Not to be a debbie downer, but the tide has turned...

[Vince Palamara]

While I am excited about the new Stone documentary (outstanding) and several recent books, not to mention the level of scholarship the past 5-15 years or so, I am noticing a sea change online from NON-researchers about the JFK case. For one example of many- a local Pittsburgh celebrity posted a short video of Dr. Wecht dismantling the single bullet theory from just the other night and, rather than a bunch of nice comments from the public, the vast majority of the comments (again, from NON-researchers) would make Fred Litwin, DVP, Tracy Parnell and others proud. I have no doubt that, if this video would have been posted pre-2013 and especially pre-2003, the comments would have been largely in agreement.

The public opinion polls used to be hugely in favor of conspiracy. As we know, the last major poll in 2013 demonstrated only a 61 percent pro-conspiracy slant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number is even lower now.

One can even see this on Amazon reviews for Hill's three (soon to be 4) books, Gerald Blaine's book, and other (anti) conspiracy books. There seems to be a feeling of "relief" that it was "only" Oswald from the regular folks who post these reviews, something in direct opposition to the silly claim that people seek comfort in CONSPIRACY notions. Uh, if anything, it is the OPPOSITE- people definitely seem to be "relieved" that is was "only" Oswald after swallowing the contents of these anti-conspiracy books hook, line and sinker. The cult of personality associated with Clint Hill is mind-boggling: he was one of the NINE agents who drank and stayed out late that morning and admitted for years that he and his fellow agents failed, even stating several times it is "my fault", yet don't DARE say anything about either the drinking incident, pro-conspiracy notions or the agent's failure on 11/22/63 or these cult-like sycophants will rip you a new one!

Simply put (and it pains me to say this): despite our valiant efforts, they won. The history books will not be changed (most barely mention the controversy or even use the word alleged when talking about Oswald) and time has NOT been a friend. So many witnesses have passed on. Think about it: 30 years ago, when Stone's JFK came out, Jackie, the Connallys, Ted, JFK Jr., and many principal people were still among us. The "evil" George H.W. Bush, ex-CIA director, was president. It was a heady time when conferences were just beginning again after a huge lull in the 1980's and the blossoming internet (largely computer bulletin boards) AND print journals spread the interest and inspiration for the masses.

Now, the net is old news (everyone has access to it and has for ages) and anyone can post anything they want about the case, free of charge. Society has changed a lot in 30 years- the dawn of the 21rst century, 9/11, other (corrupt) administrations, etc.

Don't get me wrong with this "downer" post- we have achieved a lot: many books of a scholarly nature; several major documentaries (TMWKK 1-9, A Coup in Camelot, JFK Revisited, etc.); the ARRB and the file releases, including recent ones in 2017-2018; and so on.

Again, this is just a reminder that time is not a friend.

I even see it online for my own self with my You Tube channel and various blogs and social media platforms: the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy; James "I am not in any" Files killed JFK; Jackie (!) shot her husband; and a fair amount of "get a life-it was Oswald", something that almost never happened pre-2013 unless it came from a well-known anti-conspiracy person/author...now these comments come from John Q. Citizen!

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

 

 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Vince Palamara

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

While I am excited about the new Stone documentary (outstanding) and several recent books, not to mention the level of scholarship the past 5-15 years or so, I am noticing a sea change online from NON-researchers about the JFK case. For one example of many- a local Pittsburgh celebrity posted a short video of Dr. Wecht dismantling the single bullet theory from just the other night and, rather than a bunch of nice comments from the public, the vast majority of the comments (again, from NON-researchers) would make Fred Litwin, DVP, Tracy Parnell and others proud. I have no doubt that, if this video would have been posted pre-2013 and especially pre-2003, the comments would have been largely in agreement.

The public opinion polls used to be hugely in favor of conspiracy. As we know, the last major poll in 2013 demonstrated only a 61 percent pro-conspiracy slant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number is even lower now.

One can even see this on Amazon reviews for Hill's three (soon to be 4) books, Gerald Blaine's book, and other (anti) conspiracy books. There seems to be a feeling of "relief" that it was "only" Oswald from the regular folks who post these reviews, something in direct opposition to the silly claim that people seek comfort in CONSPIRACY notions. Uh, if anything, it is the OPPOSITE- people definitely seem to be "relieved" that is was "only" Oswald after swallowing the contents of these anti-conspiracy books hook, line and sinker. The cult of personality associated with Clint Hill is mind-boggling: he was one of the NINE agents who drank and stayed out late that morning and admitted for years that he and his fellow agents failed, even stating several times it is "my fault", yet don't DARE say anything about either the drinking incident, pro-conspiracy notions or the agent's failure on 11/22/63 or these cult-like sycophants will rip you a new one!

Simply put (and it pains me to say this): despite our valiant efforts, they won. The history books will not be changed (most barely mention the controversy or even use the word alleged when talking about Oswald) and time has NOT been a friend. So many witnesses have passed on. Think about it: 30 years ago, when Stone's JFK came out, Jackie, the Connallys, Ted, JFK Jr., and many principal people were still among us. The "evil" George H.W. Bush, ex-CIA director, was president. It was a heady time when conferences were just beginning again after a huge lull in the 1980's and the blossoming internet (largely computer bulletin boards) AND print journals spread the interest and inspiration for the masses.

Now, the net is old news (everyone has access to it and has for ages) and anyone can post anything they want about the case, free of charge. Society has changed a lot in 30 years- the dawn of the 21rst century, 9/11, other (corrupt) administrations, etc.

Don't get me wrong with this "downer" post- we have achieved a lot: many books of a scholarly nature; several major documentaries (TMWKK 1-9, A Coup in Camelot, JFK Revisited, etc.); the ARRB and the file releases, including recent ones in 2017-2018; and so on.

Again, this is just a reminder that time is not a friend.

I even see it online for my own self with my You Tube channel and various blogs and social media platforms: the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy; James "I am not in any" Files killed JFK; Jackie (!) shot her husband; and a fair amount of "get a life-it was Oswald", something that almost never happened pre-2013 unless it came from a well-known anti-conspiracy person/author...now these comments come from John Q. Citizen!

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

 

 

The MSM never gave a thought to the inconsistencies in the WR. I'll let Harold Weisberg give my two cents with his explanation of how the MSM handled critics of the WC early on. It seems to be the same way they handle us critics even today:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/weisberg-media.mp4

[Stephanie Goldberg]

Not a real reply, but I’m not able to access my full keyboard at the moment. You’ve made some excellent points. I’ll be back later today or tomorrow to agree with more words. 

[Vince Palamara]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

The MSM never gave a thought to the inconsistencies in the WR. I'll let Harold Weisberg give my two cents with his explanation of how the MSM handled critics of the WC early on. It seems to be the same way they handle us critics even today:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/weisberg-media.mp4

Excellent, Gil!

[Vince Palamara]

1 hour ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

Not a real reply, but I’m not able to access my full keyboard at the moment. You’ve made some excellent points. I’ll be back later today or tomorrow to agree with more words. 

Thanks! Yes- not trying to be a "bummer" but I am alarmed at the sheer number of lone-nut responses I am seeing online from non-researchers. Back when the movie JFK came out up to 2003, I only knew of lone-nutters and they were the same handful everyone else know. Now, it is an army!

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

While I am excited about the new Stone documentary (outstanding) and several recent books, not to mention the level of scholarship the past 5-15 years or so, I am noticing a sea change online from NON-researchers about the JFK case. For one example of many- a local Pittsburgh celebrity posted a short video of Dr. Wecht dismantling the single bullet theory from just the other night and, rather than a bunch of nice comments from the public, the vast majority of the comments (again, from NON-researchers) would make Fred Litwin, DVP, Tracy Parnell and others proud. I have no doubt that, if this video would have been posted pre-2013 and especially pre-2003, the comments would have been largely in agreement.

The public opinion polls used to be hugely in favor of conspiracy. As we know, the last major poll in 2013 demonstrated only a 61 percent pro-conspiracy slant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number is even lower now.

One can even see this on Amazon reviews for Hill's three (soon to be 4) books, Gerald Blaine's book, and other (anti) conspiracy books. There seems to be a feeling of "relief" that it was "only" Oswald from the regular folks who post these reviews, something in direct opposition to the silly claim that people seek comfort in CONSPIRACY notions. Uh, if anything, it is the OPPOSITE- people definitely seem to be "relieved" that is was "only" Oswald after swallowing the contents of these anti-conspiracy books hook, line and sinker. The cult of personality associated with Clint Hill is mind-boggling: he was one of the NINE agents who drank and stayed out late that morning and admitted for years that he and his fellow agents failed, even stating several times it is "my fault", yet don't DARE say anything about either the drinking incident, pro-conspiracy notions or the agent's failure on 11/22/63 or these cult-like sycophants will rip you a new one!

Simply put (and it pains me to say this): despite our valiant efforts, they won. The history books will not be changed (most barely mention the controversy or even use the word alleged when talking about Oswald) and time has NOT been a friend. So many witnesses have passed on. Think about it: 30 years ago, when Stone's JFK came out, Jackie, the Connallys, Ted, JFK Jr., and many principal people were still among us. The "evil" George H.W. Bush, ex-CIA director, was president. It was a heady time when conferences were just beginning again after a huge lull in the 1980's and the blossoming internet (largely computer bulletin boards) AND print journals spread the interest and inspiration for the masses.

Now, the net is old news (everyone has access to it and has for ages) and anyone can post anything they want about the case, free of charge. Society has changed a lot in 30 years- the dawn of the 21rst century, 9/11, other (corrupt) administrations, etc.

Don't get me wrong with this "downer" post- we have achieved a lot: many books of a scholarly nature; several major documentaries (TMWKK 1-9, A Coup in Camelot, JFK Revisited, etc.); the ARRB and the file releases, including recent ones in 2017-2018; and so on.

Again, this is just a reminder that time is not a friend.

I even see it online for my own self with my You Tube channel and various blogs and social media platforms: the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy; James "I am not in any" Files killed JFK; Jackie (!) shot her husband; and a fair amount of "get a life-it was Oswald", something that almost never happened pre-2013 unless it came from a well-known anti-conspiracy person/author...now these comments come from John Q. Citizen!

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

 

 

I wrote about this in 2013. There was a decided and perhaps co-ordinated effort among the major news media to downplay the possibility of a conspiracy, and make conspiracy theorists look like loonies. As a result, those wanting to feel smart without actually doing any research took to dismissing the case with a wave of a hand. Things continued to slide from there, with the sloppiest, stupidest and bloodiest videos getting the most views, to such an extent even that many newbies are first exposed to Files-did-it, Greer-did-it, Hickey-did-it, and Judy-did Lee nonsense. This pushes the genuinely curious away, IMO. And serves as a filter whereby most newbies developing a marginal interest in the case are gullible and overly excited by bright shiny objects, or cynical trolls who think it's fun to "own" the "nuts"

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Vince,

That is not in any way a scientific sample.

There are so many trolls online over the JFK case its kind of ridiculous.  And they know where to go.

The DVD for JFK Revisited has been out for five weeks.  This has been the ranking on Amazon documentaries:

Week 1: Number 1

Week 2: Number 1

Week 3: Number 1

Week 4: Number 4

Week 5: Number 6

In my opinion, that is pretty impressive.  Since the film has been out since last July.

Edited August 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

And by the way, these trolls are hydra headed.

By that I mean they go under more than one name and identity.

At Matt D's web site, somebody exposed one of them as using two different names. And the other guy was a real person.

I would advise no one to underestimate the xxxxx factor.

[Ron Bulman]

11 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

While I am excited about the new Stone documentary (outstanding) and several recent books, not to mention the level of scholarship the past 5-15 years or so, I am noticing a sea change online from NON-researchers about the JFK case. For one example of many- a local Pittsburgh celebrity posted a short video of Dr. Wecht dismantling the single bullet theory from just the other night and, rather than a bunch of nice comments from the public, the vast majority of the comments (again, from NON-researchers) would make Fred Litwin, DVP, Tracy Parnell and others proud. I have no doubt that, if this video would have been posted pre-2013 and especially pre-2003, the comments would have been largely in agreement.

The public opinion polls used to be hugely in favor of conspiracy. As we know, the last major poll in 2013 demonstrated only a 61 percent pro-conspiracy slant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number is even lower now.

One can even see this on Amazon reviews for Hill's three (soon to be 4) books, Gerald Blaine's book, and other (anti) conspiracy books. There seems to be a feeling of "relief" that it was "only" Oswald from the regular folks who post these reviews, something in direct opposition to the silly claim that people seek comfort in CONSPIRACY notions. Uh, if anything, it is the OPPOSITE- people definitely seem to be "relieved" that is was "only" Oswald after swallowing the contents of these anti-conspiracy books hook, line and sinker. The cult of personality associated with Clint Hill is mind-boggling: he was one of the NINE agents who drank and stayed out late that morning and admitted for years that he and his fellow agents failed, even stating several times it is "my fault", yet don't DARE say anything about either the drinking incident, pro-conspiracy notions or the agent's failure on 11/22/63 or these cult-like sycophants will rip you a new one!

Simply put (and it pains me to say this): despite our valiant efforts, they won. The history books will not be changed (most barely mention the controversy or even use the word alleged when talking about Oswald) and time has NOT been a friend. So many witnesses have passed on. Think about it: 30 years ago, when Stone's JFK came out, Jackie, the Connallys, Ted, JFK Jr., and many principal people were still among us. The "evil" George H.W. Bush, ex-CIA director, was president. It was a heady time when conferences were just beginning again after a huge lull in the 1980's and the blossoming internet (largely computer bulletin boards) AND print journals spread the interest and inspiration for the masses.

Now, the net is old news (everyone has access to it and has for ages) and anyone can post anything they want about the case, free of charge. Society has changed a lot in 30 years- the dawn of the 21rst century, 9/11, other (corrupt) administrations, etc.

Don't get me wrong with this "downer" post- we have achieved a lot: many books of a scholarly nature; several major documentaries (TMWKK 1-9, A Coup in Camelot, JFK Revisited, etc.); the ARRB and the file releases, including recent ones in 2017-2018; and so on.

Again, this is just a reminder that time is not a friend.

I even see it online for my own self with my You Tube channel and various blogs and social media platforms: the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy; James "I am not in any" Files killed JFK; Jackie (!) shot her husband; and a fair amount of "get a life-it was Oswald", something that almost never happened pre-2013 unless it came from a well-known anti-conspiracy person/author...now these comments come from John Q. Citizen!

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

 

 

Vince, you're saying that after almost 60 years, slightly over 60% of the US public still believe there was a conspiracy.  It's not just all of us old folks anymore. 

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Vince, you're saying that after almost 60 years, slightly over 60% of the US public still believe there was a conspiracy.  It's not just all of us old folks anymore. 

I believe it crept up to as high as 80% in the mid-70's and early 90's. Since that time it's trickled downwards. I attribute that to a number of issues.

1. The media rarely reports on it except to say it's old news and if it was gonna be solved it would have been solved long ago. You could discover a death-bed confession from LBJ and it would barely make a dent.

2. The conspiracy theories that get the most attention on the internet and youtube are everything-but-the-kitchen sink theories that serve to reduce real sustained interest more than they increase real sustained interest. Whether or not it is true, when someone's opening line is that almost all the evidence is fake or that almost all the witnesses lied, most people tune out.  I know that when I developed a real sustained interest it wasn't because I read a book saying the body was altered or the autopsy photos were fake, although yes I did read those books. What got me hooked was that I discovered Rex Bradford's History Matters website, and read for myself the autopsy protocol, the Clark Panel report, and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel report, and could see that the descriptions of JFK's wounds we're in opposition to each other. In short, people are more likely to take an interest if they can see something for themselves than if they are told what to believe by some old white guy.

3. it's not always the message. Sometimes it's the people receiving the message. We have an epidemic of historical proportions in this country in that many have little understanding of how the world they live in got this way. I mean, why read a book when you can have fun killing people on your computer?

[Benjamin Cole]

Ponder this by Dick Russell, himself a JFKA'er.

Part 1: CIA’s Extraordinary Role Influencing Liberal Media Outlets Daily Kos, The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone

Part 2: The Belly of The Daily Beast and Its Perceptible Ties to the CIA

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/the-daily-beast-ties-to-cia/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cia-liberal-media-outlets-the-real-anthony-fauci/

What passes as "left-wing" or liberal media has funding or other ties to the national security state. The Daily Beast once described the JFKA research community as a bunch of old white guys who wear bad shirts. That, while reviewing JFK:Revisited. 

Ever wonder why the WaPo defines every aspect of America society as "white supremacist"---but not the US military, trade or foreign policies?  

In addition, of late, many left-wingers have begun to think of the FBI and Deep State operatives---who are legion on CNN and MSNBC---as the good guys. 

Trump has become the dividing line. If the Deep State torpedoes Trump, then the Deep State is good. 

So...the reception to DiEugenio's JFK's Revisited was more favorable in right-wing media than in left-wing media. A turnabout from 40 years ago.

The American Democratic Party, the media and the Deep State are forming tighter bonds than ever, somewhat jousting the Old Guard GOP from the loveseat. 

See the Cheney-Donk love-fest for more clues. 

The JFKA is not a polite topic of conversation. 

But DiEugenio has broken through with his excellent production. 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Vince Palamara writes:

Quote

the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy;

It's worth remembering that the 'Hickey shot Kennedy' nonsense isn't a conspiracy theory, but a lone-nut theory.

Obviously, it's a 'conspiracy theory' in the propaganda sense of the term, in that it's far-fetched and easily debunked. But it proposes that Oswald, the lone nut, was taking pot-shots at Kennedy from the sixth floor, and that neither Oswald nor Hickey were part of any conspiracy.

Although the Bronson film shows that it didn't happen, the hypothetical notion of an accidental head-shot has a propaganda use. It allows two contradictory items to be reconciled:

• (a) the low-entry, high-exit head wounds described by the autopsy pathologists, and
• (b) the notion of a lone gunman shooting from 60 feet above the street.

The theory's function has been to persuade the uninformed public that Oswald acted alone. That is no doubt why it was trundled out on the 50th anniversary, despite having been debunked 20 years earlier, and why it may get put forward as a credible explanation again next year.

[Pete Mellor]

The anti-conspiracy machine is gearing up on this side of the pond.

We are approaching the 25th anniversary of the deaths of Diana Spencer/Dodi Fayed/Henri Paul in Paris in 1997.

To mark the anniversary Channel 4 in the U.K. are screening a four part series titled 'Investigating Diana: Death in Paris'. Part 1 screened last night, Sunday 21st.

Monday's Guardian reports:-Jessop and Peel astutely note that her death turbocharged the infant internet’s mutation into a post-truth tool, enabling every disaffected boob to sick up their conspiracy theories about her demise. But, more importantly, Jessop and Peel have reworked Diana’s death so that Investigating Diana comes on as if it wants to be this summer’s Tiger King or Making a Murderer.

 

[Gil Jesus]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And by the way, these trolls are hydra headed.

By that I mean they go under more than one name and identity.

At Matt D's web site, somebody exposed one of them as using two different names. And the other guy was a real person.

I would advise no one to underestimate the xxxxx factor.

I agree, they may not be as large in number as they seem. The internet allows them to be one "person" one day and another the next. I'm watching one in this group who I suspect has changed his name. Another reason why I was pushing for a subscription to post and why the LNers were against it.

They wouldn't be able to hide behind fake screennames, fake pictures and multiple accounts.

[Denny Zartman]

I think a lot of young people don't see much relevance in the JFK assassination these days. JFK was not an active figure in their lifetime and increasingly not even in their parent's lifetimes. I think what FDR might or might not have known prior to Pearl Harbor would be a comparable example of a historical event also irrelevant to their interests or lives. Something like that would be of interest to those who already had an interest, otherwise it's just a historical mystery involving people that were never current for them.

Of course, interest in true crime mysteries never really go completely out of style. Unfortunately the JFK assassination comes with a lot more baggage than the event spotlighted in your average Netflix true crime series. Almost every single person's first exposure to the JFKA is in the context of someone else characterizing conspiracy theories as crazy. In TV and movies, any conspiracy-minded character has to spout off some sort of wacky connection or theory about the JFKA. In comedies, the wackier the better. It's almost obligatory. That conspiracy theorists are wacky is something the online LN t_r-o_l-l_s take as a natural fact of life. Most of them have never read a single book or seen even one documentary on the subject, but they all know the conventional wisdom that JFKA buffs wear tinfoil hats, twiddle shortwave radio knobs, and think Mr. Spock was shooting from the grassy knoll.

So there will always be that contingent of folks who are uninformed LN's constantly attacking those people who think there might be more to the story than what we've been told. They will only grow more strident with time, I believe. Sunk cost fallacy and all that.

Regarding the people who believe the "Hickey did it" theory, I would wager 95% have never read a JFKA book or seen any other documentary than "JFK: The Smoking Gun", mainly because of its wide availability on free streaming platforms. The Hickey theory also provides them an answer to what happened, while more serious JFKA docs don't come up with a final conclusion that points to one person or a conclusive single account of all events. The Hickey theory is easily comprehensible. It can be digested in an hour or two, while dedicated researchers repeatedly spend decade after decade debating and discussing the fine details of every obscure aspect.