Jump to content
The Education Forum

National Journal article on Dallas trying to shut up conspiracy theorists


Guest Robert Morrow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Robert Morrow

When I read stuff like this, I look around the JFK research community and realize I am surrounded by _____.

I know now why Mark Lane does not go to conferences and why Vince Salandria is contemptuous of microanalysis in the JFK assassination.

Any fool who has not figured out what happened by now and is begging the government for more documents really does not have my respect.

I just imagine some jackboot Dallas 1963 era fascist kicking a "conspiracy theorist" laying on the ground in a fetal position saying "But I only said I thought maybe there was some sort of conspiracy. I didn't say YOU did it! I just want to see more documents."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-last-stand-of-the-jfk-truthers-20131111

We have Barry Ernest dumping on people on the Grassy Knoll who are pretty much telling the truth. So does Ernest think he has a better understanding of the JFK assassination than the folks I have met selling their materials in Dealey Plaza? I have talked to those folks many times and every single one of them will tell you the JFK assassination was a high level domestic coup - which is pretty spot on.

Jeff Morley having to say he is not crazy.

John Judge with his little "Humpty Dumpty was Pushed" bumper sticker in the background.

Jim DiEugenio saying JFK 50th is the last chance to tell people the truth about what happened, .....

Debra Conway ...

Stuart Wexler - Ask him what happened on 11/22/63.

And Larry Hancock saying that if you actually do know what happened in the JFK assassination, then by definition you do not have credibility.

DiEugenio defensively somehow manages to put "Elvis lives" in a sentence with JFK research.

I prefer to link "Holocaust denial" with lone nutters. Get the drift?

I don't see why JFK assassination conspiracy theorists are so whiny and defensive.

It is not like they have anything to say, because I sure didn't hear anything credible in that article.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, just a short reply to you - most of us to not have the absolute, total, evangelical certainty that you do. Which means we leave you to your own views. I won't speak for the others but I personally believe your grand conspiracy driven by LBJ is just flat wrong and about as reasonable as - well as using Richard Nixon as a credible source on anything. Your truth is not my truth and I continue to offer a very specific explanation of the conspiracy and attack in Dallas, my own "truth" but still arguably a personal view. The people you mention in your post are simply trying to open peoples minds, you are dead set on insisting they and everyone else accept your personal conclusion. That in itself turns a good number of potential listeners off and they never go further. You clearly have the right to do that, just don't expect us to line up behind your campaign, well don't expect me at least.

One of the rules for the reopening of the forum was to take personality out of the dialog - something you either forgot or can't bring yourself to do. That's to bad and if the moderators want to take down the whole thread that's fine with me but I will not allow myself to be bullied in any venue.

-- Larry

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Robert, just a short reply to you - most of us to not have the absolute, total, evangelical certainty that you do. Which means we leave you to your own views. I won't speak for the others but I personally believe your grand conspiracy driven by LBJ is just flat wrong and about as reasonable as - well as using Richard Nixon as a credible source on anything. Your truth is not my truth and I continue to offer a very specific explanation of the conspiracy and attack in Dallas, my own "truth" but still arguably a personal view. The people you mention in your post are simply trying to open peoples minds, you are dead set on insisting they and everyone else accept your personal conclusion. That in itself turns a good number of potential listeners off and they never go further. You clearly have the right to do that, just don't expect us to line up behind your campaign, well don't expect me at least.

One of the rules for the reopening of the forum was to take personality out of the dialog - something you either forgot or can't bring yourself to do. That's to bad and if the moderators want to take down the whole thread that's fine with me but I will not allow myself to be bullied in any venue.

-- Larry

As soon as you get to the point of knowing enough to talk about it, you start losing your credibility, which is hard to handle," says Larry Hancock, author of Someone Would Have Talked: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the Conspiracy to Mislead History. "I don't know if history professors face that same thing; you'd think somebody who invested 30 years on Greco-Roman history is in the same boat we're in, but nobody questions, 'Well, sir, you must be obsessive, and you're only one who wrote a book on it so, wow, you're strange.' It's a challenge."

Actually, there is a lot of truth to the above. Because once one starts knowing enough to understand and articulate the JFK assassination was a full blown coup d'état at the highest levels - and that means Lyndon Johnson & some of the richest private citizens in America, and very high level military/CIA - then one loses "credibility" with the very establishment whose physical parents (for example H.L. Hunt, LBJ, GHW Bush) and social and political mentors were involved in the JFK assassination.

That is why I say the direct expression that the JFK assassination was a coup d'état is one of the most important things a person can do. And it is obvious the one verboten thing to say among the MSM and folks in academia like Caro, Dallek, Beschloss, Kearns Goodwin, etc.

James Galbraith just wrote an essay in which he implies that the JFK assassination was a high level coup about foreign policy. Then he quickly adds that his personal views do not matter. He actually said that - his personal views don't matter although he has read dozens and dozens of books on the JFK assassination!!

Galbraith is self censoring himself and he is most definitely pre-censoring himself in response to the "bullying" by the establishment whose faces would immediately turn red if Galbraith flat out said what he surely must think: JFK assassination a high level domestic coup d'état over foreign policy.

So there is a lot of bullying going on. Been going on for 50 years. The truth is so discrediting to America.

A note on Nixon. What do we know about Nixon? That his chief of staff says that his code for the JFK assassination was the "whole Bay of Pigs thing." That he would often tell people (Howard Baker, Roger Stone) that you don't want to know what I know about the JFK assassination. That he would tell Roger Stone "Lyndon Johnson and I both wanted to be president. The only difference was a wasn't going to kill for it." That when Stone would pressure Nixon on who really killed JFK, Nixon would just shiver and say "Texas!"

And most critically, that Richard Nixon recognized from Day 3 that Jack Ruby was a "Lyndon Johnson man" from the 1940's who LBJ had requested be made a paid informant of the House Un-American Activities Committee. That, of course, is blockbuster news: an LBJ mafia man murdering the patsy of the JFK assassination.

Larry, I know you wrote a book called Someone Would Have Talked and you left out Madeleine Brown, Billie Sol Estes and CIA officer E. Howard Hunt who flat out said LBJ and the CIA were involved in the JFK assassination. And now you are pooh poohing Roger Stone who, unlike you or me, had close personal relationships with Richard Nixon and John Davis Lodge. Stone was getting a heavy dose of "LBJ Did It" from the highest levels of the GOP of that era.

Which is your prerogative. And my prerogative is to state, somewhat like Salandria that the JFK assassination was a blatant high level coup d'état from the very highest levels. Jim DiEugenio thinks Allen Dulles did it.

We also know Nixon told his fundraiser Maurice Stans to never, ever take any money from H.L. Hunt. Now that is screaming red flag if I ever saw one - a conservative politician turning down Texas oil money.

A few years ago I interviewed Jeffrey Hoff at JFK Lancer. We were sitting right in front of Debra Conway in the hallway of the Adolphus. Hoff told me that at a Republican BBQ in October, 1973 that he had personally spoken to Barry Goldwater about the JFK assassination. Hoff told me, while Conway was literally standing feet away, that Goldwater was absolutely adamant to him that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. Still more blockbuster material indicting Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination.

The "LBJ Did It" folks know LBJ did it. There ain't know if, ands or buts about it. They know it.

Even Salandria, who is worthy of respect, refuses to name high level people who were obviously involved in the JFK assassination - which I think is more self censorship and a response to the "bullying."

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your over-all point is worth discussing, Robert, but that your specific comments about individual researchers is mean-spirited. If you can edit your first post to remove these specific comments, the thread can be salvaged. If you refuse to do so, well, then, I suspect I'll be forced to edit out most everything but the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rarely respond in forums such as this, Mr. Morrow’s tone and denigrating style representing an obvious reason why.

In this instance, however, I have been accused of “…dumping on people on the Grassy Knoll who are pretty much telling the truth.” This assessment by Mr. Morrow was made from his interpretation of my comments in a recent National Journal article titled, “The Last Stand of the JFK Truthers.” Ironically, a portion of that piece deals with unflattering attitudes within the JFK research community, a group the reporter accurately describes as “…a fractious, infighting family.”

To set the record straight, and as anyone who has read my book firmly knows, I have gone to great lengths in order to determine truths in this ever-expanding mess we call the crime of the century. I have always admired and supported those who tend to speak of such things. Therefore, if these “people on the Grassy Knoll” were indeed telling truths, I would have absolutely no reason to “dump” upon them.

But we are not talking here about the John Judges and the Debra Conways and the Robert Grodens. And therein lies the difference.

When someone rudely confronts me as I walk down Elm Street, saying I “need” to buy his five-buck, grocery-store-type, mass-produced newsletter if I really want to understand the “truth” of this land – that “without any doubt whatsoever” it was Oswald in the doorway, and that the shots came from everywhere, “including the trees” – then I object. His motive is not truth; his motive is to go home that day with pockets lined in cash.

When another proclaims he just got off work as a “tour guide” at the Sixth Floor Museum (Gary Mack never heard of him) but is still willing to spend some time and discuss with me “the facts” of what went on in Dealey Plaza – like Oswald watching the motorcade from a “first-floor lunchroom window,” and “clear evidence” of a shooter hanging from the Hertz Rent-A-Car sign atop the Depository –then I object. His motive is not truth, but an Oscar-nominating attempt toward earning the “$10 donation” he seeks for his efforts.

Unlike Mr. Morrow, I do not find "those folks" credible. Nor do I perceive them to be "pretty spot on" with any theory they may endorse, even if it happens to be one of my liking.

And that is what I meant when I said in the National Journal, “There are a lot of hucksters roaming the area, coming up to tourists and selling tabloid papers and a lot of disinformation.” And that is what Mr. Morrow misunderstood. The keyword was hucksters. The definition is, to promote by showmanship. As clearly stated in the Journal article, that is precisely the kind of activity that I feel should be eliminated from Dealey Plaza, not only for the upcoming commemorative events, but forever.

In my humble opinion, the credibility of a researcher embroiled in this particular subject is based on his/her ability to realize that at least up until right now, a final solution to an absolute certainty is simply not possible, despite what others may say in support of your own unvarying agenda. No less a researcher than Harold Weisberg expressed this very worthy sentiment: that speculation, conjecture and theory are simply that, and nothing more.

And therein lies the difference.

Edited by Barry Ernest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given Barry's rational and restrained comment I decided against my better judgement to make a couple of final observations about the article and comments Robert posted.

First, note the title of the article:

"The Last Stand of the JFK Truthers - Dallas plans to memorialize the fallen president on the 50th anniversary of his death, and the conspiracy theorists aren't invited."

The article is about the city of Dallas and its activities on the anniversary. That subject was the focus of something on the order of 30 mins time with the author and her interest was

in our message about conspiracy has been received and why it continues to be marginalized. She also wanted to discuss the frustrations of researchers who have been at this a very

long time and to some extent why we continue given the response we get from the mainstream - not to mention the city of Dallas. My comments as well as the others need to be read in

context of the articles thrust.

But I will go a bit further, in my comments I was definitely trying to convey the frustration that if one spends too much time on it, accumulates to many detail and is willing to go into

extreme detail on sources and studies - people begin to categorize you, unfairly I think, but it happens.

In regards to Robert's other comment:

"Larry, I know you wrote a book called Someone Would Have Talked and you left out Madeleine Brown, Billie Sol Estes and CIA officer E. Howard Hunt who flat out said LBJ and the CIA were involved in the JFK assassination. And now you are pooh poohing Roger Stone who, unlike you or me, had close personal relationships with Richard Nixon and John Davis Lodge. Stone was getting a heavy dose of "LBJ Did It" from the highest levels of the GOP of that era."

Yes I did write a SWHT but years before that I helped fund publication of Madeleine Browns book, I also drafted a book length manuscript centered around a Johnson based conspiracy - some of my early essays relating to Johnson are still on this web site. And then after further extensive study I tossed it as being essentially flawed. If Robert had my original book November Patriots he would find an essay Madeleine wrote for me in the book. Its really not like I have ignored LBJ, you will find him in several chapters in SWHT with extensive material from Debra Conway. As far as Howard Hunt, his analysis of his story is in the final chapter of my 2010 edition. I don't ignore these things but I have my own standards and if things don't pass in the long run, I make that call. And at this point I have published what I think sticks and deserves to be credited, based on the corroboration I present. And honestly "heavy doses" of anything are the starting point, not corroboration. I've spent 20 years studying what I feel fits and what I feel does not and I'm becoming less bashful about that point, which is another reason for my remarks in the article.

So...full disclosure...I'm always eager to speak to new folks about the conspiracy and the most likely villains, but I'm not interested in converting researchers, they can make their own decisions.

-- Larry

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...