Pat Speer's brilliant 50th anniversary retrospective

[Vince Palamara]

Outstanding! The only think I would change, Pat, is your profile pic: you look angry; sort of like "take the darn photo, I don't have all day" haha

The Onslaught: the Media's Response to the 50th Anniversary of the JFK Assassination

http://www.patspeer.com/the-onslaught

[John Crites]

You use the term conspiracy theorists a lot Pat - a defensive term used by warren commission defenders that cant defend the report.

Other that that, thanks. we need reference recourse to continue to expose the propaganda

[Pat Speer]

You use the term conspiracy theorists a lot Pat - a defensive term used by warren commission defenders that cant defend the report.

Other that that, thanks. we need reference recourse to continue to expose the propaganda

I used the terms Lone-nuts and Conspiracy Theorists on purpose. I was trying to make fun of the situation. Pretending that the two sides are sports teams...

Perhaps I should change it.

[John Crites]

Thanks Pat.

I consider people like you, Vince and most others here and in the research community Conspiracy Factualists.

We will disagree on certain aspects but in common know the government position is B.S.

I always remind the lone loonies how many different positions the government agencies and witnesses have pertaining to the assassination.

Anyway, your outline is a valuable asset , thanks again

[Vince Palamara]

It was shared a lot today on Facebook- people love it, Pat!

[Vince Palamara]

Thanks, John

[John Crites]

You are welcome Vince,

you deserve any and all compliments.

You may not get any from Gerald Blaine though -- haha

[Gene Kelly]

Pat:

Your analysis of the press and articles leading up to the 50th is quite telling, even depressing. The themes mirror how I feel personally when presenting my knowledge of all the facts ... the ones that scream complexity and complicity. I avoid use of the term 'conspiracy' as it connotes negative images and motives. I try to objectively relate that there are just so many loose ends in every aspect of the murder. Yet it is a hard story to tell, and an even harder one to "sell" since there's disinformation, resistance, character assassination and so many legends that one never knows where to begin or ground themselves. I admire the work of folks like you and Vince, performed in an environment and time where most do not want to dig into the facts or confront the underlying truth. My synopsis of your retrospective on the Onslaught is that we cannot get our history from the television pundits or large news agencies. It reminds me of the advice that we can only believe half of what we read, and nothing of what we hear. We have to do our own due-diligence, and independent research ... you simply have to do the work, no one's going to hand it to you, especially this case. I recommend a good book called The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which teaches how to discern the truth from the considerable amount of "noise" we are confronted with today. Unfortunately, many conveniently latch onto the noise as truth.

Gene

[Vince Palamara]

_{Thanks, Gene: well said!}

_{John- LMAO; you know it}

_{Adding to what Pat said about Bugliosi, McMillan, and Epstein: boy, they DID look stunningly bad on tv. My girlfriend said they looked like they should have been on "Tales From The Crypt"}

[Gene Kelly]

You're welcome Vince. Perhaps you can answer a question that I've wanted to ask about Bugliosi, and why he's taken such a position and story-line. I know he's a high-profile attorney with some infamous clients. Is it simply for publicity? Why would he publish such a long tome that has such a preposterous conclusion? To me, the evidence of conspiracy is at every corner of the murder and story: whether one studies the autopsy, Oswald's bona fides, the SS (your specialty), Tippit's murder, Johnson's actions, New Orleans and Garrison, HSCA, Roselli's death etc. How could an intelligent and experienced attorney not see those signposts? Bugliosi's extreme defense of a simpler answer is illogical and not credible. Maybe there's more to him that I don't appreicate.

[Vince Palamara]

Thanks. I still like and admire Vince for a lot of reasons. I sincerely think he took the mock trial he "won" in 1986 way too much to heart. Read Jim DiEugenio's book "Reclaiming Parkland"- the antidote to Vince's book. Vince DID receive a nice advance and hefty money for movie rights, although the book itself stiffed and "Parkland" the movie bombed on every level; yik.

Funny story: before my local Borders closed down, they had a funny door stop on the bottom floor: Bugliosi's book!