Rabbit Holes In Your Research JFKA

[Paul Cummings]

I liked to hear stories about when researching this case the "Rabbit Holes" you've encountered. I'm not asking for the obstacles of not getting documents but maybe the experiences. Good or bad. Thanks and God Bless

 

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

I liked to hear stories about when researching this case the "Rabbit Holes" you've encountered. I'm not asking for the obstacles of not getting documents but maybe the experiences. Good or bad. Thanks and God Bless

 

 

It's pretty much all a rabbit hole. For now. If you research the heck out of something and come to a conclusion that makes sense to you, you're bound to get a ton of negative feedback from one side or another, and this can lead you to re-investigate and re-analyze the same facts over and over. It can become an obsession. 

This can change over time, however. 

In the 20 years and counting I've been researching the case, and have been part of the community, I've seen subtle changes here and there that suggest a consensus may someday emerge.

Here are a few examples.

1. When I first started looking into this, one of the things that sucked me in was the movement of the EOP entrance up to the cowlick entrance. At that time most everyone, LN and CT alike, believed the autopsy doctors were military buffoons and that civilian doctors such as Russell Fisher were obviously correct on this issue. Now it's swayed the other way, where a number of LNs have come to agree that the wound was at the level of the EOP, where the autopsy doctors said it was. 

2. When I first started looking into this, most everyone, LN and CT alike, accepted that the first shot missed. Now, a large number if not a majority realize that this was a con job designed to give Oswald more time to fire the shots. 

3. Similarly, a large number of people now believe JFK was hit before going behind the sign in the Z-film. This was sacrilege when I first made this argument. CT's believed he was hit while behind the sign, and LNs believed he was hit at the same time as Connally, as they came out from behind the sign. 

4. On the political front, there was great deal of skepticism among mainstream thinkers of the claim made in JFK--that U.S. policy towards Vietnam changed after JFK's murder. But, through the efforts of John Newman and Jim D and others, many if not most mainstream thinkers now acknowledge there was such a change. 

So, yes, much of the evidence is a Rorschach test, but certain aspects have become clearer with time. 

 

[Gerry Down]

Thankfully one by one I'm closing up the rabbit holes. This takes years of research though which is not for everyone.

Recently I closed up the Raleigh call rabbit hole. Turns out it was just some drunk guy. 

[Paul Cummings]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's pretty much all a rabbit hole. For now. If you research the heck out of something and come to a conclusion that makes sense to you, you're bound to get a ton of negative feedback from one side or another, and this can lead you to re-investigate and re-analyze the same facts over and over. It can become an obsession. 

This can change over time, however. 

In the 20 years and counting I've been researching the case, and have been part of the community, I've seen subtle changes here and there that suggest a consensus may someday emerge.

Here are a few examples.

1. When I first started looking into this, one of the things that sucked me in was the movement of the EOP entrance up to the cowlick entrance. At that time most everyone, LN and CT alike, believed the autopsy doctors were military buffoons and that civilian doctors such as Russell Fisher were obviously correct on this issue. Now it's swayed the other way, where a number of LNs have come to agree that the wound was at the level of the EOP, where the autopsy doctors said it was. 

2. When I first started looking into this, most everyone, LN and CT alike, accepted that the first shot missed. Now, a large number if not a majority realize that this was a con job designed to give Oswald more time to fire the shots. 

3. Similarly, a large number of people now believe JFK was hit before going behind the sign in the Z-film. This was sacrilege when I first made this argument. CT's believed he was hit while behind the sign, and LNs believed he was hit at the same time as Connally, as they came out from behind the sign. 

4. On the political front, there was great deal of skepticism among mainstream thinkers of the claim made in JFK--that U.S. policy towards Vietnam changed after JFK's murder. But, through the efforts of John Newman and Jim D and others, many if not most mainstream thinkers now acknowledge there was such a change. 

So, yes, much of the evidence is a Rorschach test, but certain aspects have become clearer with time. 

 

Thanks Pat. 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's pretty much all a rabbit hole. For now. If you research the heck out of something and come to a conclusion that makes sense to you, you're bound to get a ton of negative feedback from one side or another, and this can lead you to re-investigate and re-analyze the same facts over and over. It can become an obsession. 

This can change over time, however. 

In the 20 years and counting I've been researching the case, and have been part of the community, I've seen subtle changes here and there that suggest a consensus may someday emerge.

Here are a few examples.

1. When I first started looking into this, one of the things that sucked me in was the movement of the EOP entrance up to the cowlick entrance. At that time most everyone, LN and CT alike, believed the autopsy doctors were military buffoons and that civilian doctors such as Russell Fisher were obviously correct on this issue. Now it's swayed the other way, where a number of LNs have come to agree that the wound was at the level of the EOP, where the autopsy doctors said it was. 

2. When I first started looking into this, most everyone, LN and CT alike, accepted that the first shot missed. Now, a large number if not a majority realize that this was a con job designed to give Oswald more time to fire the shots. 

3. Similarly, a large number of people now believe JFK was hit before going behind the sign in the Z-film. This was sacrilege when I first made this argument. CT's believed he was hit while behind the sign, and LNs believed he was hit at the same time as Connally, as they came out from behind the sign. 

4. On the political front, there was great deal of skepticism among mainstream thinkers of the claim made in JFK--that U.S. policy towards Vietnam changed after JFK's murder. But, through the efforts of John Newman and Jim D and others, many if not most mainstream thinkers now acknowledge there was such a change. 

So, yes, much of the evidence is a Rorschach test, but certain aspects have become clearer with time. 

 

PS--

The news landscape sure has changed. 

We recently had a mainstream news broadcaster (Tucker Carlson) suggest on national TV the CIA had a hand in the JFKA. We had a former CIA officer, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, say something is up inside the CIA regarding the JFKA. 

It used to be only alt-left print media that would even touch the JFKA from a skeptical angle (and then only through a left-wing lens).

Now it is alt-R media more inclined to be skeptical regarding the JFKA (and much left-wing media merged into state-speak, and to ridiculing JFKA'ers).

On the JFKA itself, I think the idea of a lone gunman single-shot bolt-action rifle scenario is hardly accepted anymore.