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

[Vince Palamara]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

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.  

Excellent points, Tom!

[Chuck Schwartz]

Very good essay, Tom. I appreciate it.

[Bill Brown]

16 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

I notice this hydra headed trolls on Amazon A LOT. They love to go after pro-conspiracy books, especially when just released, leaving a one-star awful "review" to try to hinder sales.

Pot meet kettle.

[James R Gordon]

Bill,

Your name has been brought to my attention a number of times before.

Best not to insult researchers of the quality of Vince.

James

[James DiEugenio]

The one instance I know where they did what they call focus groups was for the Larry Sabato book, The Kennedy Half Century. That  was for a reputable polling company, Hart Associates.

The book is not really worth reading, except for those results. In that book, 75% rejected the Warren Report.

But the most  remarkable focus group result was that 90 per cent of those asked said that something went wrong with America after Kennedy was assassinated.  America was changed at that point. Many respondents used the word "unthinkable" in describing what happened in Dallas.  

"Those alive at the time can attest to the deep depression that set in across the country, as the optimism that had mainly prevailed since the end of World War II seemed to evaporate.  In a real sense, the Kennedy assassination presaged and psychologically prepared America for numerous devastating events to follow during the decade." (p. 416)

In my opinion our side has never even begun to take advantage of that finding.  Which I think has real potential in it. And that  is why we tried to use it in our film, voiced by Donald Sutherland.

 

 

 

[Bill Fite]

Is part of the belief in a lone assassin the mixing of 2 different questions?

(1) Was there a conspiracy?

if Yes in (1) - (2) Who was involved?

if No  in (1) - (2) Was LHO the assassin?

Is the other significant piece of the puzzle the mixing of 'could have happened' with probabilities?

Because something could have happened doesn't mean that it did.

Specifically, for (1) to be no then a series of events would have to happen including but not limited to (depending on assumptions:

* 3 or more shots in < 8.5 seconds

* 2 or more of the 3 shots hit the target

* the magic bullet would have to emerge in its shape after inflicting all the wounds

* etc...

People mistake the result that something is possible with the probability of multiple independent events happening.  They don't bother to get the probability estimates and then multiply them together.   p(A and B ) = P(A) * P(B ) if A and B are independent -- like the experiments on replicating the Z film timing (first 2 above) and number of hits as A  and the not significantly damaged  state of the magic bullet as B.

The probabilities of successful (i.e. a lone assassin shooting from the 6th floor) outcomes could all be estimated from the results of experiments without discussing / arguing over the reliability of eye/ear witness testimony.

 

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

Where are all the up-and-coming WC critics that we'd be expecting to see entering the research community? I know there are some, but I'd hope there'd be more. I'll be around for another 20 years or so, but as I look around, it seems to me that most other prominent conspiracy theorists are at least in their late 60s, and many are in their 70s or 80s. Who will be the leading opponents of the lone-gunman myth in 10 years or 15 years? Will they be badly outnumbered by WC apologists?

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

You are spot on @Vince Palamara , but the education of America must go on.

[James DiEugenio]

Robbie Robertson is making another film, which I was interviewed for.

That will be out in December.  He has a very large audience on Spotify.

[James Wilkinson]

Stone's movie was such a perfect storm of elements, coming at a time when major studio films made for adults had much more cultural impact. With the center of gravity in that respect having since shifted to TV and streaming series, it would take a viral sensation of a show with purported Squid Game/Tiger-King-level viewership, coupled with some sort of fresh conceit that engages younger generations in sufficient numbers.

The US-based corporate barriers to such a high-concept, high-budget show getting financing, let alone distribution, are all the more undeniable given the resistance to distributing Stone's and DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed cut after its thunderous reception at Cannes. If Showtime had bought Making a Murderer instead of Netflix, but cut its overall runtime in half, the hobbled result would probably not have made nearly the kind of splash that its first season actually did.

Trying to obtain any sort of copy of star-studded films like 2003's The Commission is as much of a Grail quest as trying to watch one of The Cremaster Cycles at home. The same sort of forces that drove Stone to U.K.-based producers to get projects like Platoon off the ground seem determined to not allow another perfect storm to coalesce in what is arguably the dominant cultural medium of the day.

For determined, dramatic storytellers, these barriers can only be avoided -- assuming that's even possible -- if they're first recognized.  Nothing's impossible, provided one has a fresh take and super-compelling scripts, as well as a willingness to do a strategic end-run around US-based production companies. That's my hope, at least.

That's the only scenario by which I can imagine another groundswell that would add a second wind to our tattered sails. At least until someone manages to make a 60-reasons-for-60-years trending series on Tik Tok or something.

Edited August 26, 2022 by James Wilkinson

[Vince Palamara]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Robbie Robertson is making another film, which I was interviewed for.

That will be out in December.  He has a very large audience on Spotify.

Awesome! I am being interviewed today.

[Vince Palamara]

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

You are spot on @Vince Palamara , but the education of America must go on.

Thanks! I agree---I won't give up.

[Vince Palamara]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:05 PM, Michael Griffith said:

Where are all the up-and-coming WC critics that we'd be expecting to see entering the research community? I know there are some, but I'd hope there'd be more. I'll be around for another 20 years or so, but as I look around, it seems to me that most other prominent conspiracy theorists are at least in their late 60s, and many are in their 70s or 80s. Who will be the leading opponents of the lone-gunman myth in 10 years or 15 years? Will they be badly outnumbered by WC apologists?

So true. I can think of three (early) twenty-somethings; that's about it. I am a "young one" at 56.

[Joseph McBride]

What is a "debbie downer"?

[Charles Blackmon]

7 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

What is a "debbie downer"?

Someone who spreads negativity.

Enjoying your book BTW