Alec Baldwin on the JFKA on The Rachel Maddow Show

[Cliff Varnell]

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Gee, where have I heard this theory before?

What theory?

What did I state as a fact isn't a fact?

I keep repeating myself on this point because people continue to pretend it doesn't exist.

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I get it Cliff, you keep driving home a basic unexplained fact. An obvious discrepancy. A similar fact, but I think even more simple that I've always heard involves RFK's Assassination, where the fatal bullet enters RFK from behind his ear, where Sirhan was facing RFK from 3 feet in front!. And there's no other conspirators!  How could that escape detection?

If that was the case with the more high profile JFK case, would that have somehow escaped detection? It would seem impossible to believe!

But honestly, Cliff, as much as I approve your intention, if Alec Baldwin had spoken your script, I don't think anything would have changed the next day. After so many years , people are just agreeing to be dumb, about where the bullets came and went. The more it's been rehashed over the last half century, the less the attention span.

Kirk, ask yourself -- Why is it rehashed?

Because people like Josiah Thompson, Jim DiEugenio,.and Pat Speer keep denying the obvious -- JFK was shot in the back at T3, and shot in the throat from the front.

I'm never going to stop pushing back against this egregious academic/journalistic malpractice.

 

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

The most convincing evidence you can give is new testimony from people, who are now outing themselves or inside knowledge, or of course through the release of new government documents, but that is an avenue I'm starting to lose any hope in. But both types of information are simple and easy to absorb.

What's unconvincing about the facts I presented?

This is what I'm talking about -- the knee-jerk naysaying of the prima facie case for conspiracy.

[Cliff Varnell]

Kirk, what is the point of addressing new evidence when so many folks haven't fully absorbed the significance of the old evidence?

[Kirk Gallaway]

12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Kirk, what is the point of addressing new evidence when so many folks haven't fully absorbed the significance of the old evidence?

Agreed,  I just wonder if the public has dummied down about this so much that they're about as absorbent as a piece of granite. I went back to your initial post.  I suppose I just projected on your premise, that you were talking about the ideal persuasive 90 second presentation that could influence public opinion  to get more people  interested and start to ferret out the facts for themselves. Though you didn't say that. 

What I said:  The most convincing evidence you can give is new testimony from people, who are now outing themselves or inside knowledge, or of course through the release of new government documents, but that is an avenue I'm starting to lose any hope in.

I'm not talking about the merits of your facts. I'm in agreement. I'm talking about the kind of argument that will influence public opinion.  For example, What is the most  successful MSM news show reaching the greatest audience of American viewers?  60 minutes,  What was the last time "60" minutes considered running any story in the last 20 years about the JFKA? It was the confessions of E. Howard  Hunt, but after scrutinizing Hunt's tape presentation , St. John Hunt as a credible source, and hearing Hunt's inside theory that LBJ was behind it , they rejected it and I understand why. I don't believe LBJ did it either. I think most likely Hunt was covering for the Agency. At any rate, if Hunt was credible, admitted his complicity, and his story seemed credible, that would have been a very strong shot in the arm to the JFK conspiracy community. "

All I'm saying is 1)first hand accounts from people, with faces (not photos, graphs or written depictions )telling an interesting story is the most compelling presentation you could have to favorably influence public opinion.  

Edited March 28, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cliff Varnell]

37 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Agreed,  I just wonder if the public has dummied down about this so much that they're about as absorbent as a piece of granite. I went back to your initial post.  I suppose I just projected on your premise, that you were talking about the ideal persuasive 90 second presentation that could influence public opinion  to get more people  interested and start to ferret out the facts for themselves. Though you didn't say that. 

What I said:  The most convincing evidence you can give is new testimony from people, who are now outing themselves or inside knowledge, or of course through the release of new government documents, but that is an avenue I'm starting to lose any hope in.

I'm not talking about the merits of your facts. I'm in agreement. I'm talking about the kind of argument that will influence public opinion.  For example, What is the most  successful MSM news show reaching the greatest audience of American viewers?  60 minutes,  What was the last time "60" minutes considered running any story in the last 20 years about the JFKA? It was the confessions of E. Howard  Hunt, but after scrutinizing Hunt's tape presentation , St. John Hunt as a credible source, and hearing Hunt's inside theory that LBJ was behind it , they rejected it and I understand why. I don't believe LBJ did it either. I think most likely Hunt was covering for the Agency. At any rate, if Hunt was credible, admitted his complicity, and his story seemed credible, that would have been a very strong shot in the arm to the JFK conspiracy community. "

All I'm saying is 1)first hand accounts from people, with faces (not photos, graphs or written depictions )telling an interesting story is the most compelling presentation you could have to favorably influence public opinion.  

All good points, Kirk. 

I'm putting up a counter-point to the presentations at the Oswald Mock Trial. 

They got two days to lay out all this highly technical material and lost a case that could be made in 60 seconds (my script is 60 seconds, tops).

I find the mystery -- what happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds -- compelling.

[Cliff Varnell]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I find the mystery -- what happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds -- compelling.

In my experience millennials find this mystery compelling, as well.

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Having interviewed Baldwin at the dinner following the first day of the mock trial, he would likely want to spend his 90 seconds on the single bullet theory.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

the case was not "lost". there was a hung jury. and the we got closer to an acquittal than David Bois did in 1992. if we had the five hours of juror deliberation I had originally asked for and had Tanenbaum not insisted on no rebuttal or closing arguments, we would have had a better chance to summarize the highly technical materials. as it was, the jury was heading in our direction when they ran out of time. 

[Ron Bulman]

It is important new generations understand the importance of the assassination in relation to where they and we are now.  Thank you Mr.  Schnapf  for your efforts in doing so.  

[Cliff Varnell]

13 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Having interviewed Baldwin at the dinner following the first day of the mock trial, he would likely want to spend his 90 seconds on the single bullet theory.

That's what the front rank evidence DOES address, Lawrence!

Much more forcefully than anything else you could cite -- it would take 60 seconds, not 90, btw.

Lawrence, I challenge you and your CAPA cohorts to come up with a more efficient demolition of the SBT than the one presented in this thread.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

13 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

the case was not "lost". there was a hung jury. and the we got closer to an acquittal than David Bois did in 1992. if we had the five hours of juror deliberation I had originally asked for and had Tanenbaum not insisted on no rebuttal or closing arguments, we would have had a better chance to summarize the highly technical materials. as it was, the jury was heading in our direction when they ran out of time. 

6 -5 - 1 is a loss in my book when the case is so easily winnable. 

The case for conspiracy is open and shut -- but you guys don't want to go there for some reason.

Your highly technical materials will never appeal to millennials and only obfuscate the prima facie case for conspiracy.

Lawrence, for the life of me I cannot understand -- why do you guys ignore the physical evidence, the properly prepared documents, and the consensus witness testimony?

Edited March 30, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

This pattern of primary facts destroys both the single bullet theory and the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK in the back with a 6.5mm FMJ.

Fact #1:  There is a bullet hole in JFK’s shirt 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Fact #2:  Kennedy’s personal physician filled out the official, verified Death Certificate and listed a wound in his back at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, consistent with the location of the hole in the shirt.

Fact #3: The x-ray of Kennedy’s neck reveals a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, that wing thing on your vertebra.

Fact #4:  Two doctors who attended to Kennedy at Parkland Hospital wrote in their contemporaneous notes that JFK had a wound of entrance in his throat.

Fact #5:  A Secret Service agent who rode in the car right behind Kennedy’s wrote in his contemporaneous notes that he saw JFK hit in the back four inches down the shoulder.

Fact #6: Two FBI agents who were assigned to make a report on the autopsy cabled FBI HQ and said there was a shallow wound in Kennedy’s back, and no bullet was found in the autopsy.

Those 6 facts encompass the strongest evidence in the case – physical evidence, documentary evidence, and the contemporaneous written accounts of 5 men in position of authority.

We know from this fact pattern that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn’t exit, and no round was found during the autopsy.

There was a wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, and no round found during the autopsy.

Why does CAPA mess with micro-analyses of inferior evidence?

Edited March 30, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

It is important new generations understand the importance of the assassination in relation to where they and we are now.  Thank you Mr.  Schnapf  for your efforts in doing so.  

New generations will never pay attention to in-depth analyses of the acoustics, or the NAA, or the provenance of CE-399, or the conflicting head wound/s evidence.

Never f'ing ever.

Boomer obsessions on the JFKA will go the the grave with us if we don't make the quick and obvious case.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Cliff Varnell