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

[Gene Kelly]

Vince

Interesting point about time not being a friend.  When I reflect back to how I first became interested, and then educated myself, it's quite the journey (and I'm still travelling).  First it was certain prominent books (not all of which were accurate or enlightening).  Next were conferences and talks given by certain experts and television specials (which in retrospect weren't reliable sources of valid information). More recently, it's been the computer and websites like the Education Forum, with a focus on whom I personally consider to be the most knowledgeable individuals. The difficult part is wading through a veritable mountain of information - and filtering well-disguised disinformation - to arrive at a coherent story, one that rings true.  It takes great patience and persistence. 

When I think of the current generation (and my own children), they generally don't have the patience to read books, or perform the necessary due diligence.  They want instant news and learn from Tweets (i.e., sound bites).  And with so much out there now - including valid differing points of view - it's an almost impossible task to discern the Truth. As far as the older generation, when I forward information about JFK Revisited to my friends and family, some have taken the time to watch it and were impressed (so that's reassuring).  However, given that the story is now more than 50 years old, I fear that many (young and old) just don't much care, nor does history interest them. 

Last, one thing I've learned in my JFK journey is to respect the many different perspectives and individual views ... that's its healthy to disagree (because that is how we learn). Nor do I like simplistic labels like LN's or CT's; we are all too sophisticated to be simply labelled as such.  The reality is that there's a lot more to the JFK story than simply one guy taking three shots from the 6th floor (all on his lonesome).  Where we all differ is in the details, and who was behind it (and why) ... nonetheless, I believe that the majority (70% or more) still don't buy that simple story. 

Gene

[Michael Griffith]

I think you are overestimating the level of public support for the lone-gunman theory. However, we should not be surprised that the numerous anti-conspiracy documentaries and articles over the last 10 years are having some effect. When major networks broadcast seemingly authoritative anti-conspiracy documentaries, when news channels broadcast anti-conspiracy segments, when established newspapers and journals publish anti-conspiracy articles, when YouTube is loaded with anti-conspiracy videos, and when some of the pro-conspiracy videos on YouTube are downright whacky, all these things have their effect. 

How many cable or streaming networks/channels have broadcast JFK Revisited? I certainly hope Oliver Stone is making it as easy and inexpensive as possible for networks/channels to broadcast JFK Revisited. How many pro-conspiracy documentaries are available on Amazon Prime Video or Netflix or HBO?

Finally, if the research community wants to get the truth to more people, they had better stop producing material that attacks/alienates a huge chunk of their potential audience. They had better stop assuming that to believe and care that JFK was killed by a conspiracy you must also accept the liberal view on a number of controversial issues that have nothing directly to do with the JFK case. 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

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.

This rings a bell. For a while now, Gil has been taunting an a.c.jfk poster who goes by the name of Chris/Christopher by calling him Chrissy/Christina. The justification being some misogynistic nonsense that doesn't bear repeating. Then, about a month ago, he began floating the idea that "Chrissy" was actually Bill Brown who posts here and a few other places. It's not clear how this new theory deals with the question of gender, but I sure look forward to see Gil's evidence either way.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

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.

"Spock" shot JFK! Funny. Every Watchmen fan knows it was The Comedian who shot JFK. Duh!

[Kirk Gallaway]

There are definitely trends and counter trends . Certainly there's a more hard core conspiracy element in the population today, and as I've said before, I think the misinformed people and their wacko theories take the JFKA conspiracy down with it.

 I'm not sure how much faith I put in fluctuating polls about how many people believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. I don't how many here have seen these man in the street interviews with everyday people asking questions about history, politics and geography, but the level of knowledge of the everyday person is just appalling to when I grew up, and these people can seem reasonably intelligent and even articulate!

I think with the everyday person in the general population, the general support is soft. Which can be expected in a now almost 60 year  historic event, and with the  general lack of knowledge or enthusiasm for history presently.  I think the general response to the question, "Was JFK killed by a conspiracy" to the average person who of course has never been motivated to study it at all, and whose main exposure is maybe some documentary on TV .has become  sort of a sociological weather vane now, or a sort of badge  by which he or she might of course acknowledge that JFK died as result of conspiracy to simply reaffirm that they are "no fool" and don't blindly believe what their government or authorities in general say, but will never really translate to any concrete action.

[Barry Keane]

The perpetrators got away with it. No one was successfully prosecuted for his murder. The coup was achieved. But history will be the judge, there is no escape. Those who care must make sure history wins. If we fail in this endeavour, we only have ourselves to blame! 

[Andrew Prutsok]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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. 

 

MARKOS at Kos was military intelligence in the 90s. After he came out hard against Dennis Kucinich when he was running for president, I became convinced his site was an intelligence op to try to keep the Democratic Party from becoming overly progressive. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Andrew Prutsok
Clarity

[Andrew Prutsok]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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. 

 

And be all that as it may, who and what kind of monsters are funding rightwing media?

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

This rings a bell. For a while now, Gil has been taunting an a.c.jfk poster who goes by the name of Chris/Christopher by calling him Chrissy/Christina. The justification being some misogynistic nonsense that doesn't bear repeating. Then, about a month ago, he began floating the idea that "Chrissy" was actually Bill Brown who posts here and a few other places. It's not clear how this new theory deals with the question of gender, but I sure look forward to see Gil's evidence either way.

I also wonder what compelled Gil to edit out the homophobic and transphobic statements from his post on June 22, only a portion of which is preserved in my quote reply in that thread.

[Charles Blackmon]

30 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I also wonder what compelled Gil to edit out the homophobic and transphobic statements from his post on June 22, only a portion of which is preserved in my quote reply in that thread.

What does that subject have to do with the subject of this thread? 

[Michael Griffith]

I had an experience today that relates to this subject. This afternoon, as chance would have it, one of my co-workers, a well-educated guy in his early 40s, asked me how my interview about the JFK case on the Out of the Blank podcast went last week (I had told him about the then-upcoming interview early last week). I said I thought the interview went really well because the interviewer did not veer off into political issues unrelated to the assassination. Curious, he asked what I meant.

I explained that many assassination researchers seem to think that if you believe that JFK was shot by multiple gunmen you must also believe various far-left political positions, and that I was glad those positions never came up in my interview. Then our conversation got really interesting.

He said, with considerable surprise in his voice, "Wait a minute, Mike. Are you saying you think there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy's death?" When I answered yes, he replied that this surprised him because he thought that only "left-wing whackos" believed JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

He then asked me why I believe there was a conspiracy. I proceeded to give him a five-minute summary of some of the evidence, focusing on the scientific evidence that at least five shots were fired (one from the knoll), the evidence that Ruby premeditatedly shot Oswald to silence him, the evidence that Oswald was not in the alleged sniper's nest during the shooting, and the medical evidence of a shot from the front. He said, "wow, I've never heard any of this stuff. This is interesting." I then urged him to watch JFK Revisited on Amazon.

[Gene Kelly]

NBC News ran a story in 2017 that stated: 

Most Americans doubt they know the real story of what happened on November 22, 1963. More than 60 percent believe gunman Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone – and they’ve been skeptical from the beginning.

Gallup has tracked the Kennedy conspiracy question since the day of the shooting.  A poll taken immediately after the murder found that 52 percent of Americans believed “others were involved in a conspiracy” while 29 percent thought Oswald acted alone. But by December of 1976, the conspiracy number jumped to 81 percent in the Gallup data. There are likely a few reasons for that spike. The film of the assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder became public in 1975 and that helped lead to the 1976 creation of the House Select Committee on Assassination, which investigated the deaths of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  The conspiracy figure stayed relatively high in the Gallup data, not dropping below 74% for decades. The latest numbers from Gallup, from a 2013 survey taken to mark the 50th anniversary of the event, showed 61% of Americans believed the assassination was a conspiracy, while 30% believed Oswald acted alone.

And a new survey from FiveThirtyEight released this week finds that’s right about where the public is today: 61% believe others were involved in JFK’s assassination, while 33% believe one man acted alone. But the most interesting finding in the recent poll is the breadth of the nation’s JFK conspiracy beliefs. More than 50 percent of most every demographic group believes “others were involved” in the assassination: Men and women, whites, blacks and Hispanics, registered voters and non-registered, all age groups.  The one demographic group that believes Oswald acted alone, according to the poll, is college educated white people – and the numbers are very close with 48 percent saying one man killed JFK and 46 percent saying others were involved.

[Tom Gram]

I see your point Vince, but I'm not sure I agree with all the pessimism. The goal of historical research should be pursuit of the truth, and the collective understanding of the JFKA and the surrounding history is still inching forward every single day. 

It's unfortunate and sad that attracting new interest in the case has turned into a propaganda war of lone assassin vs. conspiracy. If the media and advocates for Oswald's sole guilt could bring themselves to acknowledge just a sliver of ambiguity in the evidence, and actually encourage people to study the case in depth and come to their own conclusions instead of demonizing those with even a passing interest in the assassination as nutty "conspiracy theorists", we might be able to make some real progress. 

Right now we are right on the cusp of the biggest leap forward since the ARRB. Everyone gets worked up about still-withheld files, but the vast majority of documents that are already released have been locked up at NARA since the 90s and have never been seen or analyzed by basically anyone - other than maybe a handful of dedicated paper junkies. Once NARA digitizes the entire ARC, I guarantee that there will be new major breakthroughs and patterns noticed that we never knew even existed. Online access to the FBI Field Office files alone will be a complete game-changer for research, and for the sake of history we should be encouraging as many people to parse and study those files as humanly possible. 

The problem is that most people don't realize just how inconclusive and messy the evidence in this case really is. The debate has raged on for 60 years for a reason, but it takes a massive time and attention commitment to get to the level of understanding required to make connections and spot problems in the official story. I'm a "new generation" researcher myself, and what ultimately piqued my interest enough to do primary-source research is that the critics, despite all their flaws, frequently come across as more honest, thorough, objective, and interested in an accurate portrayal of history that those defending the conclusions of the Warren Commission. As long as propaganda, deception, and outright denial of genuine ambiguity in the evidence is required to promote the idea that Oswald acted alone to the average citizen, curious people will continue to see right through it and take action to search for the truth.

The best we can do as a "community" is to stick to the evidentiary record; acknowledge when we are speculating; acknowledge that we could be wrong when interpreting inconclusive material; and engage with and genuinely consider the arguments of the other side. That goes for folks on both sides of the fence. I have nothing against anyone's opinions about the JFKA as long as their belief is genuine, they are willing to engage in cordial, collaborative discussion about the evidence and articulate their position, and are willing acknowledge when they might be incorrect. My personal experience with lone assassin theorists on this forum has been generally positive, but I do wish that the LN - CT dialogue in general was a lot more encouraging and collaborative than a fiendish search for flaws in opposing arguments and condescending quips at others' intelligence. 

Basically my point is that as long as we all take the high road and stay committed to finding to truth, even if it contradicts our own deeply ingrained beliefs, interest in and sustained skepticism about the JFKA is here to stay.  

Edited August 22, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Vince Palamara]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

Oh, I agree--OUTSTANDING documentary; THE best. Jim, the documentary is the one reason I am not going totally "debbie downer" haha. Seriously, though- the pervasiveness of the trolls is alarming.

[Vince Palamara]

12 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Vince

Interesting point about time not being a friend.  When I reflect back to how I first became interested, and then educated myself, it's quite the journey (and I'm still travelling).  First it was certain prominent books (not all of which were accurate or enlightening).  Next were conferences and talks given by certain experts and television specials (which in retrospect weren't reliable sources of valid information). More recently, it's been the computer and websites like the Education Forum, with a focus on whom I personally consider to be the most knowledgeable individuals. The difficult part is wading through a veritable mountain of information - and filtering well-disguised disinformation - to arrive at a coherent story, one that rings true.  It takes great patience and persistence. 

When I think of the current generation (and my own children), they generally don't have the patience to read books, or perform the necessary due diligence.  They want instant news and learn from Tweets (i.e., sound bites).  And with so much out there now - including valid differing points of view - it's an almost impossible task to discern the Truth. As far as the older generation, when I forward information about JFK Revisited to my friends and family, some have taken the time to watch it and were impressed (so that's reassuring).  However, given that the story is now more than 50 years old, I fear that many (young and old) just don't much care, nor does history interest them. 

Last, one thing I've learned in my JFK journey is to respect the many different perspectives and individual views ... that's its healthy to disagree (because that is how we learn). Nor do I like simplistic labels like LN's or CT's; we are all too sophisticated to be simply labelled as such.  The reality is that there's a lot more to the JFK story than simply one guy taking three shots from the 6th floor (all on his lonesome).  Where we all differ is in the details, and who was behind it (and why) ... nonetheless, I believe that the majority (70% or more) still don't buy that simple story. 

Gene

excellent comment!