John McAdams has passed on

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at who this guy is and what he does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Uscinski

Can TP be serious with this approach?  

 

Not to belabor a point, but Uscinski could have a few good ideas, and indeed, certain elements of the public could be susceptible to conspiracy theories. 

So what?

There could be 100 crackpot theories out there on various topics, and they have nothing to do with the facts in the JFKA. 

And BTW, the mainstream media presented the Hunter Biden laptop story as a conspiracy theory, fomented by Russian disinformationists. And that the Wuhan lab leak was a "debunked conspiracy theory."  

Egads. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has earned---with hard sustained work earned---the distrust of American readers. 

[Paul Baker]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Lone Nut is a cult.  It requires a true belief impervious to obvious fact.

😂

Nothing changes here, does it?

If you find the obvious is still just out of reach, visit John McAdams' website, or read JFK Assassination Logic. It's one of the very few JFK assassination books that makes sense.

[Joe Bauer]

One could not find anything close to the number of seriously intriguing side stories connected to and involving the actual shooters in almost every other high power profile U.S. assassination attempts since the 1960's as there have been reported with Lee Harvey Oswald and those he interacted with both before and in the year leading up to 11,22,1963.

Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Arthur Bremmer, John Hinkley Jr. ( although his family was Bush family friends ) Mark David Chapman, Squeaky Fromme, none of their personal life stories come close to the intrigue of Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Again, throw in Jack Ruby and Marina Oswald and their background stories as well.

After reading and studying just 1/10th of the intrigue connected encounter stories involving Lee Oswald in his brief 24 year long life ( versus so many less with those other shooters ) one is forced to consider his alleged actions and charges regarding JFK and Dallas PD J.D. Tippit with logically more rational conspiratorial suspicion.

How can anyone pretend or rationalize that all these suspicion suggesting side story events and engagements connected to Oswald are all just hyperinflated coincidences and mean nothing in the larger picture story and the doubting of the WC lone nut -just seeking attention- Oswald / JFK conclusion?

The list of Oswald suspicious character connected interaction side stories in his background and especially in the last year of his life are so numerous it's laughably absurd.

For someone supposedly being on the extreme end of the quiet, reserved, non-communicative and secretive loner personality spectrum, Oswald had as much social interaction as most extroverts.

Just in his New Orleans time alone Oswald interacted with:

Some say David Ferrie but for sure Dean Andrews, Carlos Bringuier, co-leaflet passers, TV and radio crews, FBI agents, several residents in a strange side trip to Clinton, Louisiana, possibly David and Anna Lewis, Reilly Coffee company workers and supposedly others at David Ferry's apartment, a sit down in one downtown Cuban covert activity hot spot bar, etc..

Supposedly loner and bookworm Oswald didn't while away his unemployed NO time sitting at home in his apartment or in a library back room cubby hole reading by himself. He got out there in the public and made contact and noise.

One of the main reasons the JFK assassination event begs conspiracy consideration so much more than most other U.S. assassination events imo, are the absurdly large number of suspiciously provocative side stories and characters connected to Oswald, especially from the time of his Marine enlistment and service, through his defection to the Soviet Union and his marriage to a secret police colonel's niece Marina Prusokova and upon his return to the U.S., especially during his 1963 time in New Orleans.

Just a few of these intriguing side story engagements of Oswald's:

Infamous covert agent character Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed to have interacted with Oswald in Japan.

Oswald studies Russian language for years. 

The entire Russian defection affair.

In New Orleans contact with Dean Andrews ( for sure ) and possibly David Ferrie and even Clay Shaw?

Odd civil then confrontational contact with expatriate Cuban community leader Carlos Bringuier.

Camp Street address leaflet passing, TV and radio appearances, FBI visit requests.

Clinton, Louisiana affair. 

Trip to Mexico. Yes, no?

In Dallas, the De Mohrenchildts and other white Russian emigres.

Sylvia and Angie Odio encounter

General Walker shooting incident.

The Paines and one-on-one talks with Michael Paine

Back Yard photos.

Secret alias's and mailing addresses.

One could list 100 more such strange doings and interaction stories.

Oswald did more odd international traveling and engaged in more unusual activities and dealt with more intriguing characters in his short 24 years than 90% of so-called average people do in a 70 year lifetime.

Yet, all this proven fact extraordinary travel, activity and strange character contact is supposed to mean nothing in the final assessment of his alleged actions during the last two days of his life?

In totality it's this incredibly huge number side story aspect to Oswald and his life before 11,22,1963 that "forces" a rational person to consider much more to the JFK event story than simply a poor, angry and frustrated bus taking, cheapest single room only rent affording, minimum wage book order filler just getting incredibly lucky with a chance at finally making a name for himself in American and world history. Something more worthy to leave to his beloved daughter's memory of him than that of a just no count, dead beat loser dad?

Please.     

If any major event in modern history begs for conspiracy consideration it is the JFK assassination.

Based on just one third of the huge number of suspiciously intriguing side stories connected to the main characters involved ( Oswald especially ) it is definitely more rational to consider a conspiracy regards the JFK event than not. In my opinion anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at who this guy is and what he does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Uscinski

Can TP be serious with this approach?  

 

As I said, he studies conspiracy theories of all types. But I think it would be interesting to apply his work to the JFK case specifically (which he really does not do to any extent). I am kicking around the idea now.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

15 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

JFK suffered a shallow wound in his back and an entrance wound in his throat with no exit.

There were no rounds recovered from those wounds during the autopsy.

Those are the root facts of the JFKA. 

Y'all need to learn how to deal with it.

But epistemological authorities (as Uscinski refers to them) do not agree with you. It is those authorities that you have to convince-not me or other LNs or even CTs. That will be the thesis of my piece.

Edited April 19, 2021 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The Lone Nut theory has already been invalidated by numerous contrary facts in the case.

Contrary facts do not disprove a theory. Professional investigators, attorneys etc. know that there will be facts pointing toward a certain conclusion as well as facts that do not seem to confirm it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Not to belabor a point, but Uscinski could have a few good ideas, and indeed, certain elements of the public could be susceptible to conspiracy theories. 

So what?

Well, we'll see what I come up with.

[Matt Allison]

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Well, we'll see what I come up with.

The problem for you is that study of the JFK assassination can't be grouped together into one conspiracy theory that you can point at and mock, like for example I do with QAnon. There is a spectrum that ranges from crazy, obviously goofball theories all the way to deep document analysis that is no different than any other historical research.

By attempting to group them all together to make your point, all you do is reveal an agenda and intellectual dishonesty, thus neutering your effort.

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

😂

Nothing changes here, does it?

Nope, just another cocky non-response from the nutter gallery.

4 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

If you find the obvious is still just out of reach,

What kind of person is incapable of observing the movement of their own clothing?

A lone nutter.

[Cliff Varnell]

49 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But epistemological authorities (as Uscinski refers to them) do not agree with you.

No, you're just making up stuff because you have no answer for the First Day evidence.

I don't present any theories, just facts gathered on the First Day.

You have no rebuttal, so you wave your hands.

49 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is those authorities that you have to convince-not me or other LNs or even CTs. That will be the thesis of my piece.

I don't have to convince anyone.  Either you are capable of making a simple physical observation or you're not.

Confirmation bias is a bitch, ain't it, Tracy?

[Cliff Varnell]

54 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Contrary facts do not disprove a theory. Professional investigators, attorneys etc. know that there will be facts pointing toward a certain conclusion as well as facts that do not seem to confirm it.

There isn't a professional investigator in the world who'd disregard the physical evidence recovered with the body, the contemporaneous written reports of people in position of authority, the consensus eye/ear witness statements, the authenticated/verified medical  evidence.

But you ignore all of those things, Tracy.

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Contrary facts do not disprove a theory. Professional investigators, attorneys etc. know that there will be facts pointing toward a certain conclusion as well as facts that do not seem to confirm it.

I'm talking about formal logic and the philosophy of science, not propaganda or public opinion.

Contrary facts absolutely invalidate theories.  A valid theory must provide a logical explanatory framework for the facts.  It is invalidated by any contrary fact.

Hence, as I said, it is far easier to invalidate scientific/forensic theories than to validate them.

The "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination has absolutely been invalidated by many contrary facts.  Period.

JFK was not murdered by shots fired solely by a lone assassin in the TSBD.

Edited April 19, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination has absolutely been invalidated by many contrary facts.  Period.

If your statement is a fact, it should be a simple matter to present this to the proper authorities to gain a new investigation. But the reality is that the majority of media, academia, scientists and so on do not agree with your statement. Now, in an effort to dismiss me, perhaps you are going to say that you subscribe to the Jim D. theory that there is a world-wide conspiracy by the media (and perhaps others) to cover up your facts. So, you have simply created a new conspiracy to explain why the old one is not recognized.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If your statement is a fact, it should be a simple matter to present this to the proper authorities to gain a new investigation. But the reality is that the majority of media, academia, scientists and so on do not agree with your statement. Now, in an effort to dismiss me, perhaps you are going to say that you subscribe to the Jim D. theory that there is a world-wide conspiracy by the media (and perhaps others) to cover up your facts. So, you have simply created a new conspiracy to explain why the old one is not recognized.

Nonsense.  What I said is definitional-- a tautology.

By definition, valid theories are frameworks for explaining all of the known facts.

If a scientific/forensic theory is contradicted by facts it is not valid, by definition.

The "Lone Nut" theory is contradicted by numerous facts-- everything from the wounds and ballistics to the obvious retrograde trajectory of JFK's head during the fatal shot.

The FBI's own ballistics tests showed that a fatal head shot fired from the TSBD would have blown off the right side of JFK's face.

The people still believe the WCR's Lone Nut theory are simply misinformed about the facts.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If your statement is a fact, it should be a simple matter to present this to the proper authorities to gain a new investigation. But the reality is that the majority of media, academia, scientists and so on do not agree with your statement. Now, in an effort to dismiss me, perhaps you are going to say that you subscribe to the Jim D. theory that there is a world-wide conspiracy by the media (and perhaps others) to cover up your facts. So, you have simply created a new conspiracy to explain why the old one is not recognized.

TBH “Jim D’s theory” as you call it, isn’t really much of a theory at all, it’s only a logical observation looking at history in conjunction with the media actions and reactions relating to that history. We are talking about the same media that has reported with heavy bias for the past 60 years when it comes to US foreign policy or, neglected to report things that may have been in the interests of the US taxpayer. It’s the same media that has manufactured public consent to jump into conflict after conflict. 

I’d be pretty astounded if this hasn’t occurred to you, but if so, it means you may have some reading to do on the topics of propaganda and psychology. Or, it may just be you are so entrenched in your denial, that your ego won’t let you go back. Either way it’s pretty staggering.