative. We don't need to produce a "theory" for them to ridicule. We should just demonstrate effectively that their own "theory" is ridiculous.

This has been the argument of the LNers since the 1960s- "Where is the new evidence," or "I've seen no evidence of conspiracy." As Mark Lane used to reply, "What's wrong with the old evidence?" And as for fact checking, that only comes into play when people try to theorize. The facts demonstrate conclusively that there was a conspiracy. And as I've pointed out many times, the worst "fact checker" out there can't hold a candle to the dismal record of the authorities.

We shouldn't be expected to solve the case, but we can certainly demonstrate what didn't happen- Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy.

Even though all of the evidence points squarely at him -- rifle, bullets, shells, fingerprints, and witnesses (including the 12 Tippit witnesses), plus tons of other circumstantial stuff, like Oswald's own actions (and lies).

As I have said previously on various forums, it would seem that the MORE evidence there is of Oswald's guilt, the LESS guilty he becomes in the eyes of the conspiracy believers.

Isn't that remarkable, Don?

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Tom,

We don't need to uncover any more "evidence" at this point. We should be stressing, over and over again like a political talking point, that the official story is impossible. We shouldn't be drawn into providing answers for the msm "journalists" who will surely be skeptical of anything disputing the official narrative. We don't need to produce a "theory" for them to ridicule. We should just demonstrate effectively that their own "theory" is ridiculous.

This has been the argument of the LNers since the 1960s- "Where is the new evidence," or "I've seen no evidence of conspiracy." As Mark Lane used to reply, "What's wrong with the old evidence?" And as for fact checking, that only comes into play when people try to theorize. The facts demonstrate conclusively that there was a conspiracy. And as I've pointed out many times, the worst "fact checker" out there can't hold a candle to the dismal record of the authorities.

We shouldn't be expected to solve the case, but we can certainly demonstrate what didn't happen- Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy.

Don,

If you think our work is done, maybe this forum had outlived its usefullness?

A statement is a PR gesture. I am saying a much better use of our talents is to commit to getting it right. Another example.:

http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2013/04/book-review-hit-list.html

.....Another good accounting is the sudden death of columnist and TV game show star Dorothy Kilgallen. (My article on her passing happens to be the most popular article on this blog.)

http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-lonesome-death-of-dorothy-kilgallen.html

Finally...

In another curious episode, Kilgallen had given a backup chapter of book to her friend Florence Pritchett. She suddenly died a day after Kilgallen. The backup chapter was never found.

https://www.google.com/search?q=columnist+and+wife+of+ex-envoy+cerebral+august&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-nightly#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-nightly&hs=NrZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22New+York+JournaW:+American%2C+died+Tuesday+of+a+cerebral%22+august&oq=%22New+York+JournaW:+American%2C+died+Tuesday+of+a+cerebral%22+august&gs_l=serp.3...9886.10062.3.10254.2.2.0.0.0.0.140.204.1j1.2.0...0.0...1c.mXq6ptogTcg&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c59b70b009f6a2d7&biw=747&bih=482

New York Times - Nov 11, 1965

... Tile' New York JournaW: American, died Tuesday of a cerebral hemorrhage at herI ... her maiden name, Florence l Pritchett, had been in ill since mid-August.

jfk135h65j.jpg

I suggest instead of pursuing a consensus for wording of a statement, organize the members who have posted in this thread who are

not doing research to read and comment on relevant Spartacus pages. It is about how we look, not what we say. We need to get it exactly right.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19554&page=1entry272183

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

×
×
  • Create New...