Ron Bulman Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 Larry, it is great to see a daily list of the order of presenters and maybe more especially their topics. Many sound intriguing. I guess it's getting a little last minute to ask this but is the length of each presentation already known? I'll figure it out/deal with it but I can't sit down each day and listen from start to finish. I'd like to figure out approximately what time of day a speaker might be on. So I can prioritize initially. I know I can listen to any particular one later, and download it all in December. But I want to make sure I hear Tipping Point Saturday for example. I'm looking forward to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted November 17, 2020 Author Share Posted November 17, 2020 Gabriella likely won't be able to come up with the specific timing until the whole thing is edited together later this week. However, with no strict speaking schedule needing to be enforced, we pretty well gave the speakers their heads. Which means we have presentations running from half an hour, to an hour to well over an hour - some close to two hours. Since we were not constrained on time as in a live conference, we wanted to give everyone the maximum opportunity and provide as much content as possible. I will ask Gabriella if its possible to generate some sort of time marker when its totally edited, really don't know myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Lowe Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 (edited) On 11/10/2020 at 6:32 PM, Larry Hancock said: Allen. honestly I'm somewhat surprised to see a few posts that seem a bit like a call for censorship of a sort (possibly a defensive overreaction on my part). I can say as a long term speaker chair that we have indeed had people present in the past who both questioned a conspiracy in general or were "on the fence" about it. In other instances they presented information to refute long term, accepted points supporting conspiracy. A few years ago we have one individual present a detailed photo analysis which refuted the motorcycle acoustics study and strongly questioned the acoustics findings which all us conspiracy types loved at the time. And yes he was and remains a lone nut, but his presentation was well developed and factual and is now sometimes accepted even on this forum. We have also had speakers present who were pretty violently opposed to each others positions on various points - enough so to provoke shouting matches. Beyond that I can recall a couple of occasions when very well known speakers took the floor to introduce someone in their slot who they ceded their time to without telling us - in one case a purported security expert who proceeded to give his reasoning as to why Jackie was involved in the plot and had helped set up Jack inside the car to be shot (and yes that was embarrassing and yes he got booed). While I resented that last sort of activity, I always thought it was valuable to have reasoned and factual point counter-point in the presentations. As for myself I've never learned anything much from talking to people who totally agree with me about my own views. That's nice and enjoyable but not productive. So to answer your question, yes I realize Steve's position and I'm interested to see him present it in detail - that doesn't mean I will accept it or defend it, but I do see the value of hearing contrarian views as long as they are factual and reasoned. Of course everyone is free not to listen to that session just as they were free to walk out on various sessions in the in-person conference. But I'll stick by my response to Jim's earlier post about Jerry Dealy; I have no interest in a conference where everyone is simply presenting material or views which are so "acceptable" that everyone else will just nod to or respond in some sort of fan like manner (that conference is being held elsewhere). On occasion I issue invites intended to stir things up just a little, as long as the contrarian presenter seems to be organized and factual. Since this conference allows for an expanded format and actually many more speakers, I even invited a couple of folks (who declined) who might have also have been considered contrarian even if not anti-conspiracy. And for that matter, some of the speakers other than Steve may tread on a few toes as well....heck, I'm pretty sure one or more of my own presentations well not be well received by some and panned by others. But if a conference is to be dynamic and not just a social event, that's one of the risks. So, in my usual long winded fashion, that's my view of things - and as transparent a response as I can make... sorry, there is a huge difference between multiple viewpoints of the kind that accept the basic premise of the conference - that there was indeed a conspiracy in the murder of JFK - and viewpoints that so dishonestly misrepresent the basic facts of the case. Which is what Steve does quite regularly on Facebook. The difficulty of arguing with the opposition about the murder of JFK is that they most-often choose dishonest arguments based on disinformation. It makes arguing with them a matter of not just refuting certain kinds of logic, but of first having to sift through the lies in order to be on a level intellectual playing field. This is their tactic, and it is very much the way our current national administration does things. I just think we should not give them a forum. And please, Larry, this is no more censorship than any other aspect of selectivity is censorship. We regularly, at these conferences and in our daily lives, make choices to exclude things which we think are not worthy of our time. That is all that I am advocating. Edited November 17, 2020 by Allen Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted November 17, 2020 Author Share Posted November 17, 2020 Once again, I'm afraid we simply have a basic difference in understanding. The conference as it has been conducted for several years is a historical exploration of the Kennedy assassination (and other political assassinations as well), and of the Kennedy Administration - which provides a broader context for that exploration. Both pros and cons (and on the fence positions) have been presented as to the conspiracy, the cover up and and even views on various aspects of JFK's policies and decision making. It is true that the great preponderance of presentations (as they do this year) proceed on the assumption of conspiracy. However the conference has always held an educational approach and for many years had an active involvement with history teachers who used the subject for a balanced pro and con examination of the assassination. Unfortunately that has tapered off in recent years but the assumption has always been that the conference provided content for a balanced approached to the subject. I've participated with several high school and college JFK assassination classes and they all take a point/counterpoint approach to the subject and cover conflicting views. Which is what we continue to do. To be honest, we have always made some level of judgement on what presentations would be worthwhile, based on the factual content of the material and our best assessment of the speakers - most of the time that has worked well, on several instances (mostly with conspiracy oriented speakers) it has been a fail, even with some very well known names in the community (I mentioned one example earlier). Do we (mostly me) get panned and lambasted for those mistakes - you bet....it comes with the territory. And admittedly we have determined not to provide a platform to certain individuals on occasion. As usual, in this instance I will be most interested in what the actual attendees think afterwards. And to that point, we are opening an attendee/speaker Facebook page where attendees can express such opinions as well as question or even challenge speakers - including Steve. I'll be following what the attendees thought was worthy of their time, and what was not...for everyone, including those sessions I'm involved in myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 There will be a Facebook group where you can pose questions after the talk. Gabriella, who is doing some really nice work on this, will moderate it. I will attend the one after my talk on Saturday morning because my topic is so new. I will be glad to answer queries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Lowe Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 19 hours ago, Larry Hancock said: Once again, I'm afraid we simply have a basic difference in understanding. The conference as it has been conducted for several years is a historical exploration of the Kennedy assassination (and other political assassinations as well), and of the Kennedy Administration - which provides a broader context for that exploration. Both pros and cons (and on the fence positions) have been presented as to the conspiracy, the cover up and and even views on various aspects of JFK's policies and decision making. It is true that the great preponderance of presentations (as they do this year) proceed on the assumption of conspiracy. However the conference has always held an educational approach and for many years had an active involvement with history teachers who used the subject for a balanced pro and con examination of the assassination. Unfortunately that has tapered off in recent years but the assumption has always been that the conference provided content for a balanced approached to the subject. I've participated with several high school and college JFK assassination classes and they all take a point/counterpoint approach to the subject and cover conflicting views. Which is what we continue to do. To be honest, we have always made some level of judgement on what presentations would be worthwhile, based on the factual content of the material and our best assessment of the speakers - most of the time that has worked well, on several instances (mostly with conspiracy oriented speakers) it has been a fail, even with some very well known names in the community (I mentioned one example earlier). Do we (mostly me) get panned and lambasted for those mistakes - you bet....it comes with the territory. And admittedly we have determined not to provide a platform to certain individuals on occasion. As usual, in this instance I will be most interested in what the actual attendees think afterwards. And to that point, we are opening an attendee/speaker Facebook page where attendees can express such opinions as well as question or even challenge speakers - including Steve. I'll be following what the attendees thought was worthy of their time, and what was not...for everyone, including those sessions I'm involved in myself. that's fine, and I don't want to appear ungrateful for all the amazing work you and so many others have done not just this year but for the last 57 years. I do think we owe the honest opposition a hearing, but I just don't think he is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted November 18, 2020 Author Share Posted November 18, 2020 Thanks Allen, I'm taking no position myself and will listen and evaluate - I urge all the attendees to join in and engage with Steve on the conference Facebook page afterwards. And with all speakers for that matter. I do know that I was surprised on at least one occasion a few years ago to listen to a contrarian (LN) speaker, one whom I normally don't agree with about anything, making a cogent and very factual presentation on the motorcycle/DPD tape. Something I remain on the fence about myself to this day. On a side note, I would encourage all conference attendees to register for the Conference Facebook page. Gabriella is already putting up supplemental reading material for various speakers, and we will be adding more material. One she and I discussed today is an extended video presentation by Chuck Ochelli with remarks from a number of researchers. It is not part of the conference itself but is built around common issues debated about events in the Plaza and TSBD. It should spur some interesting dialog and I've tagged both Chuck Ochelli (who made it) and myself to respond on that one. As it turns out (I'm shocked, shocked I tell you) he and I don't even agree on all the points in that video - which of course always makes for interesting exchanges. Hopefully this is going to provide some real value add for the conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 There is a timeline of presentations now available through the facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/jfklancer/photos/pcb.778152892775421/778152659442111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 I told Gabriella you wanted one Ron...grin. Frankly though, its still being tweaked a bit, especially for Sunday. We don't have exact times for a couple of the speakers who are coming in with their presentations at the last minute so its still slightly a work in progress. Which reminds me of the in person conference when we had to post adjusted schedules on the doors at least once a day...and I had to run around the hotel trying to locate speakers, see if they had checked in, stress over someone going 15 min over their allotted time. Ah, the good old days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said: I told Gabriella you wanted one Ron...grin. Frankly though, its still being tweaked a bit, especially for Sunday. We don't have exact times for a couple of the speakers who are coming in with their presentations at the last minute so its still slightly a work in progress. Which reminds me of the in person conference when we had to post adjusted schedules on the doors at least once a day...and I had to run around the hotel trying to locate speakers, see if they had checked in, stress over someone going 15 min over their allotted time. Ah, the good old days... You have mentioned before, after a hard day's work, visiting the hotel bar for a nightcap. Not an option this year. 🙃 Some interesting conversations there over the years I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 Actually a major part of the in person conferences was always the "hallway conversations", small groups with a speaker after their presentation or during the scheduled book signings. A lot was discussed beyond what you could handle in a question and answer session. And a lot of opinions expressed that would be more direct than surfaced during Q&A sessions in the big room. But the bar sessions - which involved mostly talking - would often hang in from about nine pm to midnight in several clusters of tables. And as you might expect they would be a lot more free wheeling and speculative, especially with authors who often tend to constrain themselves within their books and articles. The talks sometimes generated new research projects and people would team up to tackle particular questions that had come out of presentations or each others research. I can also think of more than one book that developed based on such after hours discussions. It is a hard thing to replicate virtually, although we have hopes the Facebook page may do some of that. We may also have some special follow on Zoom sessions of that nature. The idea of an ongoing virtual element to the conference is one of the things still under discussion. If there had been more time I had even given thought to recreating one of those late night discussions on Zoom, drinks and all. It would take some folks who are comfortable with each other and might have done it in person before, but I think it would be great fun - something for 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 On 11/17/2020 at 8:40 PM, James DiEugenio said: There will be a Facebook group where you can pose questions after the talk. Gabriella, who is doing some really nice work on this, will moderate it. I will attend the one after my talk on Saturday morning because my topic is so new. I will be glad to answer queries. Jim, I'm hoping you and other presenters will check in on the Facebook page well after your presentations. Larry has one right after you on Cuba, then another on the Tipping Point I want to catch about noon. It may take a while for myself and others to post relevant questions or comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Ron, You would rather listen to Larry than be able to talk to me?🥵 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Ron, You would rather listen to Larry than be able to talk to me?🥵 I'm going to try to listen to both of you and as much as I can of others, take a few notes and hopefully ask a few questions later. I've got a silly question, as I've said before I'm technically inept. Hopefully the sign in/ticket number will work on more than one device? I.E. if I sign in at work in the morning and listen to what I can through the day, I'll be able to close/sign out then be able to sign back in for the weekend on my lap top at home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted November 20, 2020 Author Share Posted November 20, 2020 Ron, I checked with Gabriella and yes the ticket number should work on multiple devices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now