Jump to content
The Education Forum

The AARC Conference at the Bethesda Hyatt


David Lifton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's the first news story (I have seen on the net) re the AARC conference in Bethesda. It was published in this morning's Boston Globe, and runs under the headline: 50 Years Later, Doubts Still Raised about the Warren Report.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/27/skeptics-gather-years-after-warren-commission-report-about-jfk-assassination/IrTSgQgrKGXHU2bjw0kRnM/story.html

Here's the text:

BETHESDA, Md. — Fifty years after the Warren Commission concluded that a lone gunman killed President John F. Kennedy, a conference examining the assassination convened here, dominated by skeptics who mulled over conspiracy theories and cast doubt on official reports.

One panelist, John Newman, who gave a presentation on CIA pseudonyms used by agents connected with the Kennedys, said the Warren Report “was not just wrong. The longer we have to study the case, the wronger its conclusions become.”

Theories about the case have sprouted from the moment that Kennedy was killed, and countless forums have been held since then. This gathering, five decades after the Warren Commission published its report on Sept. 24, 1964, drew more than 200 people.

It was sponsored by a private group, the Assassination Archives and Research Center, which says on its website that it is the world’s largest private archive “dedicated to acquiring, preserving, and disseminating information on political assassinations.”

One of the speakers, Antonio Veciana, an 86-year-old involved in the anti-Castro movement, said through a translator that he had seen a CIA officer in Dallas with Lee Harvey Oswald before Kennedy’s assassination. Attendees had so many questions for Veciana that his talk went almost an hour over the allotted time.

One attendee, Mike Chesser of Arkansas, who was 8 years old at the time of the assassination, said he wanted to learn more about what he believes is “our true history.”

“I always felt there were a lot of unanswered questions,” Chesser said.

The conference began Friday with panels on secrecy and democratic accountability and featured testimony from witnesses who said they encountered Oswald in the months before the assassination.

On Saturday, the conference will focus on the subsequent “coverup’’ of the assassination, and a dramatization of the Warren Commission will be presented Sunday.

The official investigation was overseen by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren. But in the half century since Warren Commission, public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans do not believe its primary finding: that Oswald, a disgruntled former Marine, acted alone in murdering the 35th president.

A 2013 Gallup poll found 60 percent of Americans think others were involved, although that percentage was down from its peak in 1976, when 81 percent said they believed there was a conspiracy.

Theories about who the culprits might have been include leading organized crime figures, Cubans who were seeking to overthrow communist dictator Fidel Castro, Castro himself, and elements within the CIA, or some amalgam of these groups.

The attendees filled the ballroom of the Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel as a row of cameras filmed the scene for an upcoming DVD. Books written by the conference’s speakers, with titles such as “Oswald: Russian Episode,”' were sold in the lobby.

DSL NOTE: "Oswald: Russian Episode" is Ernst Titovets' book on Lee Oswald. Ernst met Oswald around September 28, 1960, and was his best friend, in Minsk,for some 20 months. They went to partys and opera together; and --in general--I think its fair to say that Ernst Titovets was Oswald's best friend. Their friendship lasted until mid-May, 1962 when Oswald (by then married to Marina) departed for Moscow, and then left for the U.S. (arriving back in New York on June 13, 1962). Even after Oswald returned, he and Titovets kept in touch by mail, right up until a few weeks before the assassination.

As far as I'm concerned, Ernst's account of Oswald is one of the best written--and its clear to me that other than his mother, Ernst Titovets knew the "real Oswald" better than anyone else. I highly recommend the book.

In the interest of full disclosure: I met Ernst --via phone--some 20 years ago, corresponded with him at the time, and am mentioned in his book. END DSL NOTE

NOW CONTINUING WITH THE NEWS STORY. . .

Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter who has researched the assassination, said he believed the Internet would usher in a new era of Kennedy assassination research.

“Now anybody, anywhere can get access to the original record of the assassination, or most of it,” Morley said. “That has never been true over the past 50 years and it’s only started to be true recently. It’s only going to become more true as time passes.”

Bryan Bender of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

I hope that anyone at the AARC conference who has access to the Internet, will post on this thread their impressions about this event.

DSL

9/27/14 - 5 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be presenting later this afternoon but unfortunately it has to be remote so I'll be unable to offer any first hand observations of the conference itself. From what I've seen so far, Jerry Pollcoff has done a yeoman's job at organizing a very complex event. I can feel for him, especially with Veciana session going an hour longer than scheduled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former CIA Assassin Team Leader Claims Meeting With Oswald Before JFK Killing


Saturday, September 27, 2014


Beforeitsnews.com


% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.



http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2014/09/former-cia-assassin-team-leader-claims-meeting-with-oswald-before-jfk-killing-2653284.html?utm_campaign=&utm_content=awesmsharetools-fbshare-small&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2FffcJ&utm_medium=facebook-post&utm_source=http%3A%2F%2Fl.facebook.com%2Fl.php%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fb4in.info%252FffcJ%26h%3DSAQGtK4ie%26s%3D1


0


A former CIA assassination team leader told a conference audience Sept. 26 in a blockbuster revelation that he saw accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald with their mutual CIA handler six weeks before the killing and there would have been no anti-Castro movement in Cuba without the CIA funding.


Antonio Veciana, the acknowledged leader of the Alpha 66 assassination squad of Cuban exiles in the early 1960s, made the statements in a dignified but emotion-laden manner at this year’s major conference analyzing the Warren Commission report on murder of President John F. Kennedy Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas.


Separately, the general counsel of the last major government investigation into the killing issued a statement saying the CIA had deceived him and the rest of the public during the late 1970s inquiry into the validity of the Warren report. Former House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) General Counsel G. Robert Blakey issued the statement during the ongoing conference Sept. 26-28 organized at the Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel in Bethesda, MD by the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC).


Veciana said he is convinced the CIA organized the president’s murder and that he saw Oswald meeting with a CIA official in Dallas because Veciana arrived at his meeting fifteen minutes too early. Veciana says he believes Oswald was a CIA operative whom the agency decided to blame for a killing it organized in a complex plot.


Veciana said his CIA handler was the late David Atlee Phililips, shown in a file photo at right. Phillips was a high-ranking CIA official who used the cover named “Maurice Bishop” during his many meetings with Veciana. Veciana hgs never previously said “Bishop” was “Phillips.”


The CIA placed Phillips in charge of the CIA’s Cuba operations after the newly created agency recruited him from newspaper work in 1950s. According to biographers, Phillips, a former actor born in Texas, used hundreds of aliases in his CIA work. After retirement from the CIA Phillips organized thousands into the politically influential Association of Former Intelligence Officers.


Veciana, 85, spoke through a translator and with a son by his side. He said he was trained as a CPA and admired “Bishop” and the CIA deeply for many years.


Now, however, he said he wanted to set the record straight because he has come to admire also Kennedy, whom and he and Phillips once regarded as a “traitor” for allowing communist Cuban leader Fidel Castro to remain in power.


Blakey, shown in a file photo from his longtime work as a a professor of law at Notre Dame University, appears in person at 1:15 p.m. Sept. 27 at the conference to reiterate his statement and answer questions. His committee issued a report in 1979 scrutinizing the original 1964 Warren report.


The two admissions were part of an explosive agenda for the conference, which I helped open with an address on why the 50th anniversary of the Warren report is a unique, historic opportunity to solve the nation’s most important murder, one whose aftereffects continue to the present with the unchecked power of the CIA as a secret government.


I amplify on that theme on Sept. 27 by participating in an afternoon panel “Why Won’t the Media Cover the Story?” and separately speaking in greater depth on “The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination.”


The latter lecture draws on the research in my recent book Presidential Puppetry: Obama Romney and Their Masters, which documents how all recent presidents, including Barack Obama, were recruited in secret intelligence operations before they entered politics. I argue that these kinds of under-reported relationships foster the ascendancy of the nation’s leaders — including in business, Congress and the media in ways unknown to the public.


My talks describe also how the hidden history has fostered loyalties and fears largely unreported by a media heavily influenced by pro-CIA themes, with a JFK murder a decisive turning point.


C-SPAN covered the conference’s opening.A team of actors provides a dramatic reading at 5:45 of a long-secret transcript of a Commission meeting in January 1964 in which it addressed the threat of two newspaper reporters poised to report that the supposed “lone nut” Oswald was actually an FBI paid asset.


At the conference Friday, Oswald’s friends Buell Wesley Frazier and Dr. Ernst Titovets said they never believed their friend could be guilty of murder, and regarded him as a “patsy” as Oswald claimed before he was murdered by Jack Ruby at a Dallas police station two days after the assassination.


Frazier made his first public appearance to describe his experiences on the day of the assassination. He said that he drove his fellow worker Oswald to work at the Texas Book Depository on the fateful day of the assassination. Frazier said a package Oswald carried was too small to contain a rifle, as the Warren Commission claimed. Titovets, a professor of medicine in his native Belarus, has published a new edition of his 2010 memoir: Oswald: Russian Episode.


In other conference news, professor author and former intelligence officer Dr. John Newman traced more than a dozen of the Phillips identities to show his work was so secret that even his internal memos at the CIA, ow declassified in part, show that he was trying to fool fellow employees about his activities.


Also, AARC President James Lesar called for an end of obstruction by the National Archives in complying with the provisions of a 1992 law passed unanimously by Congress to make all available records public regarding the JFK murder. Lesar, an attorney fighting freedom of information battles, has argued that the CIA exercises too much influence over the Archives and other Washington officials on the issue.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended the conference, and made an appearance. It was both amazing, and frustrating.

Frustrating.

1. Despite the fact that history was gonna be made, the attendance at the conference was probably less than half that of last year's Lancer Conference. Part of this, I suspect, was because there was another conference across town. Although there was another conference in town at last year's conference in Dallas, that conference was just blocks away, allowing people to go back and forth if they so desired. This year's conferences were much further apart, in different states, even.

2. A bigger problem, IMO, was the location. Although having a conference in Bethesda sounds like a good idea, it was not taken advantage of in any way. It just so happened to be in Bethesda. I was hoping that there would be some group that would go up to the Naval Hospital, or do something to take advantage of the location, from a tourist's point of view. But nothing like that occurred, and I never even made it up to take a look at the hospital, just one subway stop away. To sum it up then, while conferences in Dallas give tourists the opportunity to both see the sights and attend the conference, I was not aware of any sight-seeing performed by any conference attendees, outside myself. I spent the day before the conference started at the National Zoo. The conference was just not tourist-friendly, and I'm sure this cut into the attendance considerably.

3. The conference started small in scope and grew a little too big for its britches. People such as myself wanted to take part and were added in, but were pushed over into breakout rooms, on a different floor, and accessible only by elevator. Many, if not most, of the conference attendees just sat in the main room. I was the first to speak in a breakout room. There were only 10 people or so in attendance, compared to 120-150 in the main room. Same for Jim DiEugenio, who followed me. This so irked Jim that he asked if he could do his presentation a second time, later in the day, and was granted the chance to do so. I probably should have done so myself, but had resigned myself to the hope my filmed presentation will reach a much wider audience through the internet, as had been promised beforehand by the conference's coordinators. I also took considerable consolation from the fact that one of those in attendance at my presentation was Gaeton Fonzi's wife, Marie, and that she came up to me afterward and told me how thrilled Gaeton would have been to see what I'd put together. I also gained some consolation, and considerable amusement, from the ironic fact that when I made it back to the main room to see the "ready for prime time" presentations on the medical evidence, Gary Aguilar was showing the audience one of my slides.

4. A number of presentations went long. Some were rescheduled, and some never occurred. This led to mucho confusion as to who was up next, etc. As a consequence I, and I assume many others, missed some of the presentations that I'd fully intended to see.

Amazing.

1. Antonio Veciana, at the urging of Gaeton Fonzi's wife, Marie (an amazing woman) made his first ever public appearance to discuss the case, and said in public what he wrote Marie to tell her last year: that the man he saw with Oswald that he'd known as Maurice Bishop was in fact CIA heavyweight David Atlee Phillips, and that he'd known it since he'd first confronted Phillips, with Fonzi at his side. He said a few other important things, IMO. One is that in the months before the assassination, Phillips had asked him if one could get a visa to visit Cuba simply by showing up at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and asking for one. Veciana said he had told Phillips "No." This was apparently around the time Veciana saw Phillips with Oswald. In any event, when Veciana saw Oswald on TV and heard he'd killed Kennedy, and recognized him, and later learned that Oswald had traveled to Mexico City to try to get to Cuba, only to get rejected and make a scene, he put two and two together and concluded Phillips had sent Oswald to Mexico City not to get him to Cuba, but to get it on the record that he'd TRIED to get to Cuba. Veciana had concluded from this, then, that Phillips and the CIA had killed Kennedy. Upon further discussion, Veciana admitted that this hadn't bothered him at the time, because he, as Phillips, believed that Kennedy was a traitor. He said that it was only over time that he came to realize that a terrible thing had happened, and cited his recent reading of Kennedy's American University Speech as a factor in his coming to realize Kennedy was a good person, whose family deserved the truth about his death.

2. As part of a one-two punch against the CIA, HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey also made an appearance at the conference. He was supposed to be part of a panel with the two members of his staff, Dan Hardway and Eddie Lopez, who'd investigated the CIA, and had come to conclude they'd been played, and deliberately misled. Blakey appeared the next day, and said much the same thing, in large part due to the relatively recent revelation that the man the CIA had sent him to find out the name of the DRE's handler, and who couldn't find the name of the DRE's handler, just so happened to be the DRE's handler, George Joannides. David Mantik asked Blakey if still subscribed to the single-bullet theory. He said "Yes." I asked him if his current belief the CIA had conducted an operation against the HSCA committee extended to any suspicion that CIA agent Regis Blahut's break-in of the HSCA safe holding the autopsy evidence was ordered from above, and he said "No, that was just someone being stupid" or words to that effect.

3. Buell Wesley Frazier also spoke at the conference. He repeated what he'd been saying for years--that, in his impression, the bag Oswald put in the car was far too small to hold the rifle. But he also said some things to me in private conversation that I think should become part of the record. I told him that I, too, had done warehouse work, and had pulled orders off a clipboard. I said that, in my experience, when an order puller goes to lunch, he leaves the orders still to be pulled on a clipboard in a place near where he will resume work, and that, to me, there was nothing remotely suspicious about Oswald's clipboard being found on the sixth floor, near the stairs. He agreed. I also explained to him that his recollections regarding the bag are a two-way street--not only did Oswald supposedly carry his rifle to work in the bag he saw on the 22nd, but that Oswald also supposedly smuggled the paper used to make this bag to Irving on the 21st. I mentioned that, in my estimation, a large piece of industrial wrapping paper would be difficult to conceal in one's clothing without being noticed. At that, Frazier got a sad look on his face, which said to me "It's even worse than I thought." He then looked me in the eyes, and said, as firmly and as confidently as one can say anything, "That DID NOT happen."

4. Among the conference attendees was Judge Burt Griffin. Griffin, of course, had led the Warren Commission's investigation into Jack Ruby. Perhaps a quarter of the way through my presentation on the single-bullet theory, I looked up and saw Burt Griffin sitting in the back of the room. Although he left 15-20 minutes later, I'm fairly certain he saw the section in which I really went after his fellow commission counsel Arlen Specter. I'm going to write him and ask him for a response. It is also important, I think, for me to describe an earlier conversation with Griffin. After Veciana stopped speaking, and the decision was made to take no more questions, I walked over to Griffin to ask him his immediate response. Although the man he was speaking to, historian Max Holland, was more cautious, and left it open that Veciana could very well believe what he had said, but was mistaken, Griffin, a judge, said flat-out that in his impression Veciana was a xxxx. I found this interesting. One needn't reject that Oswald killed Kennedy to believe Veciana's story. Oswald could have killed Kennedy to spite Phillips, or without Phillips' knowledge, etc. But Griffin felt sure Veciana was lying. I asked him why he felt so sure. He asked "Why'd he take 50 years to come forward?" I then pointed out that he came forward 13 years later, and that he tried to explain why he took so long to come forward in his statement. Griffin then asked "Yeah, but why didn't he come to us, in 1964?" I don't think I answered that but the answer did seem obvious--HE"D CONCLUDED THE GOVERNMENT HAD KILLED KENNEDY--WHY WOULD HE THEN GO TO THE GOVERNMENT AND TELL THEM WHAT HE ASSUMED THEY ALREADY KNEW. It occurred to me then that Griffin, as his fellow counsel Howard Willens, with whom I had previously discussed the case, was so defensive of his time on the commission that he just could not admit they missed anything, or that anything of real value had eluded their grasp. Griffin then proved this point by asking what in retrospect can only be seen as a desperate question. He asked "And besides, he's been living in this country for what, 50 years? And he still doesn't speak English?" Although I tried to explain that he probably could speak English but was just more comfortable speaking Spanish (a fact later confirmed by Marie Fonzi), and that many old Cubans in southern Florida still speak Spanish in everyday life, Griffin didn't seem interested in my response, as his mind had already come to its judgment: Veciana was a xxxx, pure and simple. And besides, Griffin asked as I started to walk away, didn't Veciana have a criminal record for drug trafficking?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No criticism intended here, Pat, but I wish you'd asked Griffin: "Why are you attending this conference? Is it a freak show for you? Are you looking to the critics of the Warren Report for CONFIRMATION that the conclusion you already held before attending is correct? If so, this group is a very curious choice for such confirmation. Or, conversely, are you hoping to definitively rule out suspicions that you have heretofore not revealed, yet privately suffered their burden?"

PS: I know that it is sometimes much more difficult to think of apropos questions until after the opportunity has passed...unless, of course, one's name is Drago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Griffin was with two other Cleveland-ites, one of whom was a film-maker, if I recall, and the other was I believe a former Judge. My recollection is they said they were there as part of some sort of continuing education program, or some such thing. So I believe Dave is correct.

One of the lowlights, for me, came when David Wrone discussed the Warren Commission and a group of actors acted out the 1-22-64 Executive Session. John Heard played Allen Dulles. Anyhow, afterward, someone mentioned that none of the members of the commission had any investigative experience, and the female judge traveling with Griffin started squirming in her seat. She mouthed to me "That's wrong" which I knew to be true (Warren was a former prosecutor and McCloy had investigated a WWI terrorism case). So I pointed her to the open mike and told her she should say something if she wanted to. She got up just as Jim Lesar was saying "Well, if there's no more questions" so I waved my hands and pointed to her as she walked up to the mike. She then told the audience that not only did Warren and McCloy have experience, but that many of the WC staff were prosecutors (which to her mind meant investigators). But before she could make her point, or even receive the counter-point that prosecutors are not true investigators in that they don't start from scratch the way detectives and forensic scientists start from scratch, David Wrone snapped "Oh, Warren, please, he couldn't even find his own father's killer!"

She took her seat with a look of shock on her face. She looked back at me and mouthed "That was low" and I nodded my head and mouthed "Yeah, that was low."

I saw her talking to Wrone a bit later. They seemed friendly enough. I suspect he apologized.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I did ask Mr. Griffin if he was going to respond to the presentations.

His reply was no, but he and the people with him were there for licensure renewal.

Dave

Amazing. That would be like an astronaut attending a Moon Landing Hoax Conference in order to renew his pilot's license!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few casinos in Las Vegas and Macao had the following proposition bet last week --

"How many people under the age of 40 will attend the two JFK conferences?"

The over/under was 3.5.

For those unfamiliar with this sort of wagering, this means that if 3 folks born after Sept 1974 attended the conferences the

bet goes "under." 4 or more and the bet goes "over."

I took the unders.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few casinos in Las Vegas and Macao had the following proposition bet last week --

"How many people under the age of 40 will attend the two JFK conferences?"

The over/under was 3.5.

For those unfamiliar with this sort of wagering, this means that if 3 folks born after Sept 1974 attended the conferences the

bet goes "under." 4 or more and the bet goes "over."

I took the unders.

You are correct, Cliff, if you're insinuating most in attendance were elderly. If I had to guess, though, I'd guesstimate that 15 of the 200 or so in attendance were under 40. Now, a few of these were relatives of speakers. There was, however, a 15 year-old boy in attendance, who stood up and talked toward the end on the topic of how to use social media to reach out to the next generation of voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few casinos in Las Vegas and Macao had the following proposition bet last week --

"How many people under the age of 40 will attend the two JFK conferences?"

The over/under was 3.5.

For those unfamiliar with this sort of wagering, this means that if 3 folks born after Sept 1974 attended the conferences the

bet goes "under." 4 or more and the bet goes "over."

I took the unders.

You are correct, Cliff, if you're insinuating most in attendance were elderly.

I wouldn't say over-40 is" elderly," necessarily. SilentGen/Boomer/early-GenX.

If I had to guess, though, I'd guesstimate that 15 of the 200 or so in attendance were under 40. Now, a few of these were relatives of speakers.

The guest list doesn't count. I'm talking people under-40 who paid money to attend the conferences.

There was, however, a 15 year-old boy in attendance, who stood up and talked toward the end on the topic of how to use social media to reach out to the next generation of voters.

It doesn't matter what platform garbage is conveyed upon -- it's still garbage.

The reason that only 60% of Americans see conspiracy in the murder of JFK (down from 80%+) is because Millenials aren't buying what the JFK Critical Community is selling.

Given the rampant Zombie Pet Theorizing that goes on (yes, Pat, I'm looking at you) I can't say I blame them...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few casinos in Las Vegas and Macao had the following proposition bet last week --

"How many people under the age of 40 will attend the two JFK conferences?"

The over/under was 3.5.

For those unfamiliar with this sort of wagering, this means that if 3 folks born after Sept 1974 attended the conferences the

bet goes "under." 4 or more and the bet goes "over."

I took the unders.

You are correct, Cliff, if you're insinuating most in attendance were elderly.

I wouldn't say over-40 is" elderly," necessarily. SilentGen/Boomer/early-GenX.

If I had to guess, though, I'd guesstimate that 15 of the 200 or so in attendance were under 40. Now, a few of these were relatives of speakers.

The guest list doesn't count. I'm talking people under-40 who paid money to attend the conferences.

There was, however, a 15 year-old boy in attendance, who stood up and talked toward the end on the topic of how to use social media to reach out to the next generation of voters.

It doesn't matter what platform garbage is conveyed upon -- it's still garbage.

The reason that only 60% of Americans see conspiracy in the murder of JFK (down from 80%+) is because Millenials aren't buying what the JFK Critical Community is selling.

Given the rampant Zombie Pet Theorizing that goes on (yes, Pat, I'm looking at you) I can't say I blame them...

Well, you're pointing in the wrong direction, Cliff. I'm pretty sure I was the only person at the conference to mention that the holes on the clothing prove Specter and Humes were lying about the location of the back wound.

As far as "Millenials," you're even more off-track. Very few of those born post-JFK have ever read a book about the Kennedy assassination. Many of them have never seen JFK. What they know they learned from TV. And what does TV show them? Reverse-engineered re-enactments of the single-bullet theory, over and over and over again. And, oh yeah, a bunch of old guys arguing... B-O-R-I-N-G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few casinos in Las Vegas and Macao had the following proposition bet last week --

"How many people under the age of 40 will attend the two JFK conferences?"

The over/under was 3.5.

For those unfamiliar with this sort of wagering, this means that if 3 folks born after Sept 1974 attended the conferences the

bet goes "under." 4 or more and the bet goes "over."

I took the unders.

You are correct, Cliff, if you're insinuating most in attendance were elderly.

I wouldn't say over-40 is" elderly," necessarily. SilentGen/Boomer/early-GenX.

If I had to guess, though, I'd guesstimate that 15 of the 200 or so in attendance were under 40. Now, a few of these were relatives of speakers.

The guest list doesn't count. I'm talking people under-40 who paid money to attend the conferences.

There was, however, a 15 year-old boy in attendance, who stood up and talked toward the end on the topic of how to use social media to reach out to the next generation of voters.

It doesn't matter what platform garbage is conveyed upon -- it's still garbage.

The reason that only 60% of Americans see conspiracy in the murder of JFK (down from 80%+) is because Millenials aren't buying what the JFK Critical Community is selling.

Given the rampant Zombie Pet Theorizing that goes on (yes, Pat, I'm looking at you) I can't say I blame them...

Well, you're pointing in the wrong direction, Cliff.

Last we discussed the case you put the back wound at T1, and the throat wound an exit, right?

You've never been able to intellectually defend these Zombie Pet Theories, Pat.

The back wound was at T3, corresponding to the holes in the clothes, a location too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

These are the facts you are not properly presenting.

I'm pretty sure I was the only person at the conference to mention that the holes on the clothing prove Specter and Humes were lying about the location of the back wound.

Minor point.

The location of the holes in the clothes establish the throat wound as an entrance. This means that these two wounds of entrance had no exits, and no bullets were recovered at the autopsy.

What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?

How often was that question asked, Pat?

As far as "Millenials," you're even more off-track. Very few of those born post-JFK have ever read a book about the Kennedy assassination. Many of them have never seen JFK. What they know they learned from TV.

No, what they learned they more likely gleaned off the internet.

And what does TV show them? Reverse-engineered re-enactments of the single-bullet theory, over and over and over again.

These shows have a very limited audience, and amount to nothing compared to what kids get off the internet.

And, oh yeah, a bunch of old guys arguing... B-O-R-I-N-G.

That's the internet! A bunch of old guys arguing over issues that should have been settled with this:

"The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter," by Gaeton Fonzi in 1966.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

So instead of clarity, the JFK Critical Research Community swims in the waters of uncertainty and "raises doubt about the Warren Commission."

What doubt?!

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

That's the cardinal fact of JFK's murder.

What happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?

That's the primary question.

Most of the rest is bollocks.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, oh yeah, a bunch of old guys arguing... B-O-R-I-N-G.

I wrote this bit up a year ago, bears a repeat...

I was talking to a Millennial friend of mine one day and mentioned that her generation wasn't particularly interested in the JFK assassination.

She said it was because "they make it so boring."

I dropped the subject.

A couple of weeks later my young friend asked me what I'd been up to and I said -- "I've been on-line torturing people over the central issue of the JFK

assassination."

"What's the central issue of the JFK assassination?"

"You don't wanna know."

"Yes. I want to know," she said in a tone that took no nonsense. A rock-ribbed New Englander, my Millennial friend.

"JFK had a wound of entrance in his back, there was no exit wound. He had a wound of entrance in his throat, and again no exit.

No bullets were recovered from these wounds in the autopsy. Central issue is - what happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds?"

She thought for a half-second and said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy -- but nevertheless, there were two wounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets recovered...Some

people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy."

"Or it was some government xxxx that dissolved!"

Exactly what the autopsists conjectured the night of the autopsy -- that JFK was struck with high tech bullets that didn't show up on x-ray.

When Boomers are presented with this scenario 90% of y'all pooh-pooh the notion JFK was struck with a high tech weapon.

That's the stuff of James Bond and Get Smart and sci-fi.

But Millennials didn't grow up on Agent 007.

They grew up on Agent Smith and "The Matrix" and to a Millennial a high-tech answer is obvious...

But a Boomer would be embarrassed to bring it up at a JFK Conference.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...