Jump to content
The Education Forum

"Are the JFK Conspiracies Slowly Dying?" by Craig Colgan


Recommended Posts

A quick search didn't find this posted here before, but if it has been, I apologize. This was at the bottom of Posner's review of Litwin. It's from 2017, so not new. I have a lot of issues with this one, mainly with the premise that the public popularity (acceptance?) of a theory makes it more right or more wrong. 

https://quillette.com/2017/11/25/jfk-conspiracies-slowly-dying/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My reply to this article:

The title of Colgan’s November 25, 2017 piece was “Are the JFK Conspiracies Slowly Dying?” He begins his article with a reference to Dylan Avery and his film on 9-11 called Loose Change. He then says that since Avery has backed away from some of his more extreme statements, perhaps those who attack the Warren Report should also. Toward the end of the piece, he says he would allow a kind of Robert-Blakey-inspired Oswald-did-it-with-some help concept. And that is what the JFK critical community should be aiming for.

I don’t know very much about the 9-11 controversy. But I do know that the official investigating committee issued a report without an accompanying set of volumes of evidence. The Warren Commission issued an over-800-page report with 26 volumes of testimony and evidence. The incredible thing about the early critics is this: some of them actually read those volumes. They came to a clear conclusion: the evidence in the volumes did not support the tenets of the report. The late Maggie Field wrote an unpublished book in which she reproduced pages from the report”s conclusions, then juxtaposed to them extracts from the supporting volumes of evidence that directly contradicted them. One could similarly refer to Sylvia Meagher’s classic study Accessories After the Fact. Unlike with 9-11, then, in the case of President Kennedy’s murder, there is nothing to retreat from. In fact, as tens of thousands of declassified pages have later been released, Field’s book has not just been ratified; it has been shown to be too mild, for we know today certain agencies were concealing evidence that would have indicated how parts of the plot and, even moreso, the cover-up, worked. (For example, see section III of this essay and the discoveries about David Phillips and New Orleans.)

At this point, one must accentuate the fact that even though Quillette is known as a scientific and technically oriented journal, that is what is completely missing from any of its articles on the JFK case. For instance, Colgan mentions a conversation he had with Gary Aguilar about his critique—co-written with Cyril Wecht—of the PBS special Cold Case JFK which aired at the 50th anniversary of the JFK murder. But he does not devote a single sentence to the total demolition of that series that Aguilar and Wecht performed—in a peer review journal on ballistics! And he does not link to the two-part review. Nor does he note that, although Gary offered to pay for both their flight and hotel accommodations, the father and son team who were featured on that program refused to debate him in public.

Colgan also notes the decline in the public’s belief that there was a plot behind Kennedy’s murder. This is accurate. At the fiftieth anniversary of Kennedy’s death, Hart Associates did a poll for Larry Sabato’s book, the Kennedy Half Century. It statedthat 75% of the public did not believe the Commission’s lone gunman verdict. This was down from the over 90% during the time that Stone’s film JFK premiered. (Sabato, p. 416) The reason for this is simple to discern. Due to Stone’s film, for about one year—from 1991-92—there was actually an open discussion in the media about Kennedy’s murder. And there were actually programs and front-page stories in magazines that addressed it in an even-handed way. The Power Elite was quite upset by that hubbub. They did three things to counter it. Random House, through editor Bob Loomis and publisher Harold Evans, decided to recruit Gerald Posner and give his book one of the most massive publicity barrages in recent publishing history. We know this from the lawsuit the late Roger Feinman launched against Random House concerning that book.

Secondly, they decided that there would be no more open debate on the issue in the media—and there has not been. We know this from written communications between researcher Walt Brown and Loomis as well as from Alec Baldwin’s speech in Houston last year at a dinner during the JFK mock trial. Baldwin said he had approached NBC with a proposal for a documentary program on Kennedy for the 2013 anniversary. It was rejected without a hearing, with words to this effect: We have reconciled ourselves to the official version. Another example would be what happened in Dallas at the fiftieth anniversary. With the world’s media on hand, Mayor Mike Rawlings completely controlled and cordoned off Dealey Plaza so that no critic could be heard by them. (See our report on the subject as well as this one at jfkfacts.org)

Third, virtually every single program since—and there have been more than a few—has endorsed the Warren Report, specifically the Single Bullet Fantasy and the no-frontal-shot concept. The problem with these productions is that each one has falsified the facts of the case. (See this videoor read this essay)

Judging from their articles, Quillette is really more of a politically oriented journal than a scientific or technical one. At that, they should have understood the politics of the Warren Commission. The policies of the most active member of that body, Allen Dulles, were opposed to those of President Kennedy. But from this review, the reader can see that both Litwin and Quillette were more in sympathy with Dulles than JFK.

 
Last modified on Wednesday, 05 December 2018 15:24
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are indisputable historical facts, events and other discovered elements of the JFK assassination that will always keep the conspiracy take more believable to future generations than not imo.

Imagine showing future generation young people "just these three" JFK related historical event videos and allowing them to ask the most basic questions about them and their context and content?

The first video would be the 11,24,1963 live national television broadcast of Dallas,Texas strip joint owner Jack Ruby - leaping from a standing position mere feet away from a handcuffed Oswald - and then getting off an inches away blast of his 38 caliber Colt Cobra revolver right into Oswald's gut which of course brutally ended his life.

Even junior high school aged children would ask the most simple common sense questions as to the circumstances surrounding this Ruby killing Oswald event and the only answers that could be given to their questions will always force even them to consider a reality different versus the official "Ruby was just another murder minded lone nut - like Oswald - who cracked and got lucky at just the right time and place."

Was Oswald killed right inside the Dallas Police Department building?

How was that possible?

How did Ruby got into the actual police department building basement despite armed guards at every street entrance and 60 to 70 more armed and high anxiety state police personnel on the inside?

Security screening of the press allowed into the DPD basement was extensive yet no one notices an unscreened street person sauntering right in?

Ruby is able to immediately position himself in the press crowd to the closest Oswald walk-by proximity point? 

Just prior to Ruby's Oswald shooting leap, he is hiding inches behind a hulking Dallas Police officer that he has personally known well for years beyond normal police / citizen interaction and contact?

Oswald was the most threatened criminal suspect in American history? Threats against his life were coming in by the thousands?

 Yet, the Dallas police heads decided to go against every security measure warning suggestion Oswald should be moved at night under extremely heavy guard and without public announcement?

They instead actually announce in the public media the time and location of Oswald's day time transfer?  Drawing a large crowd of possibly vengeance minded, worked up onlookers right across the steet from the Police department building? How illogical is that security planning?

Oswald is paraded down a narrow corridor into and within feet of a jostling, yelling, blinding flash bulb non-police crowd wide open frontally with just two guards at his sides?

Considering the threat level against him, shouldn't Oswald have been surrounded all around by police bodies at all times? In even my junior high age mind, that's what I thought would be the case.

Oswald had his insides blasted open and there were no emergency medical personnel and or first aid supplies handy to deal with his most serious bleeding situation?  This precaution didn't cross Oswald's security planners minds?

The time it took to haul Oswald back through the corridor and then back again to the ambulance was crucial. And did you see how inadequately sized and equipped ambulances were back then? No bigger that a family sized station wagon.

And how ill-equipped and medical emergency poorly trained ambulance drivers and attendants were back then?

How's that for worst case Oswald security planning? So negligent in so many ways it shouts suspicion.

Back in 1963 and still to this day, that live national TV broadcast of Ruby shooting Oswald was the greatest and most strongly effecting JFK conspiracy seeding event in the minds of the majority of Americans who witnessed this and especially after the absurdly illogical and incongruous Oswald security circumstances I mentioned in detail above were made public.

Time cannot diminish this conspiracy feeding reality.

Just show this single broadcast event to future generations along with it's full background context and I guarantee you, it will still create legitimate, valid and common sense conspiracy belief in the majority of it's viewer's minds.

The other conspiracy belief bolstering video would be the LBJ interview by our most famous televsion news broadcaster of those times, Walter Cronkite.

In which LBJ himself says 3 years after the Warren Commission finding ... "I don't think I nor anyone else can always be sure that others may have been involved" (with Oswald) in the JFK assassination.    !!!

If LBJ himself harbored and directly expressed to Cronkite his own personal doubt about the Warren Commission "Lone Nut" finding how can anyone still hang on to that tenet without seeing even a little problem with it's validity?  No highest elective authority weight there? President LBJ's doubt input means nothing?

A third video?  Abraham Bolden? Miami Police intelligence officer Lt. Everette Kaye and the Joseph Milteer tapes? Sylvia Odio? Dallas station Rail Road traffic controller Lee Bowers?   Bethesda Navy autopsy medical techs Paul O'Conner and Dennis David? Take your pick.

The reality of hundreds of other proven facts and credible worthy testimony hugely contradicting the official WC "Lone Nut" conclusion will also always be there for future generations to study and decide for themslves whether a conspiracy was in play regards the JFK event. This mountain of conspiracy suggesting facts and evidence will never go away despite the purposeful and never ending effort to bury and downplay them.

Also, Mark Lane's accusation of profiteering towards Abe Zapruder regards his film sale was valid imo.

The $150,000 Zapruder received for his JFK assassination film in 1963 equates into $1.3 million worth of value in today's dollars at an 8.5 X times inflation rate adjustment.

Zapruder donated $25,000 to J.D. Tippit's widow. But did he also give away the rest of the huge money he was paid for the film? I never heard of him doing so.

And did any other film or famous still photograph taking person in Dealey Plaza that day make even one dime off of their film's or photo's? Or anything more than a small amount?

And Zapruder's survivors were given 17 MILLION dollars by our own government for the the film 40 years later? Talk about enormous profit! 

Although I do not know myself whether the Zapruder family donated any or a good amount of that 17 million dollars to chairity.

Zapruder gave 25,000 dollars to Tippit's widow. One is forced by logic to assume that Zapruder did so because he thought Oswald killed her husband and Zapruder also believed Oswald killed JFK. Otherwise, their isn't a logical connection to Zapruder's motive in giving Tippit's widow such a large gift imo.

Zapruder had no charity sympathy toward Oswald's widow Marina who was worse off financially than Tippit's widow?

A young barely English speaking mother with no extended family support who was left with two infants and who even came from his parent's home country Russia?

Oswald was killed just as brutally as Tippit and just as unjustly if one considers or believes his unproven guilt innocence and outrageous worst case scenario negligent security in the hands of the Dallas police.

Marina Oswald was fairly soon however given sympathy and eventually much financial charity by many in this country, who gave her the benefit of doubt relative to her husband's alleged guilt regards Tippit and JFK.  Seeing her as hurting and needing as Tippit's widow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

My reply to this article:

The title of Colgan’s November 25, 2017 piece was “Are the JFK Conspiracies Slowly Dying?” He begins his article with a reference to Dylan Avery and his film on 9-11 called Loose Change. He then says that since Avery has backed away from some of his more extreme statements, perhaps those who attack the Warren Report should also. Toward the end of the piece, he says he would allow a kind of Robert-Blakey-inspired Oswald-did-it-with-some help concept. And that is what the JFK critical community should be aiming for.

I don’t know very much about the 9-11 controversy. But I do know that the official investigating committee issued a report without an accompanying set of volumes of evidence. The Warren Commission issued an over-800-page report with 26 volumes of testimony and evidence. The incredible thing about the early critics is this: some of them actually read those volumes. They came to a clear conclusion: the evidence in the volumes did not support the tenets of the report. The late Maggie Field wrote an unpublished book in which she reproduced pages from the report”s conclusions, then juxtaposed to them extracts from the supporting volumes of evidence that directly contradicted them. One could similarly refer to Sylvia Meagher’s classic study Accessories After the Fact. Unlike with 9-11, then, in the case of President Kennedy’s murder, there is nothing to retreat from. In fact, as tens of thousands of declassified pages have later been released, Field’s book has not just been ratified; it has been shown to be too mild, for we know today certain agencies were concealing evidence that would have indicated how parts of the plot and, even moreso, the cover-up, worked. (For example, see section III of this essay and the discoveries about David Phillips and New Orleans.)

At this point, one must accentuate the fact that even though Quillette is known as a scientific and technically oriented journal, that is what is completely missing from any of its articles on the JFK case. For instance, Colgan mentions a conversation he had with Gary Aguilar about his critique—co-written with Cyril Wecht—of the PBS special Cold Case JFK which aired at the 50th anniversary of the JFK murder. But he does not devote a single sentence to the total demolition of that series that Aguilar and Wecht performed—in a peer review journal on ballistics! And he does not link to the two-part review. Nor does he note that, although Gary offered to pay for both their flight and hotel accommodations, the father and son team who were featured on that program refused to debate him in public.

Colgan also notes the decline in the public’s belief that there was a plot behind Kennedy’s murder. This is accurate. At the fiftieth anniversary of Kennedy’s death, Hart Associates did a poll for Larry Sabato’s book, the Kennedy Half Century. It statedthat 75% of the public did not believe the Commission’s lone gunman verdict. This was down from the over 90% during the time that Stone’s film JFK premiered. (Sabato, p. 416) The reason for this is simple to discern. Due to Stone’s film, for about one year—from 1991-92—there was actually an open discussion in the media about Kennedy’s murder. And there were actually programs and front-page stories in magazines that addressed it in an even-handed way. The Power Elite was quite upset by that hubbub. They did three things to counter it. Random House, through editor Bob Loomis and publisher Harold Evans, decided to recruit Gerald Posner and give his book one of the most massive publicity barrages in recent publishing history. We know this from the lawsuit the late Roger Feinman launched against Random House concerning that book.

Secondly, they decided that there would be no more open debate on the issue in the media—and there has not been. We know this from written communications between researcher Walt Brown and Loomis as well as from Alec Baldwin’s speech in Houston last year at a dinner during the JFK mock trial. Baldwin said he had approached NBC with a proposal for a documentary program on Kennedy for the 2013 anniversary. It was rejected without a hearing, with words to this effect: We have reconciled ourselves to the official version. Another example would be what happened in Dallas at the fiftieth anniversary. With the world’s media on hand, Mayor Mike Rawlings completely controlled and cordoned off Dealey Plaza so that no critic could be heard by them. (See our report on the subject as well as this one at jfkfacts.org)

Third, virtually every single program since—and there have been more than a few—has endorsed the Warren Report, specifically the Single Bullet Fantasy and the no-frontal-shot concept. The problem with these productions is that each one has falsified the facts of the case. (See this videoor read this essay)

Judging from their articles, Quillette is really more of a politically oriented journal than a scientific or technical one. At that, they should have understood the politics of the Warren Commission. The policies of the most active member of that body, Allen Dulles, were opposed to those of President Kennedy. But from this review, the reader can see that both Litwin and Quillette were more in sympathy with Dulles than JFK.

 
Last modified on Wednesday, 05 December 2018 15:24

Great response, James. It's absolutely heartbreaking, for me, to come to the realization that, as the generation that was witness to the JFK presidency enters its twilight years, and the generation that grew up in the immediate aftermath of the  assassination begins to rapidly age, the passion begins to cool towards the case. It's a sad fact that, even though the world that we inhabit has been shaped in profound ways by the murder of JFK, to most people the assassination is ancient history. Like Bob Dylan so eloquently sang: It’s not dark yet, but it's getting there. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add that Randy Benson's answer in the article (regarding why he has no LN theorists in The Searchers) is my answer when I'm asked why I don't have them on my show: "You've got the entirety of the mainstream media who will have you on and will promote you and/or your views ad nauseum. I'll pass and let you seek them." And yes, Quillette's JFK assassination articles all seem to be LN-ish. Colgan scold-questions Randy about not being open to LNers, but he has no problem with Quillette not being more open to both sides? Or the NY Times.... or NBC... or The Nation.... or Random House.... or....?

Sort of off-topic, but in the spirit of what I see as a crucial debate problem: 

I've said this before, so this isn't new, but I do think both sides of the debate have a hard time dealing with problematic evidence and witnesses. The tendency to either ignore them or just wash them away with the "discredited" label isn't dealing with them. When a witness tells two very different stories, we accept the one we like (confirmation bias). If we like the one they told first and we don't like the one they told second, then "someone must have gotten to them and scared them into changing their story." If we like the second one and dislike the first one, then "they're a brave witness who is risking it all to come out and tell the truth." The lone nutters do this as well. This is why every public debate on the case I've ever seen or heard is a bad one. One side brings up a witness, the other side says that witness has long been discredited, and then they give an example of a witness that confirms their bias. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Got it. The entire debate is really just an exercise in telling the other that their witnesses have been discredited. Most on neither side can say "Yes, there is that piece of information that I can't just explain away... and it looks very bad for my side... but 95% of the rest of the evidence looks exactly like what I believe. People are complex, long histories are complex, a shady person's shady biography is complex, and I have to conceded at least that piece of evidence to you. I can't explain it away. But here's why I don't think that one piece of evidence is indicative of either a pattern in this case or of a conclusion. Because, if you look, these ten other events (or witnesses or documents) do contradict that one being the prevailing pattern of behavior." Seems like that would be more honest.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these points are valid, but really isn't it just a simple matter that studying the JFK assassination is hard, and for most people, it is too intellectually demanding for them?

Most ordinary people trust the mainstream media at least a little on most issues. So when the MSM presents its universal, monolithic "Oswald did it, Oswald did it alone, and Oswald did it because he was a nut" theory, well then most folks assume that must have some veneer of truth to it.

I realize that lots of people still have doubts about the Warren Commission's basic conclusions, but most people just don't understand the basics of the evidence. They have not the time, the self-discipline or the capacity to wade through the evidence. So doubts are all they have, and they don't dare voice those doubts because of potential ridicule, particularly in a public forum. 

For those of us on  forums such as this one, i think we can take major satisfaction in the vehemence and the rage of the MSM at anyone who dares to dissent from the Lone Nut view. The JFK assassination is clearly a very, very sensitive topic and fifty seven years later, it is still just as taboo as ever. 

That tells me just how crucial it remains today to keep the ultimate sponsors of the assassination hidden from public view. 

If by some miracle, we could prove precisely to whom Allen Dulles and James Angleton were ultimately responsible, we would shake not merely the historical record, but the very underpinnings of American society today! 

That's why the case is still such a no-go for the mainstream media, and why it is so relevant today!

They hate us, and ridicule us and shout us down not because we're wrong, but because we're right!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent commentaries.

The only comment I will add to this discussion of the M$M and the false Warren Commission narrative is that, in my opinion, the same systematic mainstream media propaganda has been deployed in the cover up of PNAC's 9/11 black op.

A great deal of definitive scientific and forensic evidence debunking the official 9/11 narrative has been thoroughly blacklisted by the U.S. mainstream media during the past 19 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

All of these points are valid, but really isn't it just a simple matter that studying the JFK assassination is hard, and for most people, it is too intellectually demanding for them?

Most ordinary people trust the mainstream media at least a little on most issues. So when the MSM presents its universal, monolithic "Oswald did it, Oswald did it alone, and Oswald did it because he was a nut" theory, well then most folks assume that must have some veneer of truth to it.

I realize that lots of people still have doubts about the Warren Commission's basic conclusions, but most people just don't understand the basics of the evidence. They have not the time, the self-discipline or the capacity to wade through the evidence. So doubts are all they have, and they don't dare voice those doubts because of potential ridicule, particularly in a public forum. 

For those of us on  forums such as this one, i think we can take major satisfaction in the vehemence and the rage of the MSM at anyone who dares to dissent from the Lone Nut view. The JFK assassination is clearly a very, very sensitive topic and fifty seven years later, it is still just as taboo as ever. 

That tells me just how crucial it remains today to keep the ultimate sponsors of the assassination hidden from public view. 

If by some miracle, we could prove precisely to whom Allen Dulles and James Angleton were ultimately responsible, we would shake not merely the historical record, but the very underpinnings of American society today! 

That's why the case is still such a no-go for the mainstream media, and why it is so relevant today!

They hate us, and ridicule us and shout us down not because we're wrong, but because we're right!

 

Thanks for the response, Paul. I'm not sure if it's too intellectually demanding. I just think it's a huge case with many shady characters hiding halfway into the shadows. It's not a difficult case because people aren't smart enough to grasp it. It's a difficult case because it's a difficult case. As I said, I also think there is this desire for every fact we find to fit neatly into our own predetermined narrative, like the perfect piece of a puzzle. Quite often, they just don't fit. That doesn't mean the big picture changes. It means that this is a difficult case with a large cast, a lot of activity, covert histories, lies, changing testimony, 1963 photography and the limits thereof, a government who has been largely unwilling to cooperate, a Kennedy family who itself has talked very little and has helped the case very little, Kennedy officials who have commented here and there but usually in vague ways, an MSM that refuses to come off its LBJ-era position no mater what has been found since, and mafiosos from every urban center in the south that have been trying to write themselves into the story since 1963 (some for factual reasons, some as braggadocio). Jackie Kennedy and Marina Oswald helped the case little to none after 1963, John Jr may have been preparing to help the case but the reality is that he wasn't there at the time he passed, Caroline has been mute, and many of the nieces, nephews, and extended family have done nothing to help (Yes, RFK Jr is excluded from this arrow). Throw in the Oswald kids who have been zero help.

Imagine this: Dr. Samuel Mudd's family is still trying to proclaim his innocence since 1865! The people who should have been leading the pro-conspiracy researchers (the Kennedy and Oswald families) have been largely silent. You want to say they're scared? The MLK family has been quite outspoken on James Earl Ray's innocence. It matters that much to them. Sirhan's brother has been outspoken for him. The point is that this case is hard in part because the people who should have been leading it publicly have either been silent in the corner, or they have been too busy planning their own political careers so they could do nothing about this case in those, as well. 

That has left this case to Americans (and others, globally) who just care about truth because historical truth matters and because seeing our government the way it really is matters. The point of my comment on debates is that we can also be so focused that we discard /ignore the facts or testimony or documents of this case that don't agree with what we are trying to say. And we shouldn't. Neither the LNers or the CTers should. It's okay, historically, to say "Yes, I have a problem explaining away those two witnesses or that set of documents or that piece of evidence. Yet, I still believe the preponderance of evidence points to my overall view." Writing off every problematic (to your own thesis) witness as a "discredited witness" is hack research. Who discredited them? People who agree with you and need them discredited? Because their story changed? But you were willing to accept the witness whose story changed to fall in line further with what you believe - so how does that work, this discrediting?

You're 100% correct about the MSM, Paul. They're supposed to be better investigators than what they have been on this case. Worse, they've been propagandists. I also fault the historical establishment and the mass of social studies educators who just teach the textbook (and I can say that as a former social studies educator who wrote  ALL of his own notes, assignments, and tests for the class). I cannot fault the average American for not having read Sylvia Meagher or a bunch of ARRB documents. When a two-parent family still has to work full-time to supports three kids, what are they supposed to do? The 9/11 community scolds them for not "caring enough" because they haven't read all the 9/11 books. The political parties scold them for not being involved enough. That goes on and on. But yes, I think the MSM is at the top of the list of blame since 1963, but it's a long list. 

Good points, all, Paul.  

 

 

Edited by S.T. Patrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

S.T. your point about the two parent working family hit home with me.  I still work 40 hours a week though I think I'm retiring soon.  Between that and things like mowing, weed eating, home maintenance and more reading about the assassination is a luxury I indulge in.  It's tough to find time to really delve into a given aspect of the assassination.  I hope to more if I survive the next three months.  But then I have projects I've been putting off for years some involving really necessary home and property maintenance.  

If I can review, cull and reorganize my resources I'd like to dig deeper.  I've an aspect I'd like to pursue, with potential resources not real far away (Hill College, Baylor and the LBJ library at UT).  Another project.  Until then all I can hope is . . .

Ed Sullivan doesn't seem to be enjoying his job, before or after. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, RT, I think your last  posts are excellent, and there's so much I could quote. I'm not sure how much anybody has responded so far.

There's these lists of brave heroes, witnesses, authors, lawyers,that are believed for no other reason that  their books are read, or some bit of information was  gleaned, or some film was seen that reinforced previously held conclusions, and the fact that in some cases, if some of these people were truly exposed for inconsistencies that would make all the time spent reading their book, or watching a film, a waste of time. Why are some authors granted blind allegiance simply because they wrote a book? There are a lot of people who  jump at some low hanging fruit and inculcate it into their belief system.
 

Then there's been the complete vilification of witnesses or authors  that contradict their pet theory and the lengths some people will go to discredit them.Similarly I've watched more present  day politicians here be branded because they've never expressed a belief in the JFKA Conspiracy, even though some by now, have never really been exposed. Then there's the group appointed conspiracy candidate who would work up a 1% constituency by carrying a pro conspiracy book in her arm, feeding that desire of other pro conspiracy people but is non committal when asked  to comment.

If you  comprised a list of about 50 -100 check boxes of 1)witness's testimony or just later comments,and 2) a list of would be JFK conspirators whether alone or part of domestic or international groups, organizations, politicians,  government agencies, and ask anyone here or anybody in a loose sense who claims to be part of the JFKAC movement;  to check the boxes of those witnesses they either positively believe or people or organizations they think were involved in the assassination and  just witness  how many check marks out of 100 would be  checked. I'm sure it would be quite a few boxes.

 
S.T. said:It's not a difficult case because people aren't smart enough to grasp it. It's a difficult case because it's a difficult case.
 
It is a difficult case.You don't have a strong consensus,  you have only to look at the how many people are restlessly eager to expand the case to worldwide conspiracy dimensions. There's never the consideration that just because some people weren't upset at JFK death, that doesn't make them part of the conspiracy. Nor does it make those who were relieved at the assassination or those who even benefited materially,  guilty of assassinating the President. And it completely ignores the fact that so many people just couldn't keep that secret in tact  for 60 years! But of course they can, and that's just further evidence of their invincibility! Right? It all plays into a conspiracy self dramatization aspect.
 
S.T. said:The people who should have been leading the pro-conspiracy researchers (the Kennedy and Oswald families) have been largely silent.
 
I've mentioned a few times here how the Kennedy family  never lifted a finger. When Bobby was AG, the entire world would have applauded him giving a serious look into the killing of his brother. But he never did. Now we're left with a lot of anecdotal stories that were largely kept secret for over 30 years, that Bobby positively knew his brothers assassination was a conspiracy and really had suspicions of the CIA being involved. I could see Bobby not coming out publicly about it during his life, but you'd think in the 70's many of his people would have come out.
 
There's also this self pitying narrative  here that the MSM has been putting down the Kennedy's for 50 years. Well they certainly haven't been very successful, have they? If anything, they've just added to the intrigue and mystique. The Kennedy's are the only political family brand that is still surviving and even thriving. Only a few months ago they lost their first race for high office,but that's because the had a weak centrist candidate, that's not really what the public expects of Kennedys. If anyone came along who was a dynamic presence and in that mold, there could be great success.
 
*****
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fading of interest in the JFK case is inevitable due to the passing of time. I am one who believes there are actors who help the public 'wait out' (Angleton's words?) the desire for truth, but history is forgotten, eventualy.

I think since I have taken an interest (about 3/4 years) some conspiracy theories have certainly faded : Mafia did it, Cuba did, Russia did it., these are all theories whose support has diminished, but at least within the research community there are other theories that have diminshed. For example ; few think the medical evidence supports the Warren Commission. Few think Kennedy had a small hole in the back of his head on  leaving DP. Less people beleive Oswald actualy went to Mexico City. Less people are adamant the Zapruder film accurately represents the shooting sequence.

A majority in favour of the Warren Commission findings, or those simply who are anti-conspiracy, point to confirmation bias, and other mental gymnastics that people perform to coalesce around a view. I certainly beleive the Trump phenomena is an excellent example of this. I can compare Qanon theories with my own in the JFK assassination, and I can confidently and honestly say that the chain of facts, that support conspiracy in the JFK far exceed any explanation of  bias I could possess. Anons might see a vague indication of Pizza eating peadophiles. I see a chain of evidence, presentable in solid form.

 

I encourage everyone to read Larry Hancock's 'Tipping Point' on Mary Ferrell. I think this is the framework we should all coalesce around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 9:06 AM, Paul Jolliffe said:

All of these points are valid, but really isn't it just a simple matter that studying the JFK assassination is hard, and for most people, it is too intellectually demanding for them?

Most ordinary people trust the mainstream media at least a little on most issues. So when the MSM presents its universal, monolithic "Oswald did it, Oswald did it alone, and Oswald did it because he was a nut" theory, well then most folks assume that must have some veneer of truth to it.

I realize that lots of people still have doubts about the Warren Commission's basic conclusions, but most people just don't understand the basics of the evidence. They have not the time, the self-discipline or the capacity to wade through the evidence. So doubts are all they have, and they don't dare voice those doubts because of potential ridicule, particularly in a public forum. 

For those of us on  forums such as this one, i think we can take major satisfaction in the vehemence and the rage of the MSM at anyone who dares to dissent from the Lone Nut view. The JFK assassination is clearly a very, very sensitive topic and fifty seven years later, it is still just as taboo as ever. 

That tells me just how crucial it remains today to keep the ultimate sponsors of the assassination hidden from public view. 

If by some miracle, we could prove precisely to whom Allen Dulles and James Angleton were ultimately responsible, we would shake not merely the historical record, but the very underpinnings of American society today! 

That's why the case is still such a no-go for the mainstream media, and why it is so relevant today!

They hate us, and ridicule us and shout us down not because we're wrong, but because we're right!

 

Yes, very well put.

Cut through my rambling post to a coherent message.

Yes, we living survivors who witnessed the JFK event coverage as it happened are riding into the sunset now. Our children and grandchildren will eventually be placing our JFK assassination books out at garage sales for 50 cents each.

Reminds me of seeing You Tube video interviews of toothless 100 year old Civil War veterans sitting in their front porch rocking chairs with hand held horn hearing aids and sharing random bits of their civil war memories with what ever passerbys will take the time to listen.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

What are younger people likely to encounter when they start to explore the JFKA on-line?

A bunch of boomers bickering over bs.

I recommend all newbies start here:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/proof-of-conspiracy-in-jfk-assassination-rev

Kudos Kennedys & King for the Master Class (at last!) acknowledgement of the physical evidence found with the body —the primary evidence in any homicide investigation.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Yes, very well put.

Cut through my rambling post to a coherent message.

Yes, we living survivors who witnessed the JFK event coverage as it happened are riding into the sunset now. Our children and grandchildren will eventually be placing our JFK assassination books out at garage sales for 50 cents each.

Reminds me of seeing You Tube video interviews of toothless 100 year old Civil War veterans sitting in their front porch rocking chairs with hand held horn hearing aids and sharing random bits of their civil war memories with what ever passerbys will take the time to listen.

 

In the "hope springs eternal" category:

There are a few (perhaps quite a few) individuals who were two-years-old at the time of the assassination who do remember it, so there are actually people "only" in their fifties (albeit 59) who were of age then. :)

More importantly, I know several young people (late teens-mid twenties) who are very much into both President Kennedy and the study of his death.

This past anniversary did see the reruns of several assassination programs. Newsmax TV is airing episodes 7 (my episode) and 8 of The Men Who Killed Kennedy on a fairly regular basis (since 2019). CNN has been airing First Ladies: Jacqueline Kennedy (2020).

The internet (including Facebook forums) is hopping with interest and information on both JFK's life and death.

JFK is our last assassinated President and "only" 10 Presidents ago. The 11th will be Joe Biden, the first Catholic President since...JFK.

Biden and Trump were much aware of JFK in their youths, as they were young men when he served and was killed (even Obama was a toddler).

Millions of people still remember President Kennedy.

Caroline Kennedy is a living touchstone to those days.

The aforementioned internet keeps JFK alive via the many audio-visuals...and MANY of the digitized images have only been available SINCE 2008 ONWARD!! Before 2008, it was very slim pickings online (I know for a fact: I have been scouring the net countless times since 1996).

The vast majority of the very best books on the case are only from this century---the last 10-15 years.

The silly Ted-Cruz's-dad-knew-Oswald 2016 story generated a ton of media coverage.

The 2017-2018 JFK file releases generated a ton of media coverage.

Silly assassination tabloid news stories still greet shoppers at check-out lines.

3/26/20--MURDER MOST FOUL by Bob Dylan becomes a #1 chart-topper.

There are still two major conferences in Dallas every year. My virtual presentation drew about 70 live viewers and has 875 views in less than a week.

2021 sees both Josiah Thompson's book (January) and MY book (March) come out.

Honest Answers about the Murder of President John F. Kennedy: A New Look at the JFK Assassination: Palamara, Vincent Michael: 9781634243346: Amazon.com: Books

 

51q-Bk+AAUL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Vince Palamara
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...