Jump to content
The Education Forum

Do the under 60s need a new JFK forum?


Recommended Posts

Guest Gary Loughran

John I made it clear in my responding post what I meant. You have made up a fictional story about me that you cleverly morphed into an attack on your 'mental deterioration' and 'old fashioned values'.

I don't think being completely honest is something you value.

I think you are a shrewd and skilled operator when you set your sights on someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to this forum BECAUSE it had many elder statesman, so to speak, from whom I thought I could learn something. And I did. Several of these statesmen remain and have posted on this thread.

But there's another side to research. If one approaches the case with an open mind, one finds all sorts of avenues one might follow. Many of these lead nowhere. Many of these have been explored by others, only to be rejected.

But some of them have not been fully explored, and deserve exploring. Sometimes new evidence has appeared since the last time they were explored, etc. In any event, whatever the reason, some of the "over 60" crowd gets all high and mighty when a newbie re-explores what they have been told is a dead end, and refuses to take the elder statesman's word on it.

As a result, a young researcher, leaning CT, is likely to encounter as much resistance from his fellow CTs as from those on the other side of the fence. That can be quite discouraging.

As usual you make some shrewd comments. It is true that long-term researchers become “high and mighty when a newbie re-explores what they have been told is a dead end, and refuses to take the elder statesman's word on it.” However, there have been people like Bill Simplich who have done important recent research. But he avoids abuse by not posting on Forums like this.

The problem with JFK research is it is tribal. People get into groups and will then defend its members even if they are wrong. It also has a pack hound mentality. They attack in groups in order to keep individuals they disagree with from posting. There are several members who don’t behave like this, but there is not enough of them to change the atmosphere of the JFK Forum.

Young historians are not willing to get involved in JFK assassination research. It is a subject that has been largely ignored by professional historians. Not because they are convinced that there was no conspiracy, but because of a lack of reliable evidence. If there ever was documentary evidence of a provable conspiracy, it has long been destroyed. Therefore, everything is speculation. Historians are not very comfortable with this concept and are unlikely to spend a lot of time on this subject (it helps to explain why virtually every book written on the case, for and against, have been journalists, lawyers or amateur historians).

Historians concentrate on writing books based on available sources. Of course they do not always agree about the past. Interpretation of sources (or only consulting sources that support your theory). However, unlike books on the JFK assassination, it does not usually rely on speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 62 and remember the first book I read on the Kennedy assassination: Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas in the Occidental college library; then Anthony Summers' Conspiracy, and soon after that Lifton's Best Evidence. It was in reading Best Evidence that I was introduced to the unstable tectonics under the CT community. Lifton's thesis met with great opposition with fellow critics as it questioned their long-held animosity toward Humes et al. So rifts within the CT community are nothing new. The rifts take on a new life of their own as time goes on. In the late 90s the Z-film controversy divided many researchers, and does to to this day. Perspectives on Garrison became an occasion for harsh words. Lifton's work has continued to be a lightning rod for venomous condemnation by a few authors. There remain fissures deep within the research community because, as Thompson observed, the case is not converging to a coherent conclusion, and i would argue this is due to fraud in the evidence. The divergence of the case leads to small fiefdoms wherein authors working in a particular area guard that ground jealously, and express contempt if their opinions are not honored as they themselves think it should be. The point is, if the under 60s have their own forum, it will be as contemptuous of civility as sadly seems common to this case. Pride and egos will still take a toll. No, I'd rather we all be together so the CT community isn't fractured further than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"Young historians are not willing to get involved in JFK assassination research. It is a subject that has been largely ignored by professional historians. Not because they are convinced that there was no conspiracy, but because of a lack of reliable evidence."

Nope that is not why young historians don't get involved in the JFK assassination. The reason they don't is because the JFK assassination is an obvious coup d'etat with tractor trailer loads of information that support that. Lyndon Johnson and the military/CIA murdered JFK with LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Ford, McCloy covering it up.

Even 50 years later it is politically unacceptable in elite circles to state this obvious truth, this "false mystery" as Vincent Salandria refers to it.

The JFK assassination does much to discredit America and especially the folks that run it; the children of the murderers have family legacies to protect. These folks have large influences with MSM and the universities which are political.

JFK truth is a body blow to "American exceptionalism" as practiced by both Chris Matthews on the left and Sean Hannity on the right.

The lack of young historians tackling the JFK assassination has absolutely nothing to do with the vast bodies of evidence of a high level domestic coup and *everything* to do with the political incorrectness of telling the truth even 50 years later.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Telling truth is a central pillar of my own value system, it is noticeably absent from your stated 'old fashioned values' in your opening post.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

In my first response in this thread I feel I answered your question above.

John you took a simple tongue in cheek remark of mine and turned it into me attacking you on 'mental deterioration' and your 'old fashioned values'. I never directed, suggested or gave you reason to suspect any such things, ever!!!

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...